County Court Business Center Help (UKPC/ SCS Law)

badbrains89

Hi all,

I have read the newbies FAQ and understand that at this point it is best to create a new thread to ask for advice?

I have 2 identical contraventions against me for not parking correctly within a marked bay at the site while visiting a friend. The site in questions is a residential area with a system of numbered bays for residents and and bays marked 'v' for visitors. Unfortunately there are only a very tiny amount of 'v' spaces which are always taken so on these occasions I was forced to park elsewhere.

I realise that I did not follow the parking guidelines, however the whole 'V' system was very unclear and I would not have even realised had my friend not pre-warned me. I also feel that the whole system is clearly rigged to catch out visitors as the number of marked resident bays is totally excessive.

I have replied to the courts saying I intend to defend in full but would appreciate any possible advice for writing my defence.

Thanks in advance,

peter_the_piper

Explain please what paperwork you have received from them and a timeline of their receipt would help people.

The_Slithy_Tove

Another malicious claim for private residential parking from UKPC. These crooks need to be stamped on.

The_Deep

... the number of marked resident bays is totally excessive.


I do not understand, please explain.

beamerguy

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Another malicious claim for private residential parking from UKPC. These crooks need to be stamped on.

Crooks indeed they are. UKPC are using the court system as their very own private bank to fund their scam

I still maintain that the county court system needs to wake up regarding this scam. County courts were never set up to support scammers and thieves

Redx

best advice is look at all the other 2016 threads regarding UKPC (and CEL) court claims and see what advice they were given and look at their holding defences too

plus post #1 of the NEWBIES sticky thread has a court section you can read, plus parking pranksters court booklet too

use the forum search box , put CEL COURT into the search box and look at all the threads that come up

its using the forum tools that will help you now, plus reading all the current ongoing court cases as well (dont take heed of 2015 or prior court cases, only recent ones from 2016)

you will find up to 2 dozen which are mainly UKPC and CEL cases, so plenty to look at (we wont do it for you but you will be able to crib from existing cases and the advice given)

Coupon-mad

Yep, loads to learn from on other threads by Clark13, moe123, Anthony94 and Sam84. Do a forum search of 'UKPC Court' and you will find those threads which include defences written since February, which will help you.

Seeing what others have already achieved who are ahead of you, will help you to see this has legs; you can defend this but need to be clued up. You need to know about the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case and how this will be used by UKPC - but learn how to slap it down as not relevant/what other defence points will be more relevant.

Then tweak the defences you find, create one to suit your case and show us the draft.

badbrains89

Hi guys,

Thank you very much for all your help. I have done some research (I actually have a friend who posted recently on this forum with almost the exact same circustances which has been very helpful!)

I have until the 14th April but have not yet posted a part 18 request as I somehow missed that point when reading all the other threads. Do I still have time to send one and receive a reply or should I construct a defence without one?

I intend to submit my actual defence via the online portal so I do not have to worry about post times for my final deadline.

Thank you again.

badbrains89

This would be my defence minus the part 18 part. I can reference the other thread if it helps?

Defence



1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. UK Parking Control Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) UK Parking Control Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.
(ii) absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.
(iii) Based on information supplied by SCS Law, UK Parking Control claim they have a contract with a management company, this is not the land owner nor a verified company according to Companies House. The court is invited to consider whether UKPC is even aware of who their contract is with.

3. In the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis, it was held that there was no loss to the parking operator, and therefore the doctrine of penalties was engaged. However the charges were deemed lawful if they served a legitimate interest, and were not grossly disproportionate, as detailed by Lord Neuberger at [97]. In the case of residential parking, the legitimate interest clearly lies in ensuring that parking spaces are occupied by genuine residents and their visitors, and not abused by random motorists with no connection to, or business within, the property. The issuing of parking charges to residents and visitors, as in this case, serves no legitimate interest, and therefore the Claimant cannot rely on the Beavis judgment, and it is submitted that the charge will fall foul of the penalty rule.


4. The signage on the site in question is unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question or at the entrance to the development, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days. It is clear from UKPC’s own photos that signage was not sufficient or clear. This is in contrast to the Parkingeye Limited v Beavis case where the charges where shown in the largest font on the signage, clarity was vital for the judge’s decision on ruling in Parkingeye Ltd’s favour.

5. The signage on the site in question is not lit and the parking charges were both issued late at night, so no contract could be or has been formed with driver(s). The signage was not legible as shown inUKPC’s own photos.
8. The lack of markings in the area do not communicate a 'no parking zone'. Therefore no contract has been made with the driver.

6. The Defendant contends there is nothing legible adjacent to the vehicle to communicate this was private land and terms/restrictions were unlikely to have been seen. The authority for this is Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 Apr 2000. Furthermore BPA Code of Practice (June 2013) states: "Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract… Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions”. However in this case there are no entrance signs whatsoever at the entrance to the parking area or entrance to the development, making it impossible for a contract between UKPC and the driver to have been formed. UKPC has a track record of not adhering to BPA Code of Practice, recently being investigated forfalsifying photo evidence. This is not a parking company which complies with the strict rules of their Trade Body, which were held as a vital regulatory feature in ParkingEye v Beavis.

7. It is not believed that the signage on site at the time included any stated additional costs or surcharges nor even that the £100 was legible on each occasion. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

8. The “proof” design copy of the parking sign UKPC purported to have been on site (actual sign is illegible, seeUKPC own photo evidence) is interpreted thusly: To use a marked bay you must display a permit, you must not park on the roadway, double yellows or hatched areas. UKPC have issued a charge based on that the vehicle was not parked within the markings of a bay. However the vehicle was not parked incorrectly within the lines of a bay and not parked on double yellows, on the roadway or a hatched area. All the above were abided by therefore is no breach of contract in this instance.

9. In the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis, it was held that there was no loss to the parking operator, and therefore the doctrine of penalties was engaged. However the charges were deemed lawful if they served a legitimate interest, and were not grossly disproportionate, as detailed by Lord Neuberger at [97]. In the case of residential parking, the legitimate interest clearly lies in ensuring that parking spaces are occupied by genuine residents and their visitors, and not abused by random motorists with no connection to, or business within, the property. The issuing of parking charges to residents and visitors, as in this case, serves no legitimate interest, and therefore the Claimant cannot rely on the Beavis judgment, and it is submitted that the charge will fall foul of the penalty rule.


10. If the driver were considered to be a trespasser, if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum

11. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The £60 debt recovery charge is against the driver, as UKPC are pursuing this against the registered keeper it is therefore not relevant.

12. The Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to a pre-agreed parking operator funded cost of £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

13. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Coupon-mad

Here you have #5 followed by #8 (which is also about lines & signs, so looks like it should just be part of 5 without the '8')?

5. The signage on the site in question is not lit and the parking charges were both issued late at night, so no contract could be or has been formed with driver(s). The signage was not legible as shown in UKPC’s own photos.

8. The lack of markings in the area do not communicate a 'no parking zone'. Therefore no contract has been made with the driver.

And point #9 repeats your point #3. So remove #9 and re-number the rest, or you could replace #9 with this (thanks to IamEmanresu):


UKPC have not demonstrated the legitimate interest they claim they are protecting. Residents have a right to peaceful enjoyment of their lease/tenancy which includes the communal parking area and extends to any authorised, invited visitors of Residents. I wish to put the Claimant to strict proof of the commercial justification they claim to have which overrules the rights of the residents (and their guests) to that enjoyment. I require the claimant to produce a unredacted contract to show the same.


Are you not relying upon the POFA, as keeper? Putting UKPC to strict proof of Schedule 4 complaince in their documents?

Are you certain you would want the current fairly awful POPLA to hear the case if the Judge orders it? Several are being lost now...

Finally you should add a statement of truth, top or bottom:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part15/pd_part15

and your question about whether to bother with a Part 18 request is answered already here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5440613

Can only be done now, before you submit the defence (e.g. you could send a part 18 tomorrow and look to have the defence submitted online via MCOL in 10 days' time, if that's within your 28 days from service of the court papers). But only if needed, to try to flush out some signage or contract or PCN/NTK evidence that you feel they might be withholding, or something like that. You do not *have to* send a Part 18 request.

HTH

badbrains89

Thank you Coupon-Mad and others, my defence has now been submitted.

I will update on the outcome so that this can hopefully help others in the future.