Claim and POPLA advice

barn33

I have until the end of the day to submit my defence but here is what I have come up with so far please, (please), tell me what you think


1 The Claimant claims a contract was in place between myself as the driver of my vehicle and UKCPS Ltd courtesy of their signs. I fully deny this due to there being no signs on the site set out by UKCPS at the time my vehicle was parked on the site, nor at the time of writing this as a recent visit to the site confirms this.

2. I state that even if somehow the Court were able to find a contract was in place, that it was evidently not individually negotiated and caused a signigicant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract to my detriment. Any service which was allegedly provided to me amounts to parking for around 20 minutes in a nearly deserted area at the rear of some shops behind the back gate of a restaurant. My car didn't cause any loss to anyone.

3. The claimant has yet to respond to a request sent by the defendant, delivered XX/XX/2016
a) A request to provide a full,dated and unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner which demonstrates the claimants authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and litigate in their own name

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. UKPCS cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UKPCS.

5.The amount in question set by the Claimant is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question; (b) the amount claimed is a charge set by the claimant themslves and evidently is far disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable; © the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years

6. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage creating a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver of the vehicle, saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in th

7. This case differs from ParkingEye v Beavis, in which the Judges admit was 'entirely different' from the majority of ordinary economic contract disputes and UKCPCS have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to chase anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss, this can be shown with the majority of their cases in which many "template letters" are sent out, none of which UKCPS hold a genuine interest.

8. If the driver on any occasion was considered to be trespassing if not allowed to park there, only the landowner can pursue such 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.

9. As it is clearly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is completely denied. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.


I haven't sent a Part 18 request yet but will be doing so today, so if get that sent out today could I include that too in the defence? The main thing I need is quotes/ cases where UKCPS
were found guilty/done something they shouldn't, Coupon if you could tell me some I'd be very grateful. This can all be done online right?, no need to send anything off by post I hope.

System

There is a warning to all that appeal to the IAS in the IAS's own code. It says

"The process is not a replication of the civil courts’ process and the normal rules of evidence do not apply"

So why anyone want to appeal to the IAS, I cannot understand

Anyway have a look at the IAS Code of Practice which is here. Its supposed to be "effectively binding!

http://www.theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practicev3.pdf

Quote from #1 about the contract and #2 about the signs (page 10). Layout of signs that should have been there are on page #22. Include copies of both pages in your defence.

So you might want to beef up

1 The Claimant claims a contract was in place between myself as the driver of my vehicle and UKCPS Ltd courtesy of their signs. I fully deny this due to there being no signs on the site set out by UKCPS at the time my vehicle was parked on the site, nor at the time of writing this as a recent visit to the site confirms this. The IPC Code of Practice sets out clear instructions with regards to the layout and clarity of the signs (Page 10, 22 attached). The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof there were sufficient clear signs meeting the code standards at the site

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. UKPCS cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UKPCS.

The IAS Code of Practice requires a contract containing the requiste rights and authorities to be in place between the occupier and the claimant if the claimant intends to take action in their own name (Page 10 attached). The claimant is put to strict proof to provide an unredacted copy of this authority and to show the terms within on which they intend to rely.

barn33

Thanks!, I added that in my own words now and understand those points,do you know any points where I can condemn UKCPS i.e previous instances where they have been known to do bad stuff?

barn33

can anyone give me feedback on my defence thus far pleaaase?

Coupon-mad

barn33 wrote: »

Thank you for the helpful advice Guys Dad, can anyone answer my question on if I try to negotiate with the parking company and they decline can this be used against me in court?

I agree with Guy's Dad. Pointless. Also not the time to do this, IMHO, not if you have not got a recent letter with the PCN ref(s) on it regarding the non-court ones. Let sleeping dogs lie and see how you get on with the court one.

Do not telephone UKCPS.

Do not telephone UKCPS.

Do not telephone UKCPS.

IF you want to make an offer re the non-court ones, then reply to the next letter they send about a particular PCN. That letter would also give you the ref you need. Treat them separately, do not write a letter which shouts 'look, I have loads of PCNs and you are already taking me to court on one of them and I want to make on offer on the others'. This is not the time to do that because that (to me) marks you as a victim, scared into wanting to pay, who will be a pushover at a hearing or at mediation, if pressed to settle.

You need to be defending the court claim robustly and not raising your profile on the others except if they write about one, THEN reply, but not if you are only getting debt collector letters.

do you know any points where I can condemn UKCPS i.e previous instances where they have been known to do bad stuff?

That would not be something to include in your defence, which revolves basically around: whether a legitimate and enforceable contract was formed, requiring you to pay £100 for parking.

That's it.

That's why IamEmanresu has suggested you beef up your points about unreadable signs and lack of authority as they are not the landowner.

1 The Claimant claims a contract was in place between myself as the driver of my vehicle and UKCPS Ltd courtesy of their signs. I fully deny this due to there being no signs on the site set out by UKCPS at the time my vehicle was parked on the site, nor at the time of writing this as a recent visit to the site confirms this.

Are you sure? NONE? No signs, nada?

This is almost unheard of, I want to know more about this or I suggest you are mistaken - there MUST be signs up at the time. Or do you mean they have written the wrong location on the paperwork (UKCPS are a bit dodgy with locations/postcodes...).

I have until the end of the day to submit my defence

Were the court papers dated 14th March then?

Too late to bother with a Part 18 request if you are due to defend it now, you ran out of time so will have to see what evidence UKCPS produce later on/prior to the hearing.

Any service which was allegedly provided to me amounts to parking for around 20 minutes in a nearly deserted area at the rear of some shops behind the back gate of a restaurant

Was it dark, is that why no signs were legible? Your defence doesn't say.

None of this applies in th

This final sentence above, in #6 has been chopped short.

7. This case differs from ParkingEye v Beavis, in which the Judges admit was 'entirely different' from the majority of ordinary economic contract disputes and UKCPCS have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to chase anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss, this can be shown with the majority of their cases in which many "template letters" are sent out, none of which UKCPS hold a genuine interest.

The sentence in bold makes no sense to me? Template letters are nothing to do with whether they have a 'legitimate interest'.

Redx

also go to post #1 , edit - advanced edit and change the word POPLA etc to UKCPS Court Claim

that way people who might help you can see what its about easily, especially as this has nothing to do with popla, as its UKCPS and a court claim (MCOL)

barn33

Is there anything else I should add to my defence before I submit it?
The reason I suggested condemning points was because I have seen others use them e.g. moe123 used the point:

"It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice and is put to strict proof of full compliance. This Claimant has been exposed in the national press - and was recently investigated by the BPA - for falsifying photo evidence, which was admitted by the Claimant."

this was for a different company I know, but I see in lots of defences where people raise points like this, which is why I want to include one, and yes my first point is true there weren't any then, weren't any now, I have proof but there were signs from the Landowner, none from the IPC.

Redx

the BPA isnt involved here, nor is POPLA

in your case its the old name of the IPC and any appeal process is their IAS

so any CoP is the IPC CoP , not the BPA CoP

and you wont see any signs for the IPC, its UKCPS signs coupon-mad is talking about , ie:- signs from the PPC that issued the court claim

Coupon-mad

Yes but that was unusual (and was re UKPC and was relevant, about falsifying evidence on PCNs). There is nothing comparable as 'dirt' to throw at UKCPS and mud-slinging will not be considered by a Judge and may work against you. UKCPS may look reasonable by comparison if you are seen to be using a scattergun defence.

I cannot believe there were no signs put up by UKCPS AT ALL?!

I cannot believe there were no UKCPS signs there AT ALL unless they have the location wrong.

You haven't confirmed if it was dark/unlit and whether the court papers were dated 14.3.16 (the date whereby you'd have to be defending this online today at the latest).

barn33

Here's an interest point which I have no idea whether to include or even what I would say, but someone I know got a ticket for the exact same reason in the exact same place as me, appealed/complained and the ticket was abolished by UKCPS "as a gesture of goodwill", but the problem is there is no proof of letter or anything about the ticket, (they threw letter away), is it possible that person could request they resend the letter before court or something or I could include the point anyway?