Claim and POPLA advice

Coupon-mad

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?

No. Another PCN is not relevant to THIS PCN.

I still do not understand the complete lack of signage from UKCPS. What sort of location is this, if you are saying there was and still is nothing by way of UKCPS signs? If that's the case then how come you have umpteen PCNs from the same place? There MUST have been a UKCPS sign or two somewhere because ticketing without signage = no contract and you can argue that much more strongly in your defence if you are certain.

I would be concerned that UKCPS will produce photos of signs in their defence...that's why I am pressing this point with you now. They will!

And finally, if there were NO SIGNS then why would you even be contemplating negotiating and offering them money?!

barn33

Why is another PCN not relevant to this PCN if it's in the same place for the same reason, surely they are relevant?

Here is my final draft I am going to submit now if suitable what do you think?
Complete noob question: on points 1 on 4 do I say pages attached and do I have to go and find these pages and attach them to my defence? if so do I do that now?, is all evidence/documents attached now or later?

another complete noob question: can all of this be done online? I don't have to send anything by post right, just feel like I'm forgetting something as I'm so used to post.

I was only contemplating negotiating at the time I was completely clueless as to how parking tickets work, but having read what these companies do I understand now that your point "DO NOT NEGOTIATE" is extremely valid.

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 on the site meeting the code standards at the site.

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 at midday. 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. 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.

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 this specific case.

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.

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.

catfunt

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No. Another PCN is not relevant to THIS PCN.

I still do not understand the complete lack of signage from UKCPS. What sort of location is this, if you are saying there was and still is nothing by way of UKCPS signs? If that's the case then how come you have umpteen PCNs from the same place? There MUST have been a UKCPS sign or two somewhere because ticketing without signage = no contract and you can argue that much more strongly in your defence if you are certain.

I would be concerned that UKCPS will produce photos of signs in their defence...that's why I am pressing this point with you now. They will!

And finally, if there were NO SIGNS then why would you even be contemplating negotiating and offering them money?!

If the OP is not going to take advice on offer and at least answer CM's questions above about the signs, and not waste time on peripheral issues such as someone else's PCN, then he/she is, IMHO, heading for likely defeat on this one....

Do you have photos of the site in question?

barn33

Yes i do Catfunt, to answer the q's it is a behind the back of some shops it is not a car park or anything just some land, yes I am saying there were no signs from the IPC, I don't know why I have umpteen tickets, I already answered the last question.

Catfunt I have clearly taken advice as I have used it in my defence and thanked people for it, so please don't bring any unwanted negativity.

CM thank you for your help once again , if you could answer my concerns I'd be really grateful as hopefully it means I can send off my defence now.

Coupon-mad

Why is another PCN not relevant to this PCN if it's in the same place for the same reason, surely they are relevant?

Because you can rarely use someone else's appealed PCN result when defending another one. Each case turns on its own facts and the appealed/cancelled one went nowhere (wasn't binding on any other PCN). The only useful thing would have been if you'd had another PCN where you had got it in writing from UKCPS 'we had no signs up/we had no landowner contract here so we've cancelled'. You could use that - but you haven't got anything useful because PPCs never cancel admitting such groundbreaking faults.

They just cancelled one as a 'goodwill gesture' (not that PPCs know the meaning of the word. That does not help any other appeal or defence at all. In fact it works against you! Think about how - if you or someone you know had a previous one here cancelled as a 'goodwill gesture' - you can possibly argue that you were unaware that UKCPS patrol the car park, that parking terms apply and that a £100 charge could result?

yes I am saying there were no signs from the IPC,

Hmmm...if you are trying to split hairs because there were signs mentioning the 'BPA' (instead of IPC) that is not necessarily going to impress a judge. You keep saying there 'were no signs from the IPC'.

You've already been told there are no signs expected 'from the IPC'.

Were there any signs of ANY description with UKCPS on them, and parking terms?

We are telling you that we think you are mistaken; there WILL have been signs there on walls at the time (maybe not now, but that doesn't assist you). They may not have been prominent but don't say there were none unless 100% certain and able to evidence that with dated photos.

Complete noob question: on points 1 on 4 do I say pages attached and do I have to go and find these pages and attach them to my defence? if so do I do that now?, is all evidence/documents attached now or later?

No pages need to be attached yet, that comes in your full defence submitted to all parties before the hearing in the Summer. Expect to have to attend court and when you get your Directions Questionnaire, tick 'no' to mediation because you will be pressed to pay and you are best avoiding that pressure, seeing as you were thinking about negotiating. Unless you do wish to settle...

I think you would be better seeing the whites of their eyes in court if you have evidence of NO SIGNS AT ALL AT THE TIME OF PARKING.

another complete noob question: can all of this be done online? I don't have to send anything by post right, just feel like I'm forgetting something as I'm so used to post.

Yes at THIS early stage, if it's MCOL (Northampton) paperwork. But the court paperwork tells you that.

there must not have been a sign, don't forget they are a business and have no morals and will try anything on, there were ONLY signs by the landlord

This does not fill me with confidence that you have any evidence to the effect that there were no signs; this makes me think you are dangerously assuming so, or are a UKCPS plant. We don't need reminding they are a business who (your words) have 'no morals and will try anything on...'

No-one is disagreeing, we know about PPC World and all their tactics - but in court you need evidence and I can count on one hand (in eight years posting here) the number of cases where a PPC has had NO signs up at all. And they were not in 2015/16.

So, look, I will make some small suggestions about your defence but am wary that you are a possibly a UKCPS plant who wants to paint a picture of a case lost after MSE forum guidance. I will state now, we didn't write the above defence, you did, and if you are relying on 'no signs' then good luck, because you will need it.

Unclear signs, yes. Very arguable and probably your best defence.

No signs - I doubt it until you show us dated pictures that match the parking event date.

I did spot some sentences you should change to at least give you a chance, if you are genuine and not on a fishing/advertising mission for UKCPS (they might well do such a sad git sort of thing and certainly have been reported as sending pm's to posters and reading threads here):

I fully deny this due to there being no signs on the site set out by UKCPS

Would be better as:

I fully deny this due to there being no signs seen on the site set out by UKCPS and the amount of the 'parking charge' (if displayed at all) was certainly not prominent nor legible anywhere in view. No contract can have been formed to pay a charge not read by a driver - authority: Vine v Waltham Forest EWCA Civ 106, [2000]. If it is established that insufficient and inadequate (or absent or obscured) warning notices were in place, meaning that terms could not be expected to be seen and read by a reasonable circumspect driver before parking, then a defendant can be heard to say that they did not see the notice.


This point (below) is weak as it was pretty much kicked out by the Beavis case, unless you are certain there were no signs. But do NOT talk about 'no loss' anywhere because this isn't a charge for breach and was not about any 'loss':

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 [STRIKE]signigicant[/STRIKE] significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract to my detriment. [STRIKE]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 at midday. My car didn't cause any loss to anyone.[/STRIKE]

Delete this (below) entirely; not only has the Beavis case removed this in most cases but UKCPS do not even try to base their charges on breach, so aren't required to show loss:

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

You could replace it with this:

5.The amount in question set by UKCPS is a disguised penalty and not a 'core price term' because it only arises upon default or trespass. So, the charge is not exempt from the test of reasonableness and fairness and the rationale behind it including the construction of the charge as set in advance, must be explained by this Claimant. No offer was made to park at this site so there can have been no contractual charge for a service because none was clearly offered nor accepted.

You could add a point that UKCPS have not fully complied with their Trade Body Code of Practice, which in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis was considered to be a form of mandatory regulation.

You could add a point that UKCPS have not fully complied with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and it was not established who parked there that day (may have been one of several drivers of this vehicle and the fact that you are familiar with the site yourself does not mean on this occasion that the driver was you. A registered keeper can only be held liable if the mandatory conditions were fully met.

You need to add a statement of truth, top or bottom:

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.