Claim Form after PCNs, DRP

georgeg12

Herzlos wrote: »

Don't go into the what happens, just the legal details.

Have you named the driver? If not, then you can claim there's no keeper liability, since POFA2012 hasn't been adhered to (list the violations).

You can also claim that UKPC don't have any actual authority to issue invoices at the site, and need to see a contract.

You can also suggest the Aziz test applies; that no-one in their right mind would agree to pay £60 to park.

If the signage says something like "Permit holders only" then you can claim there's no contract given to park, since you can't contract to do something that is forbidden, and as such it counts as trespass which can only be pursued by the landowner for nominal damages and not a fictional contractual sum.

Whats variations will need to be ;isted concerning the no keep liability?


I checked and the UKPC officers that operate on that site are employed by UKPC not by the university.




I plan to send the following:


No keeper liability for this claim since the POFA2012 has not been adhered to.
There is no contract given to park due to the incorrect signage 'No Unautharised Parking'
Signage unclear and insufficeient to gauge an contract when the font size and notice is small.




anything else? does this 'No Unautharised Parking' quaote mean I have some backing?

georgeg12

Driver has not been named

Coupon-mad

georgeg12 wrote: »

I plan to send the following:


No keeper liability for this claim since the POFA2012 has not been adhered to.
There is no contract given to park due to the incorrect signage 'No Unautharised Parking'
Signage unclear and insufficeient to gauge an contract when the font size and notice is small.

anything else? does this 'No Unautharised Parking' quaote mean I have some backing?

The above is NOT a court defence.

Read Sam84's thread or Clark13's thread, urgently. Both were on page one or two, today.

georgeg12

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The above is NOT a court defence.

Read Sam84's thread or Clark13's thread, urgently. Both were on page one or two, today.

Thanks again.... I have read through Sam84's defence statement and it seems really good. Some points are not relevant to my case.

I am unsure as to what route to go.....do i continue to keep the driver unknown? if so I can use both point 1 and 2 on Sam84's statement.

If not I have taken the most relevant points from his below:

'
4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Parking Control Ltd.

5. 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.

6. The provision 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 at the locations in question
b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
c) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist stays by ten seconds or ten years;
d) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's signs.

7. The signage on the site in question is unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £640, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

8. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of 3 PCNs and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

9. As the POFA restricts liability to the sum of the parking charge itself and the BPA Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100 which at the time, made it a condition that any charge issued must be based upon a GPEOL, the amounts claimed are excessive and unconscionable. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance.

10. 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.

11. 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. It is submitted that 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.

12. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and UKPC have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

13. If the driver(s) on each occasion were considered to be trespassers 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.

14. 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.'

this has been taken from Sam84's post.

georgeg12

Ok so they have decided to take court action and have issued me the questionnaire and I have received a letter from there law firm saying they are looking forward to see me in court. Now I suppose I need to prepare myself for this. Whats the chances of loosing? Does this depend on the judge and evidence given?

Coupon-mad

We know you've consulted Bargepole's post so I assume you have completed your D/Questionnaire and sent it to the court and the solicitors already?

Now I suppose I need to prepare myself for this.

Yes. Bargepole tends to say, live and breathe your case, go over it, check your evidence and paperwork, do some more research and everything else can come second to this at the moment.

Whats the chances of loosing? Does this depend on the judge and evidence given?

You mean 'losing'...yes it depends on the Judge and the evidence, it is a lottery in some ways. Worst case scenario is you might lose and have to pay in the end, that's all. If you lose you get no CCJ (as long as you then paid) and it would be likely to be under £200 for one PCN, so less than they were bullying you for.

How many PCNs are you being pursued for? £235 is an odd amount for multiple PCNs...

Why not read other people's threads again for reassurance. Try Anthony94's thread!

georgeg12

this is just for ONE PCN they put so much extra cost on for no reason the initial fine was 60!

Coupon-mad

Well probably £100, discounted to £60? So even if you lose, there are a high number of Judges who would probably at least agree that £100 plus genuine court fees are the only recoverable sums. And you might win, like Anthony94!

georgeg12

I will have to have a look at his post, I am a bit concerned about the CCJ on my name as friends and family are saying it may ruin my credit rating. Like you said earlier if i pay promptly this will not have any effect?

Redx

no effect if you pay promptly (if you lose)

the matter is considered "settled" when you pay the court judgment and it does not progress to a CCJ so your credit rating would not be affected

its not paying the judgment in good time that triggers a CCJ, that is when your family are correct , but they are not correct if you pay it, usually within 14 to 28 days (the judge would tell you this)

if you win , you pay nothing and claim court costs of up to £90