UKPC - County Court Claim Defence and Process

Coupon-mad

IndigoMondayToyota wrote: »

Thanks Guys Dad. Note taken. Which points should / can I use to help my defence other than the ones pointed out by The Slithy Tove?

Search 'UKPC defence' as your forum keywords and look at those used in March 2016. I think most were not continued. Copy what they wrote and adapt it and then show us gthe resulting draft.

But do search out a sign which still shows £90 (you only need one!) and take a pic.

IndigoMondayToyota

Applogies for the delayed response/update. Been away abroad and just got back yesterday.

I've uploaded the pic of a sign which shows £90 after peeling back:
http: //i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb454/lyjutisp/Mobile%20Uploads/20160531_203336_zpstsazf1h5.jpg (space after http:)

In terms of obtaining the contract, do I contact UKPC direct, or go through SCS Law? And is this requested through a Part 18 request submitted to either party along with the other bits of info we're looking to get?

I'm still in the process of writing the holding defence which I will soon send over (possibly tomorrow).

I was also hoping to get a bit of confirmation around the questions I sent on 31st May at 7:28am.

Sorry if I'm making you guys repeat yourselves!

Thanks again!

Unicorn51

Are you a valid permit holder.


This sign can only be contractual if you are a valid permit holder.


“No unauthorised parking” if your not authorised, then you are trespassing.


“All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays”. If there were no marked bays where you parked, you could argue that the offence did not occur.

IndigoMondayToyota

Thanks Unicorn.

I am not a permit holder.

That's actually technically true, there were no marked bays where I parked. Seems like a loophole I could use as an argument (at which point, I have no clue!), no?

Unicorn51

Read the link on post #3. It concerns UKPC and the same sign as yours. "No unauthorised parking"

The judge threw out the case saying "The signage displayed clearly only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be bound by the contractual terms conveyed".

IndigoMondayToyota

It makes perfect sense now!

I had read that article before but couldn't make sense of it, but thinking about it now, and talking about it aloud has helped

Coupon-mad

IndigoMondayToyota wrote: »

It makes perfect sense now!

I had read that article before but couldn't make sense of it, but thinking about it now, and talking about it aloud has helped

We have seen the Judgment in question re that case; a transcript has been obtained which the Parking Prankster normally makes available on his website blog. A decision like that one is not a silver bullet and needs to be argued well - and small claims is a lottery - but it's a persuasive decision in a case just like yours. And one made since the Beavis case, too.

IndigoMondayToyota

Thanks CM. I tried having a search on his site, but couldn't find the transcript on his blog.

I've also added in a picture for the sign showing £90 compared to the first image I linked. Can you turn that into a link please?

Coupon-mad

Thanks CM. I tried having a search on his site, but couldn't find the transcript on his blog.

It's brand new, hot off the presses. Wait a bit.

IndigoMondayToyota wrote: »

I've also added in a picture for the sign showing £90 compared to the first image I linked. Can you turn that into a link please?

http://s1206.photobucket.com/user/lyjutisp/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20160531_203336_zpstsazf1h5.jpg.html

bod1467

At least they've put a new phone number label over the old 0844 / whatever number they used to state.