URGENT: UKPC trying to claim £1270

hoohoo

pappa_golf wrote: »

and only a fool of a company would try to claim £80 fees for legal costs when the max allowed is £50

The costs allowed depend on the value of the claim.

For this claim, £80 is the allowed maximum

pappa_golf

as the figure is a trumped up one exceeding £100 per ticket , I think the figure is actually £70 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part45-fixed-costs#rule45.2

surveyor_101

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

But in that case there was clearly a contract to park (or so said the Supreme Court). In this case, it is highly unlikely that there was any offer to park for non-permit holders, making it trespass.

Having said that, the defence needs to cover all bases: contractural charge, breach of contract and trespass, unless UKPC has broken the rule of their lifetime and actually produced specific Particulars of Claim.

Assuming they have signage that states if you park without a valid permit you agree to pay £xx for breach, is that not a contract to park?

surveyor_101

pappa_golf wrote: »

as the figure is a trumped up one exceeding £100 per ticket , I think the figure is actually £70 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part45-fixed-costs#rule45.2

maybe they have employed Alan Blacker/Lord Harley

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/alan-blacker/lord-harley-has-sra-claim-struck-out/5055002.fullarticle

Umkomaas

surveyor_101 wrote: »

Assuming they have signage that states if you park without a valid permit you agree to pay £xx for breach, is that not a contract to park?

Try this for size.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bargepole-spanks-ukpc-in-court-no.html

Coupon-mad

Brunel University?

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t85784.html

Even if it is elsewhere, if the signs in that section of the car park only offer parking to those with permits then you definitely need to use the argument that the signs create a prohibition. Forbidding signage = no contract exists. The landowner could claim a nominal sum for trespass but a private firm not in possession of the land cannot (the Beavis case states this, quote it).

As Castle said in post #7:

If parking is only offered to those with a valid permit then the signs are forbidding to non permit holders; therefore leaving only a claim for trespass by the University.

sketch13

Hi there again,

I've just noticed that all the claims say I was located at "Brunel University, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH" when in fact my car was parked at "Brunel University, Topping Lane, Uxbridge, UB8 2TR".

Does this mean the claim is void?

Also, the signs say "No Unauthorised Parking" which leads me to believe that I have technically trespassed instead of entering into a contract with UKPC (due to the information in the post that Umkomaas linked to)

Does this also help my defence? Thanks in advance again!

Coupon-mad

Does this mean the claim is void?

Nope, sorry, that's mere detail.

Also, the signs say "No Unauthorised Parking" which leads me to believe that I have technically trespassed instead of entering into a contract with UKPC (due to the information in the post that Umkomaas linked to)

Does this also help my defence?

We've already told you that, yes it does (Castle's post and mine - and that's why Umkomaas gave you the link).

sketch13

Hmm...Surely they should have to give the right address of where I parked though? By that logic, they could have claimed I parked anywhere in the UK. I was under the impression that these details needed to be precise in order to stand up in court.

Thanks, I was just double checking.

Redx

people labour under the misapprehension that these topics have some sort of validity in law, like a council charge, that voids them on "nick freeman" type errors

they are claims for unpaid invoices and a judge will decide on any validity or what may "void" the claim , in law

so it may matter at a court hearing, in front of a judge, but its pointless looking for an easy "get-out" beforehand

by all means refute anything you care to name, but only a judge will decide, if it gets that far

I have never seen any claim being made "void" in the few years I have spent on here , but claims have been "strick out" on points of law , or on failing to follow lawful "rules" , or on false claims