Scs law - claim form

Redx

its the claimants job to prove they have a valid claim

so if you say they have no locus standii , poor or inadequate signage that fails the CoP, not the same as Beavis , NTK not POFA 2012 compliant , NTK errors , BPA CoP failures etc , plus other arguments , then they have to prove all their points, fail on one and you win

to give you some idea on defences , read posts #39 and #40 in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5505546

the fact that they have a knowledgable rep and you are a ordinary joe means the judge wont let them walk all over you , you are not expected to be fluent in legalities , the judge is

ask yourself why UKPC just lost in court due to NTK errors ? (see parking pranksters blogs)

DoaM

UKPC don't own the land ... therefore they have no locus standii (standing to bring a claim). Their contract with the landowner almost certainly also won't confer that right.

The sign is forbidding (no parking outside prescribed hours) ... therefore the PCN cannot be a contractual charge (you cannot contract to do something which is forbidden), therefore any claim can only be for trespass - only the landowner (or someone with a chain of authority from the landowner - UKPC won't have this) can bring a claim for trespass. As this is a car park by nature then any damages for trespass cannot by anywhere near the PCN value.

If you've received a postal PCN (NTK) then UKPC's NTKs are not compliant with POFA mandated requirements ... they're not guidelines, they're requirements - if the NTK doesn't comply with the requirements then it doesn't legally transfer liability from driver to keeper.

As you can see - they are loads of defence points. And I bet the UKPC sign isn't anywhere near as clear as the PE sign in the Beavis case (Lord Denning's "red hand rule"), so you'd be able to shoot down any Beavis point the UKPC might make.

Ultimately though, it's up to you.

The_Deep

I don't believe the claim to be fraudulent ....

I do, read post number 3 again.

Herzlos

You're talking at cross purposes.

He means it's not fraudulent in that it's a real MCOL claim and not a fake letter.
You mean it's fraudulent in that the claim itself is utterly without merit.

You are both correct.

The_Deep

Got it in one. but only I am correct. A fake claim is not necessarily the same as a fraudulent claim.

I spelled out to OP why the claim is fraudulent and cannot be blamed for his/her perceived lack of perspicacity.

TDA

The_Deep wrote: »

Got it in one. but only I am correct.

Are you though? As is often the case, I worry that your advice is misleading and dangerous.

What exactly is fraudulent about claiming the commencement costs of the claim issue fee and legal rep charges? It is standard practice to claim these at the start of the claim (funnily enough if you don't claim something you tend not to have it awarded at a hearing...) and that is why there are boxes for those exact fees on the claim form!

As for stating it is unlikely they will take the OP to court and unlikely they will win, what are you basing this on? They have had court papers which means that it is already going to court and I have seen nothing here or elsewhere to suggest that UKPC go the CEL route of not turning up to hearings. As for the latter point, the OP states they received the ticket for an overstay of four hours at an outlet centre - in other words this has all the hallmarks of the Beavis case and as parking claims go is the most likely for the operator to win?

DoaM

TDA wrote: »

As for the latter point, the OP states they received the ticket for an overstay of four hours at an outlet centre (outside normal opening hours, unless OP means something different when he says "parking outside the authorised hours for parking"?) - in other words this has all the hallmarks of the Beavis case and as parking claims go is the most likely for the operator to win?

Yes, it is similar to Beavis, but I very much doubt the claim would have the same veracity as PE's claim. Signage almost certainly won't be as apparent as PE's signs at that site, and outside normal opening hours there's no commercial benefit in maintaining a turnover of patrons.

TDA

That is not how I read it. His first post specifically states he overstayed a four hour time limit. I assume the 'being parked outside permitted hours' means he is parked for longer than the four hours which are permitted.

And yes that may be true, but saying it is unlikely to get to court and they are unlikely to win is irresponsible when dealing with a case which is so analogous to the Beavis case. I am aware of a number of wins where signage was deemed not to make an offer in permit holder cases, but I am not aware of many where the signs have been deemed to have been too small, unclear etc. to form a contract.

The_Deep

As is often the case, I worry that your advice is misleading and dangerous.

I suspect that you are one of those overcautious people who keep their trousers hoist with a belt, braces, and a piece of string.

What exactly is fraudulent about claiming the commencement costs of the claim issue fee and legal rep charges?

If the commencement costs include, as I suspect, £60 for referral to a DCA, then they are not allowed.

As for stating it is unlikely they will take the OP to court and unlikely they will win, what are you basing this on?

Common sense, five appearances at CC, 30 years experience of helping people out of scrapes much worse than this, and faith in the CCJ to reach the right decision.

They have had court papers which means that it is already going to court

No, it is possible that it might not. Do not forget, this is UKPC which he is dealing with. A former clamper with lots of form.


You are free to disagree, but do not accuse me of offering dangerous advice, risky perhaps, but read my signature.

WRT similarities with Beavis, instead let us examine the dissimilarities. An empty car park, no need for a rapid turnover, UKPC do not rent the car park for £1,000 a week. Also, UKPCs signs are a mess, I know because I own a property where they hang out.

I write post here for those who are prepared to fight back, the wimps and faint hearted should look elsewhere.

DoaM

TDA wrote: »

And yes that may be true, but saying it is unlikely to get to court and they are unlikely to win is irresponsible when dealing with a case which is so analogous to the Beavis case.

You're being disingenuous ... I didn't say any such things. Just as I may have misunderstood the OP's meaning, you have obviously misunderstood mine.

And on the subject of signage ... in the Beavis case the PE signage was the exception to the norm, as it was clear and unambiguous. Indeed their lordships made that very comment. Almost all other signs (including from PE) would fail Lord Denning's "red hand rule".