How to prepare for UKPC court case?

Jt16

Hi all, unfortunately my defence has escaped me to due unforeseen circumstances and needs to be submitted and sent off ASAP! So I do need help urgently.

Jt16

1) It is admitted that the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, though the claimant cannot provide evidence that the defendant was the actual driver on the dates in question.

2) The claimant has refused to respond to the part 18 Request as emailed by the defendant to SCS Law.

3) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner, Brunel University. UKPC cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from Brunel University to UKPC.

4) UK Parking Control LTD are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) a contract is absent 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 standi to bring this case

5) The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
(i) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question;
(ii) the amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
(iii) 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; and
(iiii) the clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's signs.

6) If the driver happened to see the signage (if any were present) on each occasion, signs are located at a distance in pale, unlit and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The docrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the claimant says they did.

7) 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.

8) 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.

9) The claimant’s charges are unlawful addressing the imbalance of power leaving the driver/s at a disadvantage thus the defendant denies entering a contract. If a breach of contract is identified by the court then the implications are marginal, as the driver followed majority of instruction.

10) 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.

11) 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.

12) The vehicle had a permit which was acknowledged and supplied by the land owner, Brunel university. The permit had been inadvertently left elsewhere due to switching cars. The permit confirms that the vehicle was entitled to a parking space, if the driver/s on each occasion were considered to be trespassers then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

13) The claimant has received wide spread notoriety for falsifying documentation, UKPC should be put at strict proof that all evidence provided have not been tampered.

14) The legal costs are not justified additionally it would have been factored within the additional £60 charge thus claiming again would be considered double charging creating financial gain.

The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

---

System

You've covered the bases and more but suggest you take 13 out. Just !!!!es off the judges unless you can prove the documents are false on the BoP.

Don't miss the deadline though as they will go for a default CCJ the next day.

Coupon-mad

Looks OK, as IamEmanresu says. Get that submitted online on MCOL without delay!

System

With regards to your question...

The Claimant will be notified the case is defended. They then need to decide if they want to take the case further (they usually do). You will then get a DQ from the other side and a little later a blank DQ from the court for you to complete and return to the court plus copy to other side.

If you call MCOL and ask if the claimant's DQ has been received then that will give you some idea. The claimant has 28 days to decide if they want to progress at this stage so you may need to call more than once.

Jt16

Hello everyone, I know it has been sometime but I have finally got my court date unfortunately my date is sooner rather than later and I really need help writing my final defence.

Coupon-mad

Jt16 wrote: »

Hello everyone, I know it has been sometime but I have finally got my court date unfortunately my date is sooner rather than later and I really need help writing my final defence.

You mean your witness statement and what documents to file in advance as evidence? Since you were last here I have added more info under 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES thread, including an example Witness Statement (WS) and more info about what happens when.

Also the BMPA has a useful 'court wizard' telling you about WS stage and offering you advice, help and a 'panic button':

http://www.bmpa.eu/court_wizard/

HTH - keep calm, this is just another stage.

Jt16

The time to submit my full defence and witness statement is fast approaching, I would like to know relevant cases and any members on the form m that have recently won their case.

Coupon-mad

Read Bobby2k2's case, he just beat UKPC.

And read Lamilad's thread as his includes a WS and evidence, he recently beat a different parking firm, twice.

And read Britton's thread and KimmyHrunt's thread, same stage as you, this has all already been discussed in depth.

Oh, and revisit the links under 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES thread, WS and skeleton arguments are explained there in a link to a thread by IamEmanresu.

Jt16

I have just received the stubstantial bundle from SCS Law which contains their "evidence" and witness statements of the parking attendant and the security support manager. However several points need to be made
The bundle included a letter that was never received how can I ask for proof? Alongside proof that the fines were ever sent?
The signage included has several different variations that state different requirements and different amounts
They admit that they ain't the owning but act as the operator on behalf of the university as confirmed by security support manager
Funny how the inital contract between UKPC and the university blacked out the commission and charges part out wouldn't that be of relevance?
Within the head security manager's WS it sataes that charges are in accordance with BPA
Furthermore no letter before court was sent or included within the package

at this point I feel as though my inital defence is subpar and I am becoming incredibly disheartened.