UKPC Court claim question

Marktheshark

Would it matter if it is 48 years, the contract can only apply to the person who entered in to it.
You can not contract a car, it has no life.

They would need to prove the driver here was the same person that entered the contract twice.

sicone

So it would seem that the defence we will have to rely on will be based on UKPC not having the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, that the wording on the sign with regards to visitor bays is too small making it difficult to read (I'll link a picture of the sign when I get home) and that the contract is on a per driver basis and not the vehicle. Does that seem correct?

I'll add all the details I know just in case anything else jumps out that should be added.
The claim is for 5 tickets (each for £100 + £60 for being passed on to their debt recovery agent) + court fee + Legal representative's costs.

For the first 3 PCN's there is a picture of the vehicle in a visitor's bay on day 1 and in a different bay the next day (less than 48hrs later). I haven't looked at the last 2 PCN pictures yet and will update once I have. Is it possible to argue that the vehicle did not actually leave the car park but was simply moved to the second bay which is more visible from their flat? If not, would it be better to argue that they haven't proved it was the same person that parked the car in the second bay?

As there is nothing in the lease or on any of the signs saying that residents cannot use the visitor permit for a second vehicle the resident owns is it fair to say that there have been no losses incurred?

Umkomaas

As there is nothing in the lease or on any of the signs saying that residents cannot use the visitor permit for a second vehicle the resident owns is it fair to say that there have been no losses incurred?

Leave loss out the equation. That was put to bed by the Beavis case.

Carthesis

Also, if they go to court and get dealt with all in one case, then the most you'll be paying is 5x £100 (for the tickets) plus a single £25 court charge.

If they go separately, then it'll be 5x (£100 + £25) = £625.

They aren't allowed to recover all the other billy-bull***t costs they've arbitrarily added on *cough*made-up*cough* via small-claims.

sicone

Umkomaas wrote: »

Leave loss out the equation. That was put to bed by the Beavis case.

I was under the impression that in residential parking cases it was useful to cite the Beavis case to show it cannot be used by the claimant in these cases:

Someone_else's_defence wrote:

The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision is Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions in an educational establishment where there is no turnover of visitors and the defendant’s vehicle was not in pay-and-display car parking.

but then that is why I'm asking for the help of people more knowledgeable in these matters than I am

Carthesis wrote: »

Also, if they go to court and get dealt with all in one case, then the most you'll be paying is 5x £100 (for the tickets) plus a single £25 court charge.

If they go separately, then it'll be 5x (£100 + £25) = £625.

They aren't allowed to recover all the other billy-bull***t costs they've arbitrarily added on *cough*made-up*cough* via small-claims.

That's what I thought

sicone

Link to parking sign (taken by us)
hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2ev9fzt/9

Marktheshark

BANG !
Contract states being issued to the vehicles driver.

game over.
With a honest judge that is, which are getting hard to find with parking cases.

Fruitcake

sicone wrote: »

Link to parking sign (taken by us)
hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2ev9fzt/9

http://tinypic.com/r/2ev9fzt/9

The 100 quid charge is not prominent, so the signs are completely different to the ones in the Beavis case.

Fruitcake

sicone wrote: »

So it would seem that the defence we will have to rely on will be based on UKPC not having the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, that the wording on the sign with regards to visitor bays is too small making it difficult to read (I'll link a picture of the sign when I get home) and that the contract is on a per driver basis and not the vehicle. Does that seem correct?

I'll add all the details I know just in case anything else jumps out that should be added.
The claim is for 5 tickets (each for £100 + £60 for being passed on to their debt recovery agent) + £60 court fee + £70 Legal representative's costs (total £930).

For the first 3 PCN's there is a picture of the vehicle in a visitor's bay on day 1 and in a different bay the next day (less than 48hrs later). I haven't looked at the last 2 PCN pictures yet and will update once I have. Is it possible to argue that the vehicle did not actually leave the car park but was simply moved to the second bay which is more visible from their flat? If not, would it be better to argue that they haven't proved it was the same person that parked the car in the second bay?

As there is nothing in the lease or on any of the signs saying that residents cannot use the visitor permit for a second vehicle the resident owns is it fair to say that there have been no losses incurred?

You should also state that the scammers do not have authority to issues court papers in their own name. You require to see proof in the form of an unredacted contract with the landowner if they dispute this.

Have you checked to see if the NTKs meet all the requirements of the POFA 2012?

sicone

Hopefully last 2 questions before I post a preview defence.
I've noticed mention of Part 18 in other threads. Is this on the Court Claim or is it sent to you after you return the AoS? Looking through the Newbies thread I get the impression it's sent to you once the case is allocated to court but, as I haven't seen the physical copy of the form, I want to be sure.
Secondly, it seems that different flats in the estate have different owners. How do you find out who the landowner of the car park is?