UKPC Court claim question

Coupon-mad

Thankfully they have another photo from a different ticket that is time stamped at a similar time (though a different date) which is much darker.

Does it look like they've re-used any photos and changed the time? It really makes no sense at all that a pre-5am photo shows broad daylight behind the houses. Does it look like that in your copy?

Looks dodgy to me and I would raise it in your WS...

sicone

It doesn't look like they have reused any of the photos. I suspect that the times are meant to be a.m. and the camera was set to 12hr clock but I guess that's for them to prove.
Since we've received their witness statement can I refer to it in ours? I've noticed their witness statement claims that the "No return" clause involves the vehicle leaving the site and all of their evidence photos are less than 48hrs apart (just parked in different bays).

Coupon-mad

Yes your WS should tear into their evidence, urgently. And certainly point out the timing on the photos does not match the sky in at least one picture...and point out that UKPC have form for altering times on their photo evidence. You must call this into question now, in your WS; the Judge will not do this for you. The evidence is what you make it.

sicone

Can I ask people to cast an eye at the Witness Statement. The main points are about the fact the contract they have submitted does not cover the time period in question (or show that the landowner gave permission to the agency to use UKPC), that the time stamps in the photos do not tie in with the fact it is broad daylight or the fact that "no return" could mean no return to the bay (car was parked in different bays each time) or could mean no return to the car park (car was photographed less than 48hrs apart in each case with no proof the car left the site).

I, JOE BLOGGS of XXXXXXXXXXX am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows –
1. I am the defendant in this case
1.1. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle during the dates in question.
1.2. Due to the length of time that has passed since the dates in question, the driver of the vehicle cannot be remembered.
2. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. UK Parking Control (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 the landowner to UKPC.
3. UKPC is not the lawful occupier of the land and I have reasonable belief that they have no locus standi to bring this case.
3.1. I attach exhibit XX/1 the copy of the contract UKPC have supplied after a part 18 request for information which only shows their contract with Trinity Estates Ltd who are not the land owners. No chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land has been provided
3.2. The contract provided (exhibit XX/1) only covers the 12 month period beginning 15th May 2013.
4. The signage on the site has been amended at some point in time (exhibit XX/2). No proof was provided, as requested, when these amendments where made or that they approved by the landowner (exhibit XX/2).
5. The wording on the signage is confusing and ambiguous as the “maximum stay” and “no return” clauses are unclear and unmanageable.
5.1. There is no clarification as to whether the “maximum stay” and “no return” clauses refer to the parking space, bay or entire car park. If the terms apply to the parking space/bay then the evidence provided by UKPC shows that the vehicle is in a different bay each time. Should the terms apply to the entire car park then the evidence provided by UKPC shows that all tickets were issued in less than the 48hr period allowed and does not show that the vehicle left the car park within that time, only that the vehicle was moved to a different space.
5.2. The “no return” clause is unmanageable as different drivers using the same vehicle within the time period would not have contravened the contract.
5.2.1. As multiple people have access to the vehicle it cannot be proved that the same driver parked the vehicle in the car park each time.
5.2.2. In the case that the “no return” clause requires the vehicle to leave the site, it cannot be proved that the vehicle moved to different space, closer to the door of the address without leaving the site.
6. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
6.1. I submit exhibit XX/3 to show that the signage on site is not clearly legible.
7. 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.
7.1. UKPC has not provided any proof that Trinity Estates Ltd have a contract with the landowner or that the contract allows Trinity Estates Ltd to use UKPC as an agent which means they do not meet the requirements of the BPA code of practice section 7.1
7.2. UKPC has not provided any proof that the landowner has authorises them to legal action to recover charges due from drivers charged for unauthorised parking which means they do not meet the BPA code of practice section 7.2 (f)
8. The Claimant argues that on XX XXXX 2015, a vehicle with registration XXXXXXX was parked having displayed a non-valid photocopied permit (ticket XXXXXXX). I submit Exhibit XX/4 which shows that UKPC was instructed by Trinity Estates Ltd to cancel this ticket.
9. The Claimant asserts that they were temporarily suspended from the DVLA database on the 18 September 2015 as a result of a number of parking wardens manipulating time stamps on photographs and that this has no relevance to this case
9.1. The case of UKPC falsifying photo evidence was brought to light in September 2015 and covers the time period of the tickets issued in this case. The falsification was admitted to changing the time stamps of the photo evidence (Exhibit XX/3).
9.2. The photographic evidence provided by UKPC are time stamped between 04:39 and 05:08 yet are in full daylight even though sunrise in XXX is 05:10 and in XXXX is 05:00 (Exhibit XX/3).
9.3. I submit exhibit XX/3 to show that UKPC have been manipulating photo evidence to make it appear that vehicles are illegally parked when they are not. In no photo submitted by UKPC can the vehicle in question and signage be seen together.
10. 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.
11. No legitimate interest - the charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case
11.1. This exact question in a similar case was tested recently at Oxford County Court, JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number: B9GF0A9E on 29.6.16. I will include the transcript of that case at any hearing.
11.2. The Jopson Appeal case is a persuasive Appeal decision, where Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC, found that the parking firm had acted unreasonably when issuing a parking charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats who parked in front of the communal entrance to unload furniture, as this was the only accessible place to do so. Home Guard Services had sued Miss Jopson in the small claims court and won. Miss Jopson successfully appealed the case, her solicitor arguing that the charge was incompatible with the terms of the lease which gives residents (and their visitors and delivery drivers etc.) easements and specific rights which supersede any parking firm signs. The Judge found that Home Guard Services’ regulations - set out on wordy, unclear, badly-drafted signs like in this case - disregarded these rights and the Claimant was ordered to pay costs of some £2,000. The Judge was also at pains to point out that such a case can be fully distinguished from Beavis, which did not apply.
12. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
Statement of Truth:
I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

11.1. This exact question in a similar case was tested recently at Oxford County Court, JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number: B9GF0A9E on 29.6.16. I will include the transcript of that case at any hearing.

You need to include transcripts now, as this is WS stage.

Also go through the WS because between #7 through to #9 the subject matter jumps from landowner authority to falsifying images, then back again, then falsifying photos again. Group each similar point together.

You had also somewhat buried the vital information that Trinity had required at least one PCN to be cancelled - that needs to be nearer the top, explaining to the Judge that the permit was not 'invalid' at all (explain the issue and the circumstances, near the start, to clarify what these unwarranted PCNs were for and why they are not payable).

sicone

Well it seems the Judge sided with UKPC!
From what I'm told it was a bit of a farce. The Judge asked their solicitor why they where taking the registered keeper to court and the solicitor pulled out a laptop to find the clause in POFA 2012 online! Surely if they do not provide this information in their witness statement they can't just dig it up like that?
The Judge then asked them to clarify what the Maximum Stay and No Return meant. They claimed that it meant that you could not stay in the car park for more than 48hrs and once you left you could not return for a further 48hrs. The Judge then asked what happened if you move from one space to another without leaving the Car Park. The solicitor explained that leaving the space ended the stay and that you are not allowed to park in another space within 48hrs. The Judge decided that was clear and common sense (even though he had to ask for clarification!).
With regard to the cancelled ticket, UKPC claimed that Trinity Estates (who UKPC's contract is with) do not have authority to cancel tickets and the Judge has decided that also has to be paid.
I guess the question now is, is it possible to take this any further as, frankly, this ruling is outrageous!

sicone

As time is an issue I will periodically bump this in the hopes of catching someone who knows attention.
Having tried to do some research, is it possible to apply to have the judgment set aside?

Redx

did the judge allow you to make a further appeal in the judgment ? (like Beavis was) and if so, what was the timescale for you to appeal it to a higher judge ? (or was leave to appeal refused ?)

I believe this would cost money judging by other court cases we have read about , like the ones in Liverpool and VCS

and the JOPSON case was successfully appealed and won (or did you miss that part ?)

sicone

The Judge didn't mention anything about appealing and it would appear I completely missed that the JOPSON case was appealed (which is impressive considering how many times I read through it!).

Having read a little more up about it, I guess we now have to apply for permission to appeal, correct?

Redx

I would think so, as I dont think you can do a set aside , you are appealing the decision , if allowed to, this costs a few hundred pounds I think

perhaps the BMPA can advise you ?

in your case it seems obvious to me that you would be trying to do what JOPSON actually did