UKPC court claim - badly need help

Dontpay

Hi Guys,
I am totally new to forums and posting threads, But I badly need your help.
I work for xyz company near London. The company is on a Lease land for the last few years and have a very small parking space which had been unmonitored for quite few years. Recently UKPC got into the picture and they had added signboards in few areas. The car park has a gatted entrance, so external people cannot enter the site. I managed to speak to the security/receptionist on duty and parked my car inside for loading/unloading purpose. Now I have got around 8 parking tickets and UKPC is charging me for around 1400 pounds. I have got a court claim and I had duly acknowledged the claim. Now I had to prepare my defence and I have been going through your forum ( thanks to all the contributors) and praying that I could get some support on preparing my defence. Please help.

Dontpay

Particulars of Claim:
The claimant is, and was at all material times, a private parking company, managing parking at the locations listed in the below paragraphs pertaining to contraventions ('the site(s)').
2. The Defendant is and was at all material times an individual/company and was the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle(s) with registration number NNNMNN ('the vehicle(s)').
3. The Defendant has admitted that they were the driver of the vehicle(s) for the contraventions listed below and/or, in the event that the Claimant has been unable to identify the driver of the vehicle(s), the Claimant has complied with the provisions of paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 and has the right to bring this claim against the registered keeper under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 of the same Act, being the Defendant.
4. For each contraventions listed below, parking at each of the specified sites was offered subject to the Claimant's terms and conditions, which were clearly displayed on signage throughout the site. these terms and conditions were accepted by the driver of the vehicle(s) when they parked their vehicle(s) at the specified sites ('the agreement') and the Defendant was therefore bound by the same in their capacity as driver of the vehicle(s) and/or registered keeper. It was a ('PCN') would be issued for a sum & be payable within 28 days.
Contraventions ( details of 8 incidents)

Dontpay

Guys - I went through a lot of threads over the last few days and have a draft defence prepared. Can someone please review this and let me know if I had to make any changes/updates.
Defence:
1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question
2. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charge
3. The signage displayed clearly only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be bound by the contractual terms conveyed.
4. The car park has a security gate which can be opened only by authorised people. In this case, the car was parked inside the premise with permission from the security & reception staff for loading/Unloading heavy items during that time of incident.
5. There is no clear mentioning of loading/unloading rules on the sign board.
6. Also there are no clear markings of Single/Double yellow lines in those areas. The marking available are also very old and not clear.
7. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Parking Control Ltd. The claimant is unable to re-offer a contract to park on more onerous terms that those already specified in the lease, which grants an easement/ right to park for everyone and an entitlement to peaceful enjoyment.
8. If there was a contract, it is denied that the penalty charge is incorporated into the contract. The leaseholders' lease is missing any reference to parking permit requirements and involvement of UKPC. And there is no evidence that the original lease contract and revised lease contract with specific details of UKPC’s role and involvement was shared with the defendant.
9. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £1400 (correct amount to be edited before submission) is an unenforceable penalty clause.
10. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £1400 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
11. UK Parking Control Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) UK Parking Control Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.
(ii) absent a contract 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 stand to bring this case.
(iii) UK Parking Control claim they have a contract with a management company that is not the land owner nor a verified company on companies house. The court is invited to consider whether UKPC is even aware of who their contract is with.
12. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:
a) As the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the locations in question
b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
c) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because a permission was obtained from the security staff for temporary loading/unloading and no loss or damage for the Claimant because of this
d) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's current signs.

Dontpay

More details:
County court letter received on 20th Oct
Acknowledgement sent last week (within 14 days)

Dontpay

Also can someone tell me what's Part-18 - it this same as defence ?

DoaM

Bumping this for others to see.

OP ... this is a busy forum. We're not ignoring you - it just takes time to get around to everyone.

Dontpay

DoaM - No problem. I understand. Many thanks.. will wait for people to review my defence and help me with some valuable comments

Coupon-mad

Dontpay wrote: »

Hi Guys,
I am totally new to forums and posting threads, But I badly need your help.

I work for xyz company near London. The company is on a Lease land for the last few years and have a very small parking space which had been unmonitored for quite few years. Recently UKPC got into the picture and they had added signboards in few areas. The car park has a gated entrance, so external people cannot enter the site.

I managed to speak to the security/receptionist on duty and parked my car inside for loading/unloading purpose.

Now I have got around 8 parking tickets and UKPC is charging me for around 1400 pounds. I have got a court claim and I had duly acknowledged the claim. Now I had to prepare my defence and I have been going through your forum ( thanks to all the contributors) and praying that I could get some support on preparing my defence. Please help.

Same advice as this thread, although I see you have started to look at other defences which is a good start:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5557575

Have you acknowledged the claim online on MCOL?

Have you read bargepole's summary of what to do when as it's not just a matter of bunging in a defence then fast-forward to the hearing. His advice is linked in the NEWBIES FAQs thread under 'small claim?'.

Is it true of all eight PCNs that the car was loading/unloading? If so, then you may be able to use the Jopson* Appeal case in your favour, I would suggest, with something like this added to your defence:


- The reason for this parking company's presence on this gated site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.

- The driver was allowed the right to load/unload by the leasehold business, relying on an express verbal agreement with the on duty security/reception staff.

- This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.

- Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC in June 2016 at Oxford County Court, in a similar case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES'.

- The right of the on site businesses to allow authorised vehicles to load/unload pre-dates the arrival of this Claimant and the Jopson Appeal case found that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract'.

- In any event, the signs make no offer to authorised visitors engaged in permitted loading/unloading for which no 'parking permit' was ever required (neither before the arrival of this Claimant onsite, nor after).







*Download it here to read the court judgment in full:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/213077149-Milton-Keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-[/COLOR]for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute

(It relates to a residential car park but has some application to your case too, I would say).

Dontpay

Many Thanks "Coupon-Mad"

Have you acknowledged the claim online on MCOL?

---- Yes I have acknowledged it on 30th Oct. Letter was issued on 20th Oct 2016.
And I believe I have another 2 days to submit my defence.

Is it true of all eight PCNs that the car was loading/unloading?

Parking tickets have been issued for "NOT parking within a marked Bay at the site" and "Parking in a designated "Permit Holder Parking Space". But I had parked mainly because i was loading/unloading.
FYI - I have also taken pictures of similar cars parked in the same area's.

Also the Parking Notice Board reads the following:
NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING
TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMINGS

This land is private property and parking control is managed by UKPC
Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicle's driver

a. Not displaying valid xyz-company's parking permits
b. Parking outside a marked bay
c. Obstructing other vehicles, machinery or equipment.

Dontpay

Also quick question:
I checked MCOL site online and found that Date of service of 28/10/2016.... whilst I received the letter dated 20th Oct, I thought the Date of service will be 5 days from 20th Oct.. which is 25th Oct. and thereby calculated my 28th day to be on 21st Nov... I am now confused about this 28 days calculation.
Should i take my Date of service as 25th Oct or 28th Oct ???

Dontpay

Updated Defence below along with Statement of Truth:

Defence:
1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question
2. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charge
3. The signage displayed clearly only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be bound by the contractual terms conveyed.
4. The car park has a security gate which can be opened only by authorised people. In this case, the car was parked inside the premise with permission from the security & reception staff for loading/Unloading heavy items during that time of incident.
5. The reason for this parking company's presence on this gated site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.
6. The driver was allowed the right to load/unload by the leasehold business, relying on an express verbal agreement with the on duty security/reception staff.
7. This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.
8. Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC in June 2016 at Oxford County Court, in a similar case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’.
9. The right of the on site businesses to allow authorised vehicles to load/unload pre-dates the arrival of this Claimant and the Jopson Appeal case found that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.
10. In any event, the signs make no offer to authorised visitors engaged in permitted loading/unloading for which no 'parking permit' was ever required (neither before the arrival of this Claimant onsite, nor after).
11. There is no clear mentioning of loading/unloading rules on the sign board. Photograph evidence of sign boards are available to be provided upon request.
12. Also there are no clear markings of Single/Double yellow lines in those loading/unloading areas. The double yellow line markings are unclear and rubbed off. There are photograph evidence to prove the same.
13. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Parking Control Ltd. The claimant is unable to re-offer a contract to park on more onerous terms that those already specified in the lease, which grants an easement/ right to park for everyone and an entitlement to peaceful enjoyment.
14. If there was a contract, it is denied that the penalty charge is incorporated into the contract. The leaseholders' lease is missing any reference to parking permit requirements and involvement of UKPC. And there is no evidence that the original lease contract and revised lease contract with specific details of UKPC’s role and involvement was shared with the defendant.
15. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £1400 (correct amount to be edited before submission) is an unenforceable penalty clause.
16. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £1400 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
17. UK Parking Control Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) UK Parking Control Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.
(ii) absent a contract 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 stand to bring this case.
(iii) UK Parking Control claim they have a contract with a management company that is not the land owner nor a verified company on companies house. The court is invited to consider whether UKPC is even aware of who their contract is with.
18. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:
a) As the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the locations in question
b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
c) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because a permission was obtained from the security staff for temporary loading/unloading and no loss or damage for the Claimant because of this
d) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's current signs.

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