PCN in Poole, UK CPM, DRP Ltd, Gladstones, County Court Papers received

System

The shop may think the area in front is theirs but they would have to prove it.

Perhaps the sign is to control parking within the shop

Brain$torm

Just downloaded the land register plan, the whole building/freehold is owned by private owners, the shop and forecourt in question are on a 12 year lease.

Should I try to find who the lease holder is?

Brain$torm

Can I make an arguement that the owner of the freehold, and not the lease holder of the shop and forecourt needs to have an agreement with UKCPM??

Coupon-mad

No because leasehold title is property ownership too.

So when the shop door is open or someone walks in or out, the sign isn't visible (not that it is in any way prominent anyway).

But did you park on the road or on the forecourt? Even on the forecourt, ticketing remains a matter for the Local Authority by the looks of that street:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232506/Why-10-000-battle-wardens-inspire-unite-parking-FASCISTS.html

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13719918.Business_owners_fined_for_parking_on_their_own_private_property/

Email the Council parking 'team' and ask them if they send CEOs to ticket cars under the TMA 2004 in that street; ask if it is within a Council Traffic Order and ask for a link to it.

HTH

Brain$torm

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No because leasehold title is property ownership too.

So when the shop door is open or someone walks in or out, the sign isn't visible (not that it is in any way prominent anyway).

But did you park on the road or on the forecourt? Even on the forecourt, ticketing remains a matter for the Local Authority by the looks of that street:


Email the Council parking 'team' and ask them if they send CEOs to ticket cars under the TMA 2004 in that street; ask if it is within a Council Traffic Order and ask for a link to it.

HTH

I've emailed the council and have received the following response:

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your e-mail received on 26th November 2016.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I can confirm that the Council does enforce Ashley Road in Parkstone under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and that therefore the restrictions have a Traffic Regulation Order. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I am about to email them back to say that I'm interested in the area where the shop is. I'll keep you posted.

Thanks again
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Sounds like this PPC need reporting to the DVLA for ticketing with a very dodgy hidden sign, on Council-enforced public highway! A traffic order covers the entire road including pavement (as shown in the links, double yellows apply from property building/fence/wall across to the other one opposite). It's not private land IMHO.

Very naughty indeed.

Also the hidden sign is in no way compliant with the IPC code of practice, as well as the predatory tactics being prohibited under the code.

Brain$torm

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sounds like this PPC need reporting to the DVLA for ticketing with a very dodgy hidden sign, on Council-enforced public highway! A traffic order covers the entire road including pavement (as shown in the links, double yellows apply from property building/fence/wall across to the other one opposite). It's not private land IMHO.

Very naughty indeed.

Also the hidden sign is in no way compliant with the IPC code of practice, as well as the predatory tactics being prohibited under the code.

I'm guessing that I should put this at the very top of the dfence statement?

It is the only shop on the road with a sign in it, pretty obvious that they are on the take then.

I haven't started the defence yet, but I have an idea what the contents will be.

I have taken lots of pictures of the shop and sign .


So what's my next step in regards to the Traffic Management Zone??......basically it isn't 'Private Property' and the owner / parking company has no right to issue tickets / charge people whatsoever

Coupon-mad

this PPC need reporting to the DVLA

Next step already given to you. This is serious, they can't ticket on non-private land and they can't hide a sign on the bottom of a door on a public highway:

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

...and show us the draft defence, you have loads of others to look at and base it on plus specifics as discussed.

Brain$torm

Email to DVLA sent, now working on statement.

Brain$torm

Here's the first draft of the Defence Statement, there are a few typos and formatting issues, but I haven't gone through it properly yet. Not sure if I need the bit about the driver not being identified, as there will be a witness statement conforming what exactly happened.


Please let me know what you think.............thanks


Preliminary matters.
1. The claimant doesn’t have the right to issue parking tickets on the land in question, as it isn’t ‘private property.’ Borough of Poole enforce Ashley Road under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and that therefore the restrictions have a Traffic Regulation Order. Ashley Road is deemed a Public Highway under the Highways Act 1980, including the forecourt in question, and comes under the authority of the local council. The claimant has been reported to the DVLA regarding this matter.
1.1. in Dawood vs Camden Council 2009, the judge ruled that Dawood owned the subsoil marked on the deeds, but the Tarmac surface above was subject to public access, and as there was no physical barrier between the road and the Tarmac strip, parking restrictions controlled by the council did apply. The same ruling was made in White v City of Westminster 2000.

2. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says
2.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

3. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.
Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

3.1 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed’ £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

Statement of Defence

I, the defendant, XXXXXXXXXXX, deny all liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:
1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage.

3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

e) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing
due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and
‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f) On the 19th Audust 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed
to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

4. UK Car Park Management Limited are not 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 rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to prove that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. 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 right to bring action regarding this claim.

5. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the PCN charge climbed from £100 to £150, £160.96 including interest. £50 ‘solicitor’s costs’ and £25 ‘court issue fee’, £25 ‘judgment costs’, £100 ‘warrant issue fee’, £2.25 ‘solicitor’s costs for issuing warrant’ have also been added to the claim. The claimant's solicitor should be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims court. I have the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid, and due to the sparse particulars, the £25 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred.

This appears to be an added cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

a) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

6. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist

a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, surrounded by other signs, making it difficult to read.

e) The sign is in a ‘predatory’ position at the bottom of the shop door, not at eye level, making it hard to see, it is also facing inwards every time the shop door is opened. Predatory tactics are a breach of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an IPC breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
c) The sign mentions a permit, but does not contain an obligation as to how to validly display the permit, or what kind of permit is required, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
d) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

Please see enclosed images of the sign and premises to support the above points.

7. Predatory tactics were used

a). A shop worker wearing plain clothes, not a claimant employee, sneaked out of the shop at 234 Ashley Road, took a photo of my car with his own camera, and sent the image off to the claimant. The sign itself is hidden, in a predatory position. Predatory tactics are a breach of the IPC’s Code of Practice

8. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

9. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

10. £100 is not a conscionable or fair charge for approximately 20 minutes of parking.

11.

(a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £49 to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged
'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
d) Not withstanding, the Defendant's belief is that the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

12.
The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details,
facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there
any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty
rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant
withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.
Please see enclosed image of sign from the Beavis case.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.