UKPC/SCS LAW dragging me to court for parking and leaving site

Coupon-mad

hycene wrote: »

Yes the car park is for multiple stores, I guess...and I don't know the owner but will do a search on landowners site...

And how important is that information to me?
I thought UKPC contract with the landowner is the important thing.

TBH I would concentrate on a defence - it is too late to complain now IMHO. Put UKPC to 'strict proof' that the driver left the site and state that you have evidence (Bank Statement) that they didn't and that they were shopping in Aldi. Mention the Ibbotson case (there is a transcript hosted by the Parking Prankster.

UKPC will have no photo evidence of anyone leaving the site.

The signs do not define 'the site' nor show a boundary map either. And the signage is in pale, unreadable small print.

DO NOT talk about 'no loss' in your defence, steer well clear of it. And if you were the driver I'd probably say so seeing as you got a NTK and so it will have been served in time (and the wording is OK these days so I would forget the POFA, personally, and concentrate on being an honest defendant & witness driver who didn;t leave the site and will stand there and say so).

Have a look at all the other UKPC defences written this year, e.g. those listed here in Diego Fuego's thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71444083#Comment_71444083

HTH - a couple were lost but most defended here v UKPC were won or discontinued.

Redx

if all else fails in your owner research, pay the LAND REGISTRY a few quid to get the details (why people forget about the official government LAND REGISTRY is beyond me ?)

The_Deep

Aldi have not been on that site for all that long, The Range, Mothercare and the wine shop have been there much longer, as has TGIF. But the biggest resident used to be Courts.

The site adjoins the railway so this might be connected to GWR.

hycene

The_Deep wrote: »

Aldi have not been on that site for all that long, The Range, Mothercare and the wine shop have been there much longer, as has TGIF. But the biggest resident used to be Courts.

The site adjoins the railway so this might be connected to GWR.

What's GWR?

The_Deep

God's Wonderful Railway.

hycene

Redx wrote: »

if all else fails in your owner research, pay the LAND REGISTRY a few quid to get the details (why people forget about the official government LAND REGISTRY is beyond me ?)

Paid £3 on Land registry site and got this information about the owner,

Registered Owner(s) : AVIVA LIFE & PENSIONS UK LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 3253947) of Wellington Row, York YO90 1WR and care of Aviva Legal Services, PO Box 432, 6th Floor, Carrara Surrey Street, Norwich NR13PW.

Umkomaas

hycene wrote: »

What's GWR?

Google Will Reveal. :cool:

Coupon-mad

hycene wrote: »

Paid £3 on Land registry site and got this information about the owner,

Registered Owner(s) : AVIVA LIFE & PENSIONS UK LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 3253947) of Wellington Row, York YO90 1WR and care of Aviva Legal Services, PO Box 432, 6th Floor, Carrara Surrey Street, Norwich NR13PW.

OK so don't tip off UKPC that you know that. Keep that information in readiness for your Witness Statement and documents served shortly before the hearing in 2017.

You need to prepare your initial defence statement now (no documents or photos at this stage).

You will find in the examples UKPC defences (the ones I told you where to find the usernames for) that one standard defence point is always that there is no evidence of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner to UKPC, which grants UKPC any standing or right to form contracts in their own name or sue drivers who visit the shops.

hycene

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK so don't tip off UKPC that you know that. Keep that information in readiness for your Witness Statement and documents served shortly before the hearing in 2017.

You need to prepare your initial defence statement now (no documents or photos at this stage).

You will find in the examples UKPC defences (the ones I told you where to find the usernames for) that one standard defence point is always that there is no evidence of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner to UKPC, which grants UKPC any standing or right to form contracts in their own name or sue drivers who visit the shops.

Thanks for the comments, am currently preparing my defence n will post it for comments when it's ready

hycene

Coupon-mad wrote: »

TBH I would concentrate on a defence - it is too late to complain now IMHO. Put UKPC to 'strict proof' that the driver left the site and state that you have evidence (Bank Statement) that they didn't and that they were shopping in Aldi. Mention the Ibbotson case (there is a transcript hosted by the Parking Prankster.

UKPC will have no photo evidence of anyone leaving the site.

The signs do not define 'the site' nor show a boundary map either. And the signage is in pale, unreadable small print.

DO NOT talk about 'no loss' in your defence, steer well clear of it. And if you were the driver I'd probably say so seeing as you got a NTK and so it will have been served in time (and the wording is OK these days so I would forget the POFA, personally, and concentrate on being an honest defendant & witness driver who didn;t leave the site and will stand there and say so).

Have a look at all the other UKPC defences written this year, e.g. those listed here in Diego Fuego's thread:



HTH - a couple were lost but most defended here v UKPC were won or discontinued.

Thanks for the advice...