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

Redx

this thread was also about aviva too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5274163

might be some useful; info or contacts in there

hycene

BELOW IS MY DRAFT DEFENCE, PLEASE FEEL FEEL TO CRITIQUE IT AS U SEE FIT.

MY DRAFT DEFENCE

I am xxxxxxx defendant in this matter and deny any liability whatsoever for the entirety of the claim.

Not having been to court before I responded to the court summons online saying I would defend my case.
It was not cost effective to employ a solicitor in this case, so I have arranged this defence myself, please excuse me if I fail to use the correct legal terms.
1. I deny the claim for the following reasons: -

i. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.

ii. The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the motorist.

iii. The signs do not define 'the site' nor show a boundary map either. And the signage is in pale, unreadable small print.
Hence, the signage did not offer a genuine contract with the motorist.

iiii. Even if a contract could be formed, it would be void as in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

v. The Claimant has no Cause of Action.

vi. Even if a debt existed, it would be due to the land-owner, not the Claimant

Due to any combination of the above points, the Claimant has no case and the Defendant invites the Court to strike the matter out.


2. The Claimant manages the car park. The Claimant is not therefore the Land-owner. Neither has it claimed to be an Agent. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that it is merely a contractor. The Claimant has not therefore explained what authority it has to bring the claim. The proper claimant is the landowner.

3. A contract is absent 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, the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

4. The signs do not define 'The Site' nor show a boundary map either. And the signage is in pale, unreadable small print and are located at a distance, unlit and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The signs do not comply with BPA Code of Practice.
5. Due to the length of time, the defendant has no recollection of the days in question. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the “Defendant left the premises” and that the correct signs existed at the time, defining the boundaries of retail space. In due course I, will submit that the court considers “VCS Vs Ibbotson” to be relevant here and is entirely applicable to the instant matter.

6. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the sign that the most onerous term – the £100 parking charge notice – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule”.

7. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the claimant says they did.

8. The close up look of a sign from the location contains a charge for £100 only. Therefore, there is no evidence of any sign creating a contract to pay £160 for any contraventions as claimed.

9. 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 Parking Eye v Beavis. The Claimant is put to proof that the photographic evidence it has is accurate and true and that any and all previous correspondence has been sent to the Defendant as claimed.

10. The POFA restricts liability to the sum of the parking charge itself and the BPA Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs - and they are put to strict proof that they have incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance.

11. The Particulars of Claim submitted by the Claimant is not compliant with the Practice Directions. The Claimant has not attached the contract(s) it wishes to rely on that it alleges were in place at the time. The Claimant has not clarified whether it is seeking keeper liability and has not attached any confirmation that is has gone through the necessary steps to do so. The Claimant has not clarified if there are any amounts claimed over and above the initial charge and on what basis they are being claimed.

12. The Defendant is aware that the Claimant relies on Parking Eye v Beavis. The Defendant submits that the present case can be distinguished for two reasons:

• It was established that Parking Eye paid a premium of £1000 per week to operate at the site. This was ruled to give them standing as Principal. In the present case they are acting as a contractor to the land-owner
• In the Beavis case there was also a clear chain of command between the land-owner and Parking Eye established by the production of original copies of the contracts

If the Claimant wishes to rely on Beavis, the Defendant is put to proof that such a contract exists and of its content.

Also the Claimant has claimed that “Parking Eye v Beavis” confirms that any amount will be recoverable provided it is proportionate to a legitimate interest” which is not true. The Beavis case found that the sum of £85 in that case alone, with the signage and adequate notice in that case, was not a penalty.


13. This case can be easily distinguished from Parking Eye 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.


15. Additionally, It is worth pointing out that Mr Beavis was only required to pay £85, the sum on the PCN and signs and no more. To add extra costs is contrary to the CPR and against the POFA Schedule 4.

16. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant is a disreputable company that has recently been investigated by the DVLA for alleged fraud and certain breaches of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice (Exhibit …) in altering times on photos to make profits from drivers who had not contravened at all. The Claimant has had to refund those which were discovered to be false as part of that investigation and were lucky to remain in the BPA. That company’s activities were also reported in several national papers one being The Telegraph (11th September 2015)
17. The claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertion.
18. In the above circumstances I respectfully asked that the court dismiss the claims.


DEFENDANT DECLARATION
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence statement are true.

Signed by the Defendant

Coupon-mad

Looks OK - covers the bases - but I couldn't see anything that says the occupants of the car were shopping and have a Bank Statement to prove it which will be shown in evidence once allocated to their local court.

hycene

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks OK - covers the bases - but I couldn't see anything that says the occupants of the car were shopping and have a Bank Statement to prove it which will be shown in evidence once allocated to their local court.

Thanks, and that's supposed to be my main defence point.

The_Deep

Have you considered a counter claim for unreasonable behaviour or asking the judge for CPR27.14(2)(g)?

It is unreasonable imo for a PPC to take court action once a double dipping defence is on the table.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27