UKPC at University

iflossdaley

I have seen other people from university beat cases against UKPC. However I have not received a county court letter. They have just sent me a letter before court action from the solicitor service representing them, asking £1000 for 6 tickets or they will take legal action. I haven't accepted liability for the parking but I also told them that their signage forbidding and i wouldnt be able liable to pay it. They then sent me transcripts from july 1st 2016 from the somduth peenith case, where circumstances were similar and UKPC won. I offered £350 without prejudice to cost and but didn't accept liability for being the driver or parking there, but I wanted avoid going to court. They declined the offer and asked for £860 to settle by 3/3/17. I have yet to respond as i cannot pay it and dont know what to do
do you have any advice?

(correct me if I'm using this thread wrong, I've never used it before)

Coupon-mad

You are in the right place.

Read the section headed 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES thread which is at/near the top of this forum board where you clicked 'new thread'.

Acknowledge the claim online using MCOL first, as explained there, and read the advice & links. You need to do that first to understand what to do when.

iflossdaley

Thanks for the reply. I've read the thread but i'm struggling to make sense of it all. What is MCOL and what should I do next? Please shed some light on this for me

Coupon-mad

What, you missed post #2 of the NEWBIES thread about the acronyms? Why do I bother, I wonder. With the best will in the World, I (and anyone else) want to help a trier but we will not re-write or re-explain what's already in the sticky thread, which was created to save us from case by case basic questions we would otherwise drown in.

We will help when you show us your defence, which you will have gleaned from others.

There is also another UKPC thread about a claim here today as well, asking the same questions, yet newbies founder and rarely seem to have searched the forum for the obvious search terms: 'UKPC defence' and read bobby2k2's thread, or Anthony94's thread, or IndigoMondayToyota's thread, or anything similar that really, on a forum, is your best bet.

Search the forum, read other UKPC cases won, see their defences. Read the NEWBIES thread properly, not on phone.

Show us your defence and tell us you have done the AOS on MCOL.

Half_way

a little bit of information would be of use:
Why did you get a ticket In the first place?
student?
staff?
visitor?
other?

iflossdaley

I apologise, for no articulating myself better.

I understand that it is money claim online. However I am confused about what to do on the money claim online website.

I have previously said the firm have been unreasonable and I have asked for evidence, photos, a copy of the signage terms, a copy of the paperwork. Which they had sent to me before I offered a settlement prejudice to cost

iflossdaley

Student parking without a permit

iflossdaley

After reading your thread I have drafted the following response as I now understand clearer:

Thank you for your letter email on the 22nd of February 2016

1) This claim is being brought against the registered keeper of the vehicle, alleged by the Claimant, UK Parking Control Limited (UKPC), to be liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and all of its strict provisions having been met. The Claimant is bringing this claim on the basis that a driver of the vehicle has entered into a contract to pay that amount. I will not pay the astronomical settlement due to these reasons.

2) No contract could have been formed with a driver. The signage at the site is unclear and any term requiring payment of £100 or any additional amount is illegible (see UKPC's own photos). The sign in question is forbidding in nature and cannot form a contract in this case. As explained by Deputy District Judge Ellington in a recent case (B6QZ4H3R) brought by the same Claimant based on a sign displaying the same wording, "the signage displayed clearly only made an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders could be bound by the contractual terms conveyed". He went on to conclude that "Any remedy for parking without a permit could only lie with the freeholder, under a tort of trespass. But that wasn't being claimed here, and as the present claimant has no cause of action, the claim is dismissed." (as previously mentioned)

3) The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter in order for it to agree with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct Protocols. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –!

a. if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated
b. list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;!
c. set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;!

4) The provisions of POFA have not been satisfied as no contract with the driver could have been formed.

5) Alternatively, if there was a contract then the provision is an unenforceable penalty clause 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 on the site in question;
b. the amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;

6) The Claimant has made reference in it's communication to the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case), which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. This case can be distinguished from 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 British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice 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.

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 and sanctioned by the BPA for falsifying 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.

8) This case can be further distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis as UKPC LTD have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

9) The provisions of POFA have not been met as it specifies that maximum amount which could, subject to all other conditions being satisfied, be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified on the Notice to Keeper. The Defendant therefore cannot have any liability for the Claimant's additional charges. Notwithstanding that the Claimant cannot recover them, the Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred additional costs of £60 for each parking notice. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have actually incurred the costs and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of a contract in the first instance.

10) As the provisions of POFA have not been satisfied for the aforementioned reasons, no keeper liability exists and the Defendant cannot be liable.!

I confirm that I shall then seek advice and submit a formal Response within 30 days of receipt, as required by the Practice Direction.

Please note, a refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013.!

I trust this will not be necessary, and look forward to receiving a fully compliant letter that covers the areas listed above that were not compliant with the Practice Direction in due course.

Yours faithfully

Is this a reasonable second response to the high settlement cost?

I am also still confused about what to do on MCOL

Coupon-mad

I am also still confused about what to do on MCOL

Doesn't bargepole's thread about what to do when in the court process, how to fill the forms in, what boxes to tick, assist? Linked under 'Small claim?' in the NEWBIES thread.

Half_way

have you engaged with the University over this at any point? despite why they say is not to late to get a landowner cancellation, or at least get then to state they don't want this being pursued through the courts using valuable court time up

iflossdaley

i've tried but they said to contact UKPC