UKPC at University

iflossdaley

can anyone help?

Coupon-mad

I only had the comments I suggested.

Plus advice if you haven't yet read the other UKPC winning defences by Anthony94 and IndigoMondayToyota, to look them up to read through and make sure you've missed nothing.

And then re-read the NEWBIES thread post #2 about what happens next and how to do each stage of paperwork before the hearing.

iflossdaley

Thanks for getting back to me.

I acknowledged the service on the MCOL online website as advised.

I've read through both anthony94 and indigomondaytoyota. They were helpful.

Using their points and your advice, I have an revised defence which I will be sending to the northampton court address. I shall be getting a proof certificate to evidence that I have sent it aswell. Please look at my final defence before I send it:

1. a) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim as the signage is a ‘fordbidding offer’, which isn’t an offer at all, which means there can be no contract.
b) Not to mention, 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.
2. Brunel University, is the proper Claimant. Strict proof is required that shows there is a chain of contracts, unredacted enough to prove beyond doubt that they have landholder rights, granted from the existing occupier.
3. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
4. 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.

5. The provision is a penalty 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; the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and (c) the clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's signs.

6.(i) The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.!
(ii) The Claimant rejects any 'legal fee' per PCN which UKPC have randomly added, which is arbitrary and a penalty in itself.

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 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 ParkingEye v Beavis. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the none of the photos taken of my vehicle at the time the PCN's were issued were not similarly altered.

8. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis, as there is no commercial justification for a third party to recover a sum so disproportionate in the circumstances. The UKPC have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest', allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.!

9. If the driver/s on each occasion were considered to be trespassers if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

10. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.!

Therefore I ask the court to strike out this claim with immediate effect.

Ziggy1991

I am in a similar position mate and my University has refused to cooperate even though their staff did allow me to park the vehicle on the days that the panalties were issued. Absolute disgraceful institutions they are, that's all I can say.

Coupon-mad

Ziggy1991 wrote: »

I am in a similar position mate and my University has refused to cooperate even though their staff did allow me to park the vehicle on the days that the panalties were issued. Absolute disgraceful institutions they are, that's all I can say.

The disgrace is the fact this Country actively enables private parking firms to harass, fleece and then some even credit-clamp people with CCJs - worse than car clamping. MPs last week called them 'cowboys' but nothing is done and our data is handed over every day by the DVLA to greedy chancers.

iflossdaley

when you call them, they just pass you off to the UKPC and refuse to help

iflossdaley

I have received a direct questionnaire. Which I have completed using the **newbies thread.
I'm now waiting to be referred to a court so I can prepare my witness statement and any evidence I need to submit. on the **newbies on post #2 it states the points which we should include in our evidence. I'm going to use points, (a), (b),(d),(e) and (g), is there any more points i should include? or any information i should include in particular in my defence?

excuse all the question I'm a bit lost

Coupon-mad

Can you expand on what you mean, as I doubt people have time to compare your post to some numbered points in the NEWBIES thread (I can't recall which is which and I wrote it!).

iflossdaley

I've received a notice of allocation. Asking for my witness statement and any evidence I wish to rely on in court. I've read many threads and I'm still confused to what exactly should go in my witness statement, could anyone shed some light?

I have also included masterson and bull as examples of cases that have won when signage is 'forbidding'. I have included the Beavis case that states only the landowner can seek money for pre estimate of loss for trespassing, and there is no legal contract (supreme court ruling). I have also enclosed pictures of the UKPC signage and the Beavis signage to state how the Beavis case is different, as my case has inadequate signs to bind the keeper to a contract. Beavis case sign is clear with regards to fines, whereas the UKPC sign is extremely small and unclear. i've enclosed the Schedule 4 Freedom act 2012, that states parking companies can only seek £100 in parking charges. I have also included Henry greenslades statement that confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies.

Is there any other evidence I should submit to rely on in court?

iflossdaley

can anyone offer any help?