UKCPS & Court Summons

christopher1995

Hi Guys and Gals, I need some urgent information regarding County Court proceedings which are being taken against me by UKCPS. I have completed the necessary response at MCOL (Money Claim Online) as you can see below.
A claim was issued against you on 03/04/2017
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 05/04/2017 at 20:50:07
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 06/04/2017 at 08:02:56

I have informed the Court that I wish to defend the claim and now seek your assistance. The claim by UKCPS states:
Claim against "Name" for outstanding outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle "Reg" on land named Centertainment Sheffield. This land is managed by UKCPS Ltd and vehicles parked at the site are subject to parking restrictions which are set out on signs at the site and form a contract between the driver of the vehicle and UKCPS Ltd. Mr "Name" or the driver parked the vehicle on 11th august 2016 at 14.41 hrs OUT OF MARKED BAY or the keeper who may have been the driver or alternatively has chosen not to name the driver and therefore is responsible for payment as required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. By parking on this land the driver contractually agrees to pay a charge of £100. The amount remains unpaid and stands at £100, plus additional £25 incurred in collection fees whereby £25 becomes a commercially justifiable figure.

I work at Cineworld, which is located at Centertainment Sheffield, I have a car permit which allows me I have been told to park in loading bays to the rear of the cinema when no other normal parking bays are available, or at the security office parking. On the day in question a PCN was placed on my vehicle whilst I was parked at the rear of the cinema in one of these loading bays, a manager of the cinema (who has now left) came to advise me that he had questioned the ticket officer why had this been done as he informed him that I had permission to park there, the manager informed me that the ticket officer took no notice of him but still placed the PCN on the car.
I contacted UKCPS by letter explaining all of the above it was not intended as a appeal but they took it as it was and told me it was out of time and PCN would stand. Unfortunately the letter I sent them even though I saved it on my computer, my computer crashed and I lost the letter albeit UKCPS responded to it.
My main questions I suppose is:
1. do you think they have a valid claim.
2. Can I request photographs from UKCPS relating to the PCN
3. Do you think they will provide me, and am I able to ask for a copy of my letter I sent to them from which they responded.
Sorry this long winded but I don't know where to turn, and your help would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

I work at Cineworld, which is located at Centertainment Sheffield, I have a car permit which allows me I have been told to park in loading bays to the rear of the cinema when no other normal parking bays are available, or at the security office parking. On the day in question a PCN was placed on my vehicle whilst I was parked at the rear of the cinema in one of these loading bays, a manager of the cinema (who has now left) came to advise me that he had questioned the ticket officer why had this been done as he informed him that I had permission to park there, the manager informed me that the ticket officer took no notice of him but still placed the PCN on the car.

To win this or make them discontinue, you will need to either prove the above (can you get an email from a Manager?) or establish at a hearing beyond reasonable doubt that you are truthful. Evidence is best.

My main questions I suppose is:

1. do you think they have a valid claim. No, but they will try till you make it obvious, or win!

2. Can I request photographs from UKCPS relating to the PCN.
Yes, but they never supply and email and DO NOT phone them! So you would need to write a letter (get free proof of posting from the PO Counter, do NOT send 'signed for') asking for the photos, in order to make an informed decision - and you could then combine that letter by explaining your stance and asserting that you will bring evidence to any hearing and will not be offering them a penny for parking where authorised to do so.

3. Do you think they will provide me, and am I able to ask for a copy of my letter I sent to them from which they responded. They have to provide all of that before the hearing anyway, so whether or not they reply with photos, you will see them before the hearing.

Most important step is the defence. Read others linked in the NEWBIES thread and show us your draft. I wouldn't try to argue you were not the driver, I would go with the fact you are an employee perfectly entitled to park there (and prove it).

christopher1995

Thank you so much, I will take on board what you have said and post again real soon.

christopher1995

Hi, thank you for your previous comments, just a quick question is their any examples or links regarding the structure of my defence response, I have no idea how to draft this. Many Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes, as I said:

Most important step is the defence. Read others linked in the NEWBIES thread (post #2) all about defences...

And/or use the search facility for the word 'defence' with the parking firm/solicitor's name as keywords. The forum is like an iceberg with most info under the surface.

Guys_Dad

The wording on the sign may be crucial. You say you were advised that you could park there and had permission, but did the person who told you this have authority to do so. Was the loading bay solely used by the cinema? What does the sign say about parking with permission?

Certainly having a witness statement will help you, but if the PPC can show that the land in question was not in the cinema's control but actually part of the multiples entertainment centre, then it is unlikely that your main plank is strong enough.

christopher1995

Hi,

My defence is due by the 6/5/2017 so starting to get a bit wobbly, I have tried to find some examples of previous Court decisions relating to my personal case and seem to be coming up empty handed, I've started my draft defence but it seem's a bit limited, focusing mainly that the signage was for Customers and being an employee was not applicable to me, as well as having a permit.
It has taken me some time to come back on here as I've been quite ill so this has had to take second place, but the days keep going by. Also I had a meeting with my manager who in turn rang the security office and requested one of the ticket attendants be in attendance and Lo and behold it was the same ticket attendant who put the ticket on my car.
I asked him why he had put the ticket on the car his response was " was permit displayed, was you car on yellow lines, was your car on the grass etc, I said no it was parked in the loading bay at the rear of the cinema, he could not understand why he had given me the ticket.
As I say I would be grateful for any information anyone may have who has received a PCN under the same circumstances and offered a defence against it, or knows of any previous court decisions I can include in my defence. I will shortly post my defence and hope that someone will take a look and advise me on any alterations or additions they feel I should add.

Coupon-mad

Try searching the forum for 'defence promissory estoppel' using search 'this board' (not the entire MSE) and then go advanced and choose 'show posts' (NOT show threads).

We have had a few recently where the person relied on a promise that they could park, which in law is a defence. You will find those examples have more than just that point in them and you can copy from that style (only read 2016/2017 examples).

Next time, record what they guy says...how about seeking him out for a chat again, carrying your phone set to record...it would have really helped your evidence for the defence if you'd recorded that meeting and what the employee said to your Manager. What a wasted opportunity!

christopher1995

Thank you Coupon-mad your assistance is very much appreciated.
To be honest I had thought about recording the meeting but also thought that recordings without the permission of the other parties was illegal. However the manager will be witnessing and signing the minutes of the meeting along with myself, however the ticket attendant would not.
Further to this a few days later the attendant came back and told me he had spoken to the area manager to have the ticket canceled, the area manager said he would have to check how far the PCN had got, he also told me that the area manager requested I contact by phone UKCPS office (which I have not done nor will I) to see if an arrangement could be made. In all honesty they know they should not have placed the ticket on the car in the first place, the ticket attendant started waffling saying it wasn't really about "parked out of a marked bay" but that my permit was old and the new ones had laminate over them, I explained that the this was because at the time a transition between the new and old permits was taking place and sufficient new permits had not been provided by security for all employee drivers, but was still a valid permit. He couldn't answer the question that if he felt the ticket was not valid then why hadn't he tick the box on the PCN stating "Without a valid permit/ticket or authority". All this conversation was again witnessed by a Cineworld Security Officer and Cineworld attendant, who have both offered witness statements relating to this conversation.
Anyway can put this in my witness statements at a later date, Defence crucial now. Thanks again for your help.

Coupon-mad

he also told me that the area manager requested I contact by phone UKCPS office (which I have not done nor will I) to see if an arrangement could be made.

LOL - no thanks!

It is not illegal to record a conversation. Record him next time, get him talking again.

christopher1995

Well here goes my first ever defence, I understand there is probably lots of holes in this and your help, advice and opinion would be gratefully received. Coupon - Mad I will still try and get a verbal recording from the Ticket Attendant if possible, but after the second conversation with him it is unlikely he will want to talk to me again. I'm not very gifted when it comes to letter writing or things of this nature so please be gentle with me


STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

In The County Court Business Centre

Claim No: XXXXXXX

UKCPS Ltd
1200 Century Way, Thorpe Park Business Park, Colton, LS15 8ZA
V
XXXXXXXXXXX

The Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number xxxxxxx.
The defendant denies the Claim in its entirety, asserts that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount.
As an unrepresented litigant in person, I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimants case.

1. The Claim states that, “a parking charge was issued (OUT OF MARKED BAY) to a vehicle with registration number xxxxxxx on land named CENTERTAINMENT SHEFFIELD. This land is managed by the claimant UKCPS Ltd and vehicles parked at the site are subject to parking restrictions which are set out on signs at the site and form a contract between the driver of the vehicle and UKCPS Ltd.

2. The Defendant disputes the relevance and legitimacy of the said contract in this case due to the particulars of the signage in which the Claimant refers “CUSTOMER CAR PARK” and “PERMITS MUST BE DISPLAYED” for the following reasons:
a. I am an Employee at Cineworld, Centertainment, I was working on the day in question, I was neither a Customer or Visitor, there is no signage information relating to how or where an employee is or is not allowed to park, so no contract was ever agreed if a contract ever existed, or subject to the “Terms or Conditions” of said contract. The English dictionary defines a customer as “A person who buys goods or services from a shop or business”.
b. I am a permit holder and was parked within the confines of a marked bay in this case the Cineworld service bay The building is owned by Cineworld and the service bay is for the sole use of said company, authorisation was granted by my employer to park in this bay.
c. No loss occurred to either the Landowner or its Agent as a result of where the vehicle was parked, it caused no obstruction to other drivers or pedestrians but allowed the addition of a further parking bay during a peak time of business, resulting in additional income to other businesses.
d. The defendant asserts that failure to provide adequate signage for employees specifically indicating any “Parking Restrictions” or “Terms of Conditions” cannot form any contractual agreement.

3. 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, making it difficult to read.
b. The signs fail because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for; this is an ICO breach and contrary to the code of practice.
c. The signage does not contain an obligation as to how to “validly display” the ticket in the windscreen, 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 of 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.
e. The Claimants signage states they are members of the British Motoring Association (BPA) however I can find no evidence of this on the BPA websites “Approved Operators Scheme” (AOS), so the signage is either out of date or incorrect.

4. No Standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case, UKCPS Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have 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 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 proof 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 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. BPA Cop breaches – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis Case:
a. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting, or positioning.
b. The sum pursued exceeds £100.
c. There is/was no compliant Landowner contract.

6. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on 10th April 2017 requesting the following information:
a. Full particulars of the parking charges.
b. Who the party was that contracted with UKCPS Ltd.
c. The full legal identity of the Landowner.
d. A full copy of the contract with the landowner that demonstrated that UKCPS Ltd had their authority.
e. If their charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
f. If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and if so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this “service”.
g. To provide a copy of the signs that UKCPS Ltd can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
h. Requesting the return of my original or a copy of my letter to UKCPS Ltd in which I explained the full details relating to the alleged offence and asking the reasoning of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on this basis.
The Claimant has not responded. Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant, is against SRA code.

7. The driver did not enter into any “agreement on the charge” no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
a. 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.

8. a. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like Bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25 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 the air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
c. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.

9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum of £100 has been calculated, or the conduct that gave rise to it. The only breakdown of additional costs by UKCPS (should further action be taken) is to form a scaremongering threat in their belief this will force the owner/driver to pay.
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.

10. The Defendant upon receipt of the PCN sought advice from both his Employer and the site Security Office (of which UKCPS Ltd ticket attendants use) to find out why the PCN had been placed on the vehicle, my employer told me “not to worry as they had given permission for me to use this area”, the security office staff informed me “that because it was on private land UKCPS Ltd could do nothing about it, so disregard it and any letters sent from them and that it would just go away” they also informed me that “it was possible a new ticket attendant had probably not realised the mistake of putting a PCN on a vehicle with a permit”.
a. The Defendant relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppels, in this regard.


Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.