UKCPS & Court Summons

Coupon-mad

Who are you kidding, that's not half bad so far! I will throw in a few suggestions:

The signage does not contain an obligation nor offer any parking contract for employees and this was not even part of the 'customer car park bays' referred to in the wordy signage [STRIKE]as to how to “validly display” the ticket in the windscreen,[/STRIKE] therefore there was no breach of any “relevant obligation” or “relevant contract” as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.

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 there was any agreed contract with UKCPS, whose parking restrictions related to customers only.
b. The defendant relies upon the original grant of parking rights from the employer, confirmed by management in minutes of a meeting about this harassment - a meeting where I was present, as was the parking attendant.
c. The defendant puts this claimant to strict proof of their right (if any) to charge employees legitimately parked in the service area under authority of the tenant company, who have primacy of contract.
d. The defendant expects this claimant to file a statement of truth from the employee who attended the meeting with my Manager and myself, confirming what was discussed at that meeting and the promises made. [STRIKE]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.[/STRIKE]

a. The Defendant relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppels, in this regard.

...and the above should read 'estoppel' - not pluralised.

I think you also need to refer to the fact that UKCPS's signage has previously been found by county courts to be woefully inadequate, cluttered and incapable of binding a consumer driver, let alone an authorised employee of the tenant company on site, and has not improved which suggests their intent is really for drivers to receive a PCN:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/ukcps-claim-dismissed-judge-rules_14.html

I see the PCN was dated August 2016, so I would also add another knife and twist it, by putting UKCPS to strict proof to declare in front of the court the reason for their firm's sanction for a significant breach, i.e. the fact that UKCPS were banned by the DVLA just weeks after this PCN was issued, as the defendant has legitimate concerns having read the IPC Code of Practice and KADOE (DVLA) rules that this PCN was one where the IPC and/or KADOE rules were not followed:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/dvla-audit-report-on-ukcps.html

christopher1995

Thank you Coupon-mad for your comments, I will add these to my Defence and in the meantime read up on the links with parking-prankster. I was afraid my defence would not be up to scratch but your support has given me the enthusiasm and confidence I needed, thank you so much your a star.

henrik777

christopher1995 wrote: »

Thank you Coupon-mad for your comments, I will add these to my Defence and in the meantime read up on the links with parking-prankster. I was afraid my defence would not be up to scratch but your support has given me the enthusiasm and confidence I needed, thank you so much your a star.

UKPC lost a 9 ticket case today "Claim dismissed. In short, not a contract but a prohibition therefore I win!"

Their evidence was also tosh but i'm waiting for a fuller report :cool:

christopher1995

Would be interested what the report has to say. UKCPS say they manage the sites, complete rubbish they are there for nothing more than financial gain, never seen them doing anything else but put stickers on cars, if that's managing I'll eat my hat.

Redx

nb:-

UKPC is a different company than UKCPS

christopher1995

My mistake, noticed this after I submitted, apology.

christopher1995

I think you also need to refer to the fact that UKCPS's signage has previously been found by county courts to be woefully inadequate, cluttered and incapable of binding a consumer driver, let alone an authorised employee of the tenant company on site, and has not improved which suggests their intent is really for drivers to receive a PCN:

I see the PCN was dated August 2016, so I would also add another knife and twist it, by putting UKCPS to strict proof to declare in front of the court the reason for their firm's sanction for a significant breach, i.e. the fact that UKCPS were banned by the DVLA just weeks after this PCN was issued, as the defendant has legitimate concerns having read the IPC Code of Practice and KADOE (DVLA) rules that this PCN was one where the IPC and/or KADOE rules were not followed:

Coupon-mad would I need to add case references to these, and would I need to get copies for my witness statements and for the courts? or is it okay just to add these details into my Defence. Many Thanks

Coupon-mad

In the defence you just mention the above, then gather the evidence (even printed out blogs by the Parking Prankster) plus anything online to prove UKCPS' recent DVLA ban. That then gets submitted with your Witness Statement later.

In fact I would build that evidence in two ways if I were you:

(a) Send a part 18 request asking UKCPS for all photos take on that day and for their explanation as to why they were banned by the DVLA weeks later, because you wish to cross examine them on this point at a hearing to establish how the reason for the ban relates to this case, since you suspect it may be relevant.

(b) submit an FOI on 'WhatDoTheyKnow' to the DVLA asking why UKCPS (make sure you get their name right) were banned between Oct 2016 and December 2016 and ask specifically for the DVLA's reply to include copies of any minutes of meetings and/or all communications of any sort, to and from the DVLA, with the IPC or UKCPS about these breach(es). To include copies of all audits and all investigations leading up to the decision to ban them, including which specific car parks were affected if it was a localised issue, or alternatively, was it a universal breach? And specifically, what were these breaches.

christopher1995

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

In The County Court Business Centre

Claim No: XXXXXXXX

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

The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the 11th August 2016.
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 for a customer during a peak time of business, specifically summer school holidays which this was 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, additionally UKCPS’s signage has previously been found by County Courts to be woefully inadequate, cluttered and incapable of binding a consumer driver, let alone an authorised employee of the tenant company on site, and has not improved which suggest their intent is really for drivers to receive a PCN.
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 nor offer any parking contract for employees and this was not even part of the “customer car park bays” referred to in the wordy signage 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 there was any agreed contract with UKCPS, whose parking restrictions related to customers only.
b. The Defendant relies upon the original grant of parking rights from the employer, confirmed by management in minutes of meeting about this harassment – a meeting where I was present, as was the parking attendant.
c. The Defendant puts this Claimant to strict proof of their right (if any) to charge employees legitimately parked in the service area under authority of the tenant company, who have primacy of contract.
d. The Defendant expects this Claimant to file a statement of truth from the employee who attended the meeting with my Manager and myself, confirming what was discussed at that meeting and the promises made.

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.
e. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
f. 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 the PCN on the vehicle in the first place being a permit holder”.
a. The Defendant relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, in this regard.

11. I put UKCPS to strict proof to declare in front of the court the reason for their firm’s sanction for a significant breach, i.e. the fact that UKCPS were banned by the DVLA just weeks after this PCN was issued, as the defendant has legitimate concerns having read the IPC Code of Practice and KADOE (DVLA) rules that this PCN was one where the IPC and/or KADOE rules were not followed.

Statement of Truth:

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

Do you think this is good to go, only got till Friday for it to be received by the court, and do you think I should send it via post or MCOL online? Have made the alterations Coupon-mad, and thank you for those.

Redx

BARGEPOLE tells you what to do , although I would email it as a pdf attachment once approved and phone the court and ensure they add it to the file (as well as posting it)

I wouldnt use the online portal as it messes up the formatting apparently