UKCPS - County Court

cjg88

Good Evening Everyone,

I have been issued with county court claims for the vehicle that I own for a parking violation in Anchor Retail Park, Hartlepool.

I have not entered into any conversation with UKCPS, and have only just received the letter for county court on return for holiday, the county court issue date is 15 May 2017 and i haven responded as of yet.

The offence was parking in a disabled bay without a valid badge displayed, if you can offer any guidance on this issue and if there is any possibility of limiting the charges I would be grateful.

I have done some research from other topics on this forum and have drafted an appeal letter. I am just looking for guidance and anything I may have missed or anything i shouldn't use.

Thanks guys

****REMOVED DRAFT SEE BELOW FOR NEWEST ****

waamo

Did you know they are probably being wound up on Monday?

Coupon-mad

First things first, if this is a court claim the first thing to do is acknowledge it using MCOL, as shown in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQS thread. And the defence is certainly not headed up 'appeal' (again, defences and the headings for them, are set out in that same post #2 in the NEWBIES thread).

waamo wrote: »

Did you know they are probably being wound up on Monday?

UKCPS aren't? And UKPC (different firm) are only facing an 'application'.

waamo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

First things first, if this is a court claim the first thing to do is acknowledge it using MCOL, as shown in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQS thread. And the defence is certainly not headed up 'appeal' (again, defences and the headings for them, are set out in that same post #2 in the NEWBIES thread).



UKCPS aren't? And UKPC (different firm) are only facing an 'application'.

Sorry got mixed up. Why do they all use anagrams of each other's initials?:o

cjg88

Im going to acknowledge it tomorrow using MCOL when I have more time to, I am just getting my defence started now over the weekend. It was an error on my part naming it as APPEAL instead of DEFENCE. thanks for pointing it out

Coupon-mad

I think point #13 can be deleted as it is incorporated/repeated in #14 anyway.

If you are saying the NTK was non-POFA (which I only saw at the end) I would have this higher up.

And if the keeper defendant was either not the driver (100% sure) or in the alternative, not shown to be the driver by the claimant, and the car could have been driven by another driver under the insurance (or indeed, under any driver's own fully-comp insurance) then say so clearly and put them to strict proof of liability under the POFA or with evidence of who was driving.

cjg88

I have removed (13)

Would they have to prove that the NTK was POFA compliant as i haven't got the notices that they sent?

Also I was not the driver when the PCN was issued.

I have added viii) to 1:

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number XXXXXXXXX
Between: UKCPS LTD v XXXXXX
Defence Statement

I am XXXXXX, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX. I currently reside at XXXXXX

The defendant denies the Claim in its entirety, asserts that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount.

The Claim Form issued on the **/**/**** by UKCPS Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person.!

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to UKCPS Limited for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:

1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to UKCPS Limited for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to UKCPS Limited case:
i) UKCPS Limited has no legal capacity to bring the claim.
ii) UKCPS Limited had no capacity to offer a contract to the
motorist.
iii) The signage did not form a contract with the motorist.
iv) No Consideration Passed from either UKCPS Limited or the
motorist.
v) UKCPS Limited has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to
any debt.
vi) Disproportionate and unconscionable Collection fees.
vii) There was no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge.
Viii) As the vehicle keeper and not the driver, UKCPS LTD have neither proven the defendant to be the driver, the car could have been driven by another driver under the insurance (or indeed, under any driver's own fully-comprehensive insurance)
UKCPS LTS need to provide strict proof of liability under the POFA or with evidence of who was driving the vehicle at the time.

2. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (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 BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 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.

3. The IPC code of practice states: Entrance Signs should
i) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land
ii) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
iii) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).

4. The Defendant submits that any signage present on the site even if seen by a motorist is not clear or legible in its construction, and therefore not able to form a contract. The Defendant brings to the attention of the Court A0QZ7658!UKCPS!v Anonymous 4/7/14 at Bradford, and A3QZ1305!UKCPS!v Anonymous 2/7/14 at Sheffield. The Judges in these cases found that!UKCPS!Ltd signs were ‘gibberish, too wordy and with conflicting terms’. The Defendant submits that the signs on this site fall into the same description and are therefore unable to form a contract even if seen.

(ii) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iii) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(iv) It appears that the actual signs within the car park are being used illegally as they don't have consent under The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. I would also like the Court to use their powers of discretion to apply ex turpi causa "no action can arise from an illegal or immoral act" and to quote Lord Mansfield CJ in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341I: "No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act".
The act of of using non approved signs is illegal, and the actions subsequent to that illegality are based on that fact. Without the signs having consent, they should not be used as a means of an action based on what they say. The action taken by UKCPS is entirely dependant on the use of illegal signs so there is a natural flow from one to the other.
(v) The site does not have entry signs on all access roads leading to the car park.

5. UKCPS Limited has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(i) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, and in fact, no previous correspondence was received by the Defendant prior to the delivery of the County Court Claim Form.
(ii) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(iii) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.!

6. I put UKCPS Limited to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They failed to meet the strict compliance requirements of PoFA to invoke Keeper Liability by not serving the Notice to Keeper in the time allowed. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, UKCPS Limited is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.!Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”!

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for is the sum on the Notice to Keeper (which was not delivered, see point 10). They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the permit information mentioned a possible additional penalty for outstanding debt and damages.!

7. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

8. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.:

9. The sign was not an offer but a threat of a punitive sanction to dissuade drivers from parking and was therefore a penalty clause.

10. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on my part. Any losses are due to the landholder, not the Claimant.

11. It is asserted that no reasonable person, of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of £100 as a consequence of parking on private land.

12. The Defendant had no idea what terms and conditions were stated on the signs but disputes UKCPS Limited statement that such an amount would have constituted an offer and submits that it in fact threatened punitive sanctions to discourage the undisclosed conduct.

13. The court is invited to consider whether a document titled Parking Contravention Notice would ever be sent between the parties to a genuine contract. UKCPS Limited claim for Breach of Contract and Damages further confirm that the sum is neither a contractual term nor a genuine assessment of pre-liquidated damages but a penalty. It cannot therefore be recovered under contract law. UKCPS Limited has no legal capacity to bring a claim; The Claimant has never had any legal capacity to offer a contract to the motorist. No contract was formed between The Claimant and defendant.

In this case UKCPS Limited, they have no cause of action in any case due to their choice not to use POFA Schedule 4 wording, and unlike some other parking firms this means I am not liable in law. The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed

Date

Coupon-mad

Would they have to prove that the NTK was POFA compliant as i haven't got the notices that they sent?

Yes, they would have to prove that if you defend as a registered keeper who was not driving.

Also I was not the driver when the PCN was issued.

That's of major importance and needs to be at the top, since this is of utmost importance. Adding your point viii to the top still didn't actually say you were not the driver, and you need to, something like this (and you do not need to give your address, as the court and claimant already have it:

In the County Court Business Centre

Claim Number XXXXXXXXX

Between: UKCPS LTD v XXXXXX

Defence Statement

I am XXXXXX, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX. [STRIKE]I currently reside at XXXXXX[/STRIKE] It is a fact that the defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time.

The defendant denies the Claim in its entirety, asserts that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount.

The Claim Form issued on the **/**/**** by UKCPS Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to UKCPS Limited for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case: