We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Bloody UKPC- £1270 court claim! HELP!
peter_su88
Posts: 8 Forumite
Please help!
Issue Date: 14 June 2017
Amount approx: £1,270
Claimant: UK Parking Control Ltd
Solicitor: ScS Law ( Legal Representative; Andrew Morgan)
Original Creditor: UK Parking Control Ltd
Th
In summary:
Residential Case: 7 tickets issued, 3 of which in own parking space, the rest, by a road right outside next to my residential apartment,
So this is my first draft, i must admit i'm pretty incompetent at writing,
I wrote the first couple paragraphs and copied the rest, please let me know your thoughts on whether this is good?
**************
IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE Claim No:
BETWEEN
UK Parking Control Ltd Claimant
-and-
NAME HERE Defendant
__________________________
DEFENCE
__________________________
1) This claim is being brought against the registered keeper of the vehicle, alleged by the Claimant, UK Parking Control Limited (UKPC). The Claimant is bringing this claim on the basis that a driver of the vehicle has entered into a contract to pay that amount.
2) The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX, who is also a owner of lease hold flat of the residential area with a personal allocated space. Three of the PCNs (number XXXXX, XXXX, XXXX) issued by the Claimant, state the driver of the vehicle was parked in a designated area without displaying a permit.
3) There is no agreement within the Defendants’ Lease, that states the Leaseholder have to display a parking permit, pay for a ticket or pay penalties to a third party for non display. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by PPC signs unless I have agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which clearly I have not.
a). There is a large body of case law which establishes this. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
b). In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
c). In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.
4) The location of the Defendants vehicle stated in the Particular of Claims- Contraventions (PCN numbers; XXX, XXX XXX) is not recognised, “E House Car Parks, XXX XXX DA17 6LX”.
The Defendant’s address is XXX, M House, XXX XXX DA17 6BX. The Defendants vehicle at the time was parked in their own personal allocated space in ‘Moyle House’. (See Lease for allocated space – Plot 175)
5) 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 - what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
6) In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
(a)The claimant’s notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer at all therefore no contract exists. The claimant’s notices clearly state no unauthorised parking therefore there is no offer of a contract for those who are supposedly unauthorised and therefore no contract.
(b) The presence of the claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders (MYSELF). Instead a predatory operation has been carried out on the very people whose interests the claimant was there to uphold. I have attached a copy of my lease for your interest. .
7) 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, and also cannot be clearly seen from the driver seat. (see UKPC's own photos).
8) 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."
9) 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.
10) 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.
11) 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.
12) As the Claimant is not the landowner, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a contract or chain of contracts exists between the landowner and the Claimant allowing the Claimant to issue charges on the land and litigate in their own name, without which they would not have locus standi to bring this case.
13) 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.
14) I, The Defendant therefore believe that these charges are not valid and my personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the claimant in this case and I ask that the court does not assist the claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing.
15) The Claimant has brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. The defendant has the reasonable belief that the claimant is abusing the court process by using the threat of action and the threat of damaging the Defendants credit rating to alarm the Defendant into making a payment that is not owed.
16) It is believed UKPC do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
17) The defendant therefore asks for the court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
(a) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. 5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
b) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6© of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Statement of truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true
Signed:
Full Name:
Dated: 2 July 2017
Issue Date: 14 June 2017
Amount approx: £1,270
Claimant: UK Parking Control Ltd
Solicitor: ScS Law ( Legal Representative; Andrew Morgan)
Original Creditor: UK Parking Control Ltd
Th
In summary:
Residential Case: 7 tickets issued, 3 of which in own parking space, the rest, by a road right outside next to my residential apartment,
So this is my first draft, i must admit i'm pretty incompetent at writing,
I wrote the first couple paragraphs and copied the rest, please let me know your thoughts on whether this is good?
**************
IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE Claim No:
BETWEEN
UK Parking Control Ltd Claimant
-and-
NAME HERE Defendant
__________________________
DEFENCE
__________________________
1) This claim is being brought against the registered keeper of the vehicle, alleged by the Claimant, UK Parking Control Limited (UKPC). The Claimant is bringing this claim on the basis that a driver of the vehicle has entered into a contract to pay that amount.
2) The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX, who is also a owner of lease hold flat of the residential area with a personal allocated space. Three of the PCNs (number XXXXX, XXXX, XXXX) issued by the Claimant, state the driver of the vehicle was parked in a designated area without displaying a permit.
3) There is no agreement within the Defendants’ Lease, that states the Leaseholder have to display a parking permit, pay for a ticket or pay penalties to a third party for non display. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by PPC signs unless I have agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which clearly I have not.
a). There is a large body of case law which establishes this. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
b). In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
c). In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.
4) The location of the Defendants vehicle stated in the Particular of Claims- Contraventions (PCN numbers; XXX, XXX XXX) is not recognised, “E House Car Parks, XXX XXX DA17 6LX”.
The Defendant’s address is XXX, M House, XXX XXX DA17 6BX. The Defendants vehicle at the time was parked in their own personal allocated space in ‘Moyle House’. (See Lease for allocated space – Plot 175)
5) 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 - what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
6) In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
(a)The claimant’s notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer at all therefore no contract exists. The claimant’s notices clearly state no unauthorised parking therefore there is no offer of a contract for those who are supposedly unauthorised and therefore no contract.
(b) The presence of the claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders (MYSELF). Instead a predatory operation has been carried out on the very people whose interests the claimant was there to uphold. I have attached a copy of my lease for your interest. .
7) 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, and also cannot be clearly seen from the driver seat. (see UKPC's own photos).
8) 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."
9) 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.
10) 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.
11) 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.
12) As the Claimant is not the landowner, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a contract or chain of contracts exists between the landowner and the Claimant allowing the Claimant to issue charges on the land and litigate in their own name, without which they would not have locus standi to bring this case.
13) 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.
14) I, The Defendant therefore believe that these charges are not valid and my personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the claimant in this case and I ask that the court does not assist the claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing.
15) The Claimant has brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. The defendant has the reasonable belief that the claimant is abusing the court process by using the threat of action and the threat of damaging the Defendants credit rating to alarm the Defendant into making a payment that is not owed.
16) It is believed UKPC do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
17) The defendant therefore asks for the court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
(a) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. 5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
b) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6© of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Statement of truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true
Signed:
Full Name:
Dated: 2 July 2017
0
Comments
-
Be careful and think about your #8. It says that 'permit holders can be bound'. You are a permit holder...so I'm not sure that case is the best one to cite.
Apart from that - good work! Just a nit picking thought:
Don't use acronyms that mean nothing unless explained first - e.g. 'PPC' means nothing outside of a parking forum!Primacy of contract cannot be amended by PPC signs unless I have agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which clearly I have not.
And whilst 'PCN' is a bit different because it has a widely-understood meaning, define it in full first time you use the term, followed by the acronym in brackets: e.g. 'parking charge notice (PCN)'. Then you can call it a 'PCN' after that.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I'm no expert but it looks pretty good as a first draft. No doubt the more experienced regulars will be along to help in a while.
Personally I would remove the addresses, both the actual and the unrecognised.
In a residential parking case, identifying the driver is not fatal and actually helps in some ways so you may want to consider that.
You should quote the relevant parts of your lease if parking is mentioned, or state that it does not mention parking at all if that is the case. You will need to produce part or all of it at some point anyway.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Be careful and think about your #8. It says that 'permit holders can be bound'. You are a permit holder...so I'm not sure that case is the best one to cite.
I'll remove it #8Coupon-mad wrote: »Don't use acronyms that mean nothing unless explained first - e.g. 'PPC' means nothing outside of a parking forum!
Wil change. thank you!0 -
In a residential parking case, identifying the driver is not fatal and actually helps in some ways so you may want to consider that.
Should i refer to my self as 'I, my, ' throughout the Defence?You should quote the relevant parts of your lease if parking is mentioned, or state that it does not mention parking at all if that is the case. You will need to produce part or all of it at some point anyway.
Does #3 not answer this point?
3) There is no agreement within the Defendants’ Lease, that states the Leaseholder have to display a parking permit, pay for a ticket or pay penalties to a third party for non display. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by Private Parking Company (PPC) signs unless I have agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which clearly I have not.Personally I would remove the addresses, both the actual and the unrecognised.
How would you suggest i write #4? -
is it not a winning point the address on the PCN is incorrect? - therefore it's a false claim, claiming my vehicle was in a location that it was not ?
Should i write something like this?:
4) The location of the Defendants vehicle stated in the Particular of Claims- Contraventions (PCN numbers; XXX, XXX XXX) is not recognised as at the time the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in their allocated space (See Lease for allocated space – Plot 175)0 -
It may be a good idea to expand on point 3c - Homeguard vs Jopson, which i believe was an appeal hearing - info /transcript here https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/213077149-Jopson-v-Homeguard-2016-From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
I think Fruitcake meant remove the address from your forum post (only) not from the defence.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
-
peter_su88 wrote: »What exactly do you mean by expand?
Quote the relevant paragraph(s) from the judgment that supports the point you're making - don't make the judge have to go looking.0 -
To answer your question about how to refer to the Defendant in your Defence - you write a Defence and any other formal court document (save for witness statements) in the 3rd person - so you refer to "the Defendant", "he/she", "his/her" etc, not me, I, my etc.
Conversely, a WS is written in the first person because it refers to factual matters within your own personal knowledge.Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0 -
OK all i think i have found a winning point! and going to smash them with it!!
I have!3 days left to Submit.
Please tell me what you think of my updated Defence, especially!point number 7, relating to the Defendant's right to use!Access Ways!in the lease which was where the Defendant's vehicle was parked on the road at the time:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards