Bloody UKPC- £1270 court claim! HELP!

peter_su88

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE Claim No: DXX

BETWEEN


UK Parking Control Ltd Claimant
-and-
Mr X Defendant

__________________________
DEFENCE
__________________________

1) This claim is being brought against the registered keeper of the vehicle, alleged by the Claimant, UK Parking Control Ltd (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 XXXXX, who is also a resident and a leaseholder of the residential estate.
Three of the Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) (number XXX, XXX, XX) issued by the Claimant, states the driver of the vehicle were parked in a designated area without displaying a permit.
The Defendant’s lease grants him the right to park in his own allocated space. In the Lease it states:

Page 15; SCHEDULE 4 - Rights included in the demise
10. The right to use the Allocated space for parking one private motor vehicle or motorcycle with the right to pass and repass at all times with a vehicle or on foot (as appropriate) over and along the Access Ways and Block Common Parts as shall provide access to and egress from the Allocated Space.


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 signs unless the Defendant have agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which clearly the Defendant has not.

(a). There is a large body of case law, which establishes this. In Link Parking Ltd vs J. Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7, the Judge, referring to a similar case in In Pace Recovery v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] ruled that:
“…the Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract, and it seems to me that the same principle applies here.”


(b). It is asserted that signage on the property cannot replace the contract formed by the Lease, as found in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. In that case Judge Harris QC ruled:
“ the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease”



4) The location of the Defendant’s vehicle stated in the Particular of Claims- Contraventions (PCN numbers; 13XXX, 13XXX, 13XXX) is not recognised, “E House”.
The Defendant’s address is M House, XXX XX. The Defendant’s vehicle at the time was parked in their Allocated Space in ‘M House’. (See Lease and Plan for Allocated Space – P175)

Lease Page 1; DEFINITION & INTERPRETATION 1.1
“Allocated Space” means the car parking space showed edged green and number P175 on the Plan for which a right to use is granted in this Underlease or such other parking space as the Landlord shall designate from time to time.

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.

7) In the Defendant’s Lease grants him the right to use the Access Ways on this private property. He was parking with permission, just not UKPC’s permission. Therefore the remaining PCN’s are not claimable.

(a) Lease Page 15 – SCHEDULE 4 - Rights included in the demise:
10. The right to use the Allocated space for parking one private motor vehicle or motorcycle with the right to pass and repass at all times with a vehicle or on foot (as appropriate) over and along the Access Ways and Block Common Parts as shall provide access to and egress from the Allocated Space.

(b) Lease Page 1 – DEFINITION & INTERPRETATION 1.1:
“Access Ways” means all of any of the footpaths access areas and roads (until adopted by the relevant local highways authority (if at all) forming part of the Estate and any footpaths road access areas or roads from time to time substituted therefor.

(c) Lease Page 12 – SCHEDULE 1 – The Estate:
The estate known as Norman Park, Picardy Manorway, Belvedere which is shown for the purposes of identification edged with a broken red line on the Plan (See copy of Plan)

(d) 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.

8) 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).


9) 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."


10) 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.

11) 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.

12) 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.


13) 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.

14) 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.

15) 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.

16) 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.

17) It is believed UKPC does not hold a legitimate contract at this estate. 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.

18) 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. 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(c) 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

peter_su88

OK today is my last day for feedback,
I've updated points 3 and added 7.

Your feedback is much appreciated! thank you!

---

DEFENCE
__________________________


1) This claim is being brought against the registered keeper of the vehicle, alleged by the Claimant, UK Parking Control Ltd (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 LXXX XX, who is also a resident and a leaseholder of the residential estate.

3) Three of the Penalty Charge Notices PCNs (number XXX, XXX, XXX) issued by the Claimant, states the driver of the vehicle were parked in a designated area without displaying a permit.
The Defendant does own a permit and displays it accordingly but was misplaced at those times. The Defendant makes sure his permit is displayed at the very first opportunity and normally ensures permit is displayed at all times.

(a).The Defendant’s lease grants him the right to park in his own allocated space. In the Lease it states:

(Page 15) – SCHEDULE 4 - Rights included in the demise
10. The right to use the Allocated space for parking one private motor vehicle or motorcycle with the right to pass and repass at all times with a vehicle or on foot (as appropriate) over and along the Access Ways and Block Common Parts as shall provide access to and egress from the Allocated Space.


4) 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 signs unless I have agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which clearly the Defendant has not.

(a). There is a large body of case law, which establishes this. In Link Parking Ltd vs J. Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7, the Judge, referring to a similar case in In Pace Recovery v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] ruled that:
“…the Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract, and it seems to me that the same principle applies here.”


(b). It is asserted that signage on the property cannot replace the contract formed by the Lease, as found in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. In that case Judge Harris QC ruled:
“ the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease”

5) The location of the Defendant’s vehicle stated in the Particular of Claims- Contraventions (PCN numbers; 1304752030235, 1340163040621, 134016311063) is not recognised - “E- House”.
The Defendant’s address is M House, XXX,XXX. The Defendant’s vehicle at the time was parked in their Allocated Space, known as P175 in the Lease. Which is located in ‘M House’, known as Block C in the Plan of the Lease.

DEFINITION & INTERPRETATION 1.1 (Page 1)
“Allocated Space” means the car parking space showed edged green and number P175 on the Plan for which a right to use is granted in this Underlease or such other parking space as the Landlord shall designate from time to time.

6) 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.

7) The Defendant owns an Allocated space. In order to access his Allocated space, he must enter through the main electric gates with their own personal Gate key fob, which at the time the main electric gate was not responding to the Gate key fob
The main electric gates has history of maintenance issues.

8) In the Defendant’s Lease grants him the right to use the Access Ways on this private property. He was parking with permission, just not UKPC’s permission. Therefore the remaining PCN’s are not claimable.

(a) Lease Page 15 – SCHEDULE 4 - Rights included in the demise:
10. The right to use the Allocated space for parking one private motor vehicle or motorcycle with the right to pass and repass at all times with a vehicle or on foot (as appropriate) over and along the Access Ways and Block Common Parts as shall provide access to and egress from the Allocated Space.

(b) Lease – Page 1 – DEFINITION & INTERPRETATION 1.1 :
“Access Ways” means all of any of the footpaths access areas and roads (until adopted by the relevant local highways authority (if at all) forming part of the Estate and any footpaths road access areas or roads from time to time substituted therefor

© Lease – Page 12 – SCHEDULE 1 – The Estate
The estate known as Norman Park, Picardy Manorway, Belvedere which is shown for the purposes of identification edged with a broken red line on the Plan (See copy of Plan)

(d) 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.

9) 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.

10) 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.

11) 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."


12) 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.

13) 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.

14) 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.


15) 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.

16) 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.

17) 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.

18) 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.

19) It is believed UKPC does not hold a legitimate contract at this estate. 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.

20) 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. 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

Coupon-mad

8) [STRIKE]In[/STRIKE] The Defendant’s Lease grants him the right to use the Access Ways on this private property. He was parking with permission, [STRIKE]just not UKPC’s[/STRIKE] and does not require a third party like this Claimant's permission.

Also I would never admit fault like this:

3) Three of the Penalty Charge Notices PCNs (number XXX, XXX, XXX) issued by the Claimant, states the driver of the vehicle were parked in a designated area without displaying a permit.
The Defendant does own a permit and displays it accordingly but only as a courtesy, not as a matter of contract or obligation. [STRIKE]but was misplaced at those times[/STRIKE].

And you can't say you have 'no idea' what the claim is about, then defend in detail:

6) The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. [STRIKE]The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about [/STRIKE]-

And:

I have attached a copy of my Lease in support of my position. [STRIKE]for your interest[/STRIKE].

peter_su88

Thank you COUPON MAD!!.
I will amend and get it ready for sumbission