Claim defence

completelyfubar

Hi Coupon_mad
I now have their very brief WS if you can call it that (it's been emailed). Basically it tries to debunk my defence but offers very little evidence, quite laughable in fact! She makes assumptions, denies and contradicts herself with evidence... bizarre!
They have included a supposed contract but blanked out the name and signature? I expect they have to reveal this contract in full during the hearing though?
I am still going to spend the next day or so compiling my 'bundle' and leave the WS as it should be, a simple chronological list of events so far with supporting evidence.
My Skeleton argument will then debunk their WS and state my clear areas of defence.

completelyfubar

Hi chaps, so I have one week to go and want to construct a brief SA.
I have their WS and I could set about debunking it, but feel I should just stick to my main arguments. I don't want to get into 'he said, she said' kind of arguments and try to look professional. If their representative wants to argue their points in the WS then I will have my responses ready and waiting.
Please have a look at the structure/wording and feel free to jump in with any comments at all peeps.
In the County Court
between
UK Car Park Management Ltd
vs
Me
________________________________________
Skeleton Argument
________________________________________
1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract with any pre-action correspondence or the particulars of Claim as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1)
“a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing”
and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A)
“The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims to be issued by the Centre, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction”.
Particulars of claim were not served separately.
2. The ‘contract’ included in the claimants bundle has the ‘leasholder’ blanked out. I challenge that the signatory on that document is not the Landowner or Landlord for the carpark area and that UK Car Park Management (UKCPM) do not have sufficient authority to request personal data from the DVLA or issue claims. I also challenge that UKCPM do not conduct due diligence on clients using their ‘i-ticket’ app.
3. The claimant has failed to prove if the car is indeed parked as the two photos provided are only 30 seconds apart and show only the rear of the vehicle obscuring the driver’s seat. The driver could easily have been waiting for a parking space to be vacated or giving way to traffic. This is a very busy car park and is regularly full due to Tesco shoppers.
4. The claimant states in their particulars of claim that there is a parking charge for the **/**/2016 yet the photo’s provided are date stamped **/**/2016.
5. I contend that the parking signage was/is woefully inadequate and certainly not ‘prominent’ as stated in their Witness Statement and is therefore not compliant with either the IPC or BPA code of practice. There is also a prominent contradicting sign only a short distance away that has been in existence for many years.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed:
Date:

nosferatu1001

I’d suggest rebutting their points. If you can. Give fact x but they state y, then it doesn’t look good for them.

completelyfubar

Thanks for the reply nosferatu1001
OK, so I'll give it a shot and see how it reads... I'll post up my draft later this week.

By the way, do you think they deliberately blanked out the signatories details just for me or do you think they did that for the court bundle as well?
I assume they will bring the original document to the hearing but whats stopping them using my research on the landowner to fill in the gaps and help their own case? Could this be another potential dirty trick?
cheers

claxtome

By the way, do you think they deliberately blanked out the signatories details just for me or do you think they did that for the court bundle as well?
I assume they will bring the original document to the hearing but whats stopping them using my research on the landowner to fill in the gaps and help their own case? Could this be another potential dirty trick?

You and the court should get the same.
Looks like something else for you SA.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, if the signatures are blanked how can you verify who,signed it, and whether they are an officer of the company empowered to do so? There’s no reason to blank it out. They’ll probably sputter “DPA” but that’s, of course, not applicable for two reasons , at least (legal proceedings, s no private info!)

completelyfubar

Sorry guy's, missed your responses but just to clarify the situation...
The landowner of the car park is different from the landowner of the retail unit the car is allegedly parked outside. It is common knowledge that it was the owner of the unit that signed up using the i-ticket app and took the photo's. The contract between UKCPM and the 'client' should (i believe?) be the landowner or landlord of the car park. Is that right?
The 'contract' has all the personal details and the signature blacked out on my copy.
If the court must get exactly the same evidence as myself then the contract is useless and there is no direct line of authority for UKCPM to enforce any parking restrictions.
However, my concern is that they will turn up on the day with the 'original' document that could have been 'constructed' using my research on who the landowner actually is. Do you think they will stoop that low? That is falsification of evidence so I expect they wont risk it?

System

Do you think they will stoop that low? That is falsification of evidence so I expect they wont risk it?

Yes they do and they will.

UKCPM came up with the wheeze of an idea of getting people to shop on others using the i-ticket app. All they do is to get the "client" to say they have the authority to issue tickets. More often than not they don't.

UKCPM can innocently say that they didn't know the client did not have authority and do hide information so you are never sure. However I've dealt with a few of these UKCPM, PCM and NE Parking contract and most are facsimiles (posh word for dodgy).

And Gladstones are off the hook too, as a solicitor has a duty to the court which is to advise UKCPM, PCM and NE Parking about the penalties for misleading the court - which of course they have done being the fine upstanding officers of the court they are.

Check everything and have you checked with the landowner if they have given the authority UKCPM are claiming.

completelyfubar

Thanks IamEmanresu, that was my worry so I will be ready and waiting for any dodgy paperwork.
They failed to black out everything and I will be able to prove it is falsified.

Isn't that a blatant lack of due diligence though, so then putting the responsibility squarely back on UKCPM? i.e. UKCPM should request at least a copy of the land register or deeds from the client.
However, wherever they put the blame, if they don't come up with valid proof of authority then their case is dead in the water surely?

Castle

In light of this very recent case you should mention in your SA that the company, (client), needs TWO signatures on the contract:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117947