CPM Court Claim Notice

safarmuk

The MA are Ringley (based in London). My site manager said it's because they've been causing a lot of stress to residents, especially with regards to answering calls or letters, along with not regularly patrolling and basically 'doing as they please'.

No word yet as to who the new company will be.

I would suggest you speak to your MA and make sure that they understand the problems they are creating when employing a PPC, its unlikely the next one will be any different. If they insist on employing a new one then you must insist that the contract allows for the MA to make the PPC cancel any PCN they request be cancelled without question and without fee and that you have an assurance from the MA to you that any ticket you are given will also be immediately cancelled. All this needs to be in writing.

NRS1973

Hi all

Thanks for all the advice so far. I have spoken to the freeholder, who have said that they have nothing to do with anything as there is a Managing Company and a Managing Agent in place so I should chase them. I will now dig out my lease.

As for the parking sign, here is the link:

hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/iwrg5c.jpg

One thing that I'm a little confused about is that, do I have to wait for further PoC beofre submitting my defence? Or is this something that I need to do irrespective?

Thanks

KeithP

NRS1973 wrote: »

One thing that I'm a little confused about is that, do I have to wait for further PoC beofre submitting my defence? Or is this something that I need to do irrespective?

You claim form says nothing about further particulars of claim to follow.

I think you can take it that the woefully inadequate particulars in that box on the claim form is all you are going to get.

Get on with your defence now and emphasise strongly how the PoC fails to meet the new protocols.

safarmuk

Thanks for all the advice so far. I have spoken to the freeholder, who have said that they have nothing to do with anything as there is a Managing Company and a Managing Agent in place so I should chase them.

They employ the Management Agent so they are equally responsible for what the MA get up to. Out of curiosity who are the people you pay ground rent to its not by any chance Estates & Management (if so you are part of a very large property empire like DanielSan and a few other posters here and a concerted push is required here)

Irrespective of that you should be asking them if they support a 3rd party taking a leaseholder to court and if not then can they provide a letter to that effect for your defence pack..

What have the MA said?

http://i65.tinypic.com/iwrg5c.jpg

NRS1973

Morning all. Apologies for the delay on the update, it's just been a bit of a manic week at work. Anyway, I've spoken to the MA, who told me that partly the reason for changing companies, was the lack of professionalism within CPM. My site manager said he had only the same number to call, as that when you get a ticket/wish to appeal?! He did say that he would provide me a letter to state that he was not impressed with their conduct, and that he was against residents being targeted. I'll see if this materialises. I also spoke to the Freeholder who said that they have a MA and a second Managing Committee in place for all day-to-day decisions relating to the site, so they weren't able to help.

As for the defense letter, here's what I have put together (taking on the letters/advice/guidance) from this site. I have competed it on MSWord TNR font, size 12, with a 1.5 line spacing. I'd appreciate some feedback please, so that I can get it sent off/emailed this week. Here goes:


My Defence: - please note I have this in Word, Times New Roman, 12 (1.5 lines spaced)

In the County [FONT=&quot]Court[/FONT] Business Centre Between:
UK Car Park Management Limited
Vs
XXXXXXXX
Claim Number: XXXXXX

I am XXXX, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX. I currently reside at XXXX
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
1. The Claim Form issued on the 19th October 2017 by UK Car Park Management was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.
2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
a. There was no complaint “Letter before County [FONT=&quot]Court[/FONT] Claim”, under the Practice Direction
b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of “draft particulars”. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
c. The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.
d. 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. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the “Letter before County [FONT=&quot]Court[/FONT] Claim” should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
(i) “Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute.
(ii) Enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start [FONT=&quot]court[/FONT] proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure.
(iii) Encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue).
(iv) Support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided”.
e. The Defence therefore asks the [FONT=&quot]Court[/FONT] to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted
f. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars 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).
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver or Notice to Keeper.
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter.
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
(vii) If interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
g. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for a reasonable time to file another defence.
3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict “keeper liability” provisions:
(i) Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a “relevant obligation” and “relevant contract”, fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper..
[FONT=&quot]Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of XXXX at the Aura Development, whose lease permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. Accordingly it is denied that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.1. There was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
6.2. There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.3 The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.[/FONT]
7. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 “legal representative’s costs were incurred.
8. 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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage “contract”, none of this applies in this material case.
6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case
a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs
b. 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.
c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
(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 by 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) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d. BPA CoP breaches – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) The sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.
7. No standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a. It is believed UK Car Park Management 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.
8. 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.

9. 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.
10. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 12 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the [FONT=&quot]Court[/FONT] to note that the Claimant has:
• Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 19th October 2017.
• Sent a template, well-known to be a generic cut and paste “Particular of Claim” relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The [FONT=&quot]court[/FONT] is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

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

Thanks in advance again. I truly appreciate all your time and advice.

safarmuk

I also spoke to the Freeholder who said that they have a MA and a second Managing Committee in place for all day-to-day decisions relating to the site, so they weren't able to help.

Not strictly correct. They are responsible for the actions of the people they appoint. Who is the Freeholder? I ask because this is a really important point if it turns out to be the same Freeholder as other threads on here.

I've spoken to the MA, who told me that partly the reason for changing companies, was the lack of professionalism within CPM. My site manager said he had only the same number to call, as that when you get a ticket/wish to appeal?! He did say that he would provide me a letter to state that he was not impressed with their conduct, and that he was against residents being targeted. I'll see if this materialises.

Your MA sounds more reasonable than others we have come across on these forums. Push for that letter, you will need it. Also you want to see the termination notice the MA gave UK CPM and the reasoning, all this will help with your defence.

You also need to be very firm with the MA, if they bring in a new PPC (which I advise against - better to install bollards in your bays) then the contract they sign must include clauses that say the PPC cannot bring proceedings against a leaseholder or tenant and must agree to cancel any ticket mistakenly given to a leaseholder or tenant (or their identified genuine visitors). Get a copy of that contract.

Umkomaas

then the contract they sign must include clauses that say the PPC cannot bring proceedings against a leaseholder or tenant and must agree to cancel any ticket mistakenly given to a leaseholder or tenant (or their identified genuine visitors)

@safarmuk. Do you realise how difficult you are making it for a PPC to survive at this site? :cool:

The_Deep

Why do MAs appoint these parasites, they nearly always end up regretting it. I was speaking to the Site Manager recently at a HA flat I own. She told me that they had sacked UKPC fraudsters and appointed a "much better" PPC, their name CPM, another scammer.

Much of the problem in these residential, especially HA, cases is that many of the tenants are poorly educated, on HB, and not capable of wring a decent letter of complaint. Until MAs smell the coffee, or the law is changed, I fear that we are stuck with them. It will be the poor and the vulnerable who will suffer.

Umkomaas

Much of the problem in these residential, especially HA, cases is that many of the tenants are poorly educated, on HB, and not capable of wring a decent letter of complaint. Until MAs smell the coffee, or the law is changed, I fear that we are stuck with them. It will be the poor and the vulnerable who will suffer.

With UKPC there was always a better than good chance that an appeal could be won at POPLA - and that would be the end of it.

With UKCPM - an IPC operator - there is just no way an appeal will be successful (IAS), leaving the individual with 6 years of potential harassment and in the knowledge that only a cheque or the decision of a Judge can rid them of all the crap coming their way.

Coupon-mad

Bin that defence and start again.

You have copied a CEL one, even to the point of copying stuff naming CEL instead of UKCPM!

Instead, go and get the defence written by Johnersh for 'own space' cases, it's linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2 giving credit to Johnersh, so it's easy to find.

You will then need to adapt it because I think it was written about a person who was the resident, whereas your Dad's car was a visitor's car, and the terms on the signs are different.

Was enough time given as observation time on the original PCN, to fairly allow Dad to have found his way up to your flat to obtain a visitor's permit, then come back down to the car to display it? Do you have visitors' permits? If so, and if the observed timing wasn't stated or was just a minute or two, then I would have the contention that no grace period was allowed to fetch the permit and display it.

In addition, you will need to add at the start an objection that the Claimant's solicitors failed to pay regard to, or follow in any way, the new 1st October pre-action protocol on debt claims, leaving the Defendant at a significant disadvantage with no copy of the contract (signage at the time), no proof of landowner authority and no photographs or facts which the Claimant will rely upon.

IMHO you should also add to Johnersh's defence:

...a numbered point about the fact that the resident will be a witness at the hearing and that he is obtaining confirmation from the Managing Agent in the form of a letter stating that the MA (on behalf of the landowner) was not impressed with the conduct of UKCPM and that he was against residents and their legitimate visitors being targeted. As such, this Claimant's contract has been revoked and it is apparent that this Claimant is now acting vexatiously with 'revenge claims' against residents and their visitors to try to profit from the site where their own aggressive ticketing conduct, and refusal to allow or fairly consider appeals, has caused them to be removed.

Therefore, this is an unrecoverable and unconscionable penalty and not a case of demonstrating any conceivable 'legitimate interest' in seeking to recover a much higher sum as if it were a debt, rather than a sum in damages which remains a matter for a landowner alone (all of which was the basis of the decision in the completely different and complex case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

Here is a well-written ending that Johnersh (a solicitor) added for Bucko78, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5730475

...and I would suggest it's applicable to all our defences on this forum, but may need re-numbering:

LOSS CLAIMED, COSTS AND INTEREST
10. If, which is denied, the Claimant was entitled to issue a parking ticket for which a charge is payable, It is denied that the amounts claimed by the Claimant are permitted by the terms of the contract or in law.
10.1 The signage refers to the amount of the charge being X. If the costs of enforcement are notional or predictable, these should appear on the sign if they are to be capable of agreement.
10.2 Legal costs are not recoverable in the small claims track pursuant to Part 27 CPR other than HMCTS costs
10.3 The correspondence from agents appointed by the Claimant appears to have unilaterally and arbitrarily applied additional charges without explanation or entitlement. These are not actual costs or costs incurred by the Claimant. It is averred that debt recovery agencies work on a no win/no fee basis and that no enhanced costs have been incurred at all. The Claim for such costs is an abuse of process and a breach of the indemnity principle.

11. For the reasons aforesaid, it is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

12. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

what impact will it have with him not being present. Can I represent him if it gets to court?

No you can't, not without him (but yes as a lay rep to speak, but only if he is sitting alongside you). But with this timing I suspect he might be back by the time of any court hearing in the end. And in any case, at DQ stage (N180 form, as explained by bargepole in the NEWBIES thread post #2) your Dad can state dates when he is not available/out of the Country, so make sure that's done then.