UKCPS Settlement Offer

nosferatu1001

OK, but what about the rest of your defence? Did you really only defend on the basis of that one para above?

Iam - but only if the defendant has actually raised that....

Gemmalouise25

No it was a big long defence but won't let me post it all

Gemmalouise25

I do have an image yes but isn't letting me upload for some reason

Gemmalouise25

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

The Claim Form issued on the 20/07/2017 by UKCPS Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person.

My first letter from UKCPS stated they had written to me previously requesting payment however I had never received any previous correspondence from them requesting any amount – this was their first attempt to contact me. Upon replying to their original letters to appeal their claim due to lack of clarity in their signage, they refused to allow me to claim – despite replying immediately and the IPC clearly states you have up to 12 months to appeal any claim. No correspondence received from UKCPS rejecting my claim had a valid POPLA code on it. VCS vs Ibbotson states that a POPLA code must be provided (evidence attached).

As the defendant I deny any liability whatsoever to UKCPS Limited for all of the following reasons:
- UKCPS Limited has no legal capacity to bring the claim
- UKCPS Limited had no capacity to offer a contract to the motorist
- The signage did not form a contract with the motorist
- There was no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge. 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 LTD need to provide strict proof of liability under the POFA or with evidence of who was driving the vehicle at the time. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis 2015.

The IPC code of practice states: Entrance Signs should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land, this is not the case when entering West Quay Retail Park. Nor does the site does not have entry signs on all access roads leading to the car park stating that you are entering private land, or refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.


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.

UKCPS Limited has not complied with pre-court protocol:
- There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
- The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged with no further actions that I would be required to follow upon rejecting my appeal, therefore leaving me with no information on next steps

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 I never received. 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. The original sum was £100, and upon first correspondence they had increased the price to £150.

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

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.

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.
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.

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

System

Whatever her defence - and she points out "had no idea what terms and conditions were stated on the signs" - there is the obligation to avoid going to court. It is being suggested the OP engages, points out the flaw in the UKCPS case, and invite UKCPS to drop the matter.

The issue of the "grace" period can be raised at the WS if UKCPS ignore and it will be up to the judge to decide (as it always is) whether the issue is material and within the rules.

No point in giving up a winning point when LiP's are not versed in procedures. This is the SCC after all.

Gemmalouise25

Would you suggest I write to UKCPS one more time to suggest they drop the case?

I wish I could submit the image so you are able to see how bad the sign is, very very wordy... I can't even read all text as writing is so small

nosferatu1001

Indeed, thats what is being said. Invite them to "drop hands"

That defence is... a mess really. For example "No correspondence received from UKCPS rejecting my claim had a valid POPLA code on it. VCS vs Ibbotson states that a POPLA code must be provided (evidence attached). " Is utterly irrelevant when they can only offer IAS, and you cannot say they reject your claim, they can only reject your appeal

Later on you talk about no GPEOL which as you know, Beavis sort of throws away - you have to argue it differently.

Of course you can submit an image - break the link so it is "hxxp" instead of "http". Newbies cannot post links to external websites, stops some spamming.

Gemmalouise25

https://i.imgur.com/syzbF0R.jpg


has this worked?

Quentin

yes .

bluetoffee1878

These are typical UKCPS gibberish

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rwqz2gtavinqn2v/UKCPS_1.JPG?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tbk027m9id7hq37/UKCPS_2.JPG?dl=0

I particularly like the 'additional charges if the vehicle remains or returns any time' :rotfl:

Also just noticed 0870 contact number which I believe is in the 'forbidden range' of the Consumer Rights Directive.