UKPC County Court Defence

Jamran

Hi everyone

My brother lives in an estate that is monitored by ukpc. Usually there’s very little parking available outside the estate or within in. As a result, he parked outside his house. During the end of 2013/ beginning of 2014 my brother received 6 tickets from them. Unfortunately he ignored them all since and never responded to any correspondence and now have been issue with small claims court proceedings. I’ve been trying to muster up a defence for his claim by reading the stick topics etc on this forum. Meanwhile I have also submitted a part 18 request to them. They have responded to that.

I posted this:

I would like to submit a part 18 request for the following information:

1. What is the basis of the claim? Is the claim for alleged breach of contract or a contractual fee?

2. Is UKPC making a claim as an agent of the landowner or as occupier in their own right? Please provide a copy of the full unredacted contract UKPC had in place at the relevant times with the landowner, agent or occupier. A witness statement is not deemed adequate.

3. Please provide proof UKPC have the authority to pursue charges by proving UKPC have Landowner’s authority.

3. How was the alleged contract conveyed to the driver? If the contract has been conveyed by the use of signage on site, please provide copies of the signs on which you rely and confirm these are the signs in situ on the date of the event. Please also provide the date these signs were installed, a works schedule, maintenance record, and their location within the site.

4. Please provide copies of the PCN’s that UK Parking Control says were issued at the times claimed.

5. Please provide time stamped photos of the above.

6. Please provide copies of any notices to keeper that UK Parking Control sent to the registered keeper.

7. Please issue a Subject Access Request for all information you hold about the registered keeper, such as the data and the details, the vehicle, and UKPC’s use of that data



Their reply:

Dear Mr Xxxx

We write in response to your Part 18 request below of 15/11/17.

Firstly, we would like to draw your attention to CPR 27.2 (1) (f), which states that Part 18 does not apply to small claims hearings, subject to the court making an order of its own initiative. As such our client is under no obligation to respond to your Part 18 request. There is also no formal provision for disclosure on the small claims track for the purpose of keeping costs down and in order to allow the parties to deal with cases at a proportionate cost.

Our client will, however, reply to your questions where it considers it is appropriate and reasonable to do so. As such, we respond to your numbered paragraphs in the same order:

1. The basis of the claim is contractual. Signage displayed at the site makes clear that terms and conditions apply to parking and details the same. The signage also states that in the event of a breach of the terms and conditions, a charge of £100 will be issued against the vehicle. The terms and conditions further detail that a further charge of £60 will become due and owing in the event that an issued parking charge notice remains unpaid and is referred to our client’s debt recovery agent. Your vehicle was recorded as being parked in breach of the terms and conditions as set out in our particulars of claim dated 23/10/17.

2. Our client manages parking on the site pursuant to contract with Trinity Estates Property Management Limited (formerly Trinity Chainbow), the managing agent of the site who are authorised by the landowner to contract with our client. The contract confers authority on or client to levy parking charges on vehicles parked on the site in breach of the terms and conditions of parking. The contract further authorises our client to take such action it considers appropriate (including bringing court proceedings) to recover unpaid parking charges. As such, our client is entitled to bring court proceedings in its own name. A copy of our client’s contract to manage parking (with commercially sensitive parts redacted) is attached.

3. See response in 2 above

4. Please see response to 1 above and see a copy of the signage attached together with a site plan showing signage locations. Our client will not be providing installation or maintenance records for the signage on the site, as it does not consider this relevant. The presence of the signage will be evidenced in our client’s witness statement.

5. Copies of the Parking Charge Notice

6. Copies of the photographs are attached

7. Copies of the Notices to Keeper are attached

8. Our client will respond directly to you in relation to the subject access request


Could anyone help with the reply to the part 18 request? Is it all acceptable or are there flaws?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I think this case is a Trinity/UKPC one, might have similar info to help you as you work through this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5373288

Which is your local court? Some are better than others at sussing a PPC scam.

The Part 18 is kind of neither here nor there - the SAR might be of more interest. But show us your draft defence and tell us what his lease or tenancy says about rights of way/peaceful enjoyment, or parking?

Jamran

Which is your local court? Some are better than others at sussing a PPC scam.

Shoreditch county court

Here is the contract they’ve sent alledging the legality of their presence

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hkz4cbh3dx7cwys/Contract%20redacted.pdf?dl=0


Signage

https://www.dropbox.com/s/plhhev6gkx4ob9i/Signage%20%26%20Site%20plan.pdf?dl=0

Jamran

Here is the defence im thinking to make

1. It is admitted that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. The Defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charge.

3. The signage displayed clearly only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be bound by the contractual terms conveyed.

4. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. UKPC cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UKPC.

5. The Claimant rejects any 'legal fee' per PCN which UKPC have randomly added, which is a penalty in itself.

6. Accordingly, the Claimant is put to strict proof the additional fees and costs added to the value shown on signages for the £100 charges was ever in fact incurred per PCN, at all.

7. UK Parking Control are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) UKPC is not the lawful occupier of the land
(ii) absent contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

8. - The signage on the site in question is unclear and was not prominent on site/around those bays at the time the PCN's were issued so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 14 days.

9. 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. None of this applies in this material case.

10. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of 11 PCN's and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

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 by the BPA - for falsifying photo 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. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the none of the photos taken of my vehicle at the time the PCN's were issued were not similarly altered.

13. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and UKPC have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

14. 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.

15. 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.

Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Jamran

Is there anyone that can assist please? I have until 22/11/17 to file a defence

Jamran

Bump :(

Jamran

Hi all
An update

My hearing is tomorrow. I have done a land registry search and it seems that the land owner is not !!!8220;space 2 management!!!8221; as stated on their contract that they sent. It states there that S2M is the owner of the premises and trinity is the agent.

My plan is to concentrate on that as my main defence as the rest seem a little weak. I!!!8217;m awaiting the lease from my brother. Hopefully should get it today.

Any other advice please?

bargepole

Jamran wrote: »

My hearing is tomorrow.
Any other advice please?

What happened to your Witness Statement? Were you not directed by the Court to file and serve a WS + evidence by not later than 14 days before the hearing?

Or did you think you could just file a defence and rock up at court? If so, you could be in trouble.

Coupon-mad

Jamran wrote: »

Hi all
An update

My hearing is tomorrow. I have done a land registry search and it seems that the land owner is not 'space 2 management' as stated on their contract that they sent. It states there that S2M is the owner of the premises and trinity is the agent.

My plan is to concentrate on that as my main defence as the rest seem a little weak. I'm awaiting the lease from my brother. Hopefully should get it today.

Any other advice please?

Advice as per this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74467496#Comment_74467496

Are you honestly saying you have filed NO Witness Statement or evidence - please say we are wrong! Despite the fact the letter that gave you the hearing date, told you when you had to file your WS and evidence...

I hope we are reading this wrong and you have done all that was required in good time.

BTW people who do not follow the forum advice in the NEWBIES thread in the link written by bargepole about what you must do when, are 'going it alone' and a win or loss will not count towards forum figures. Never will, this is not what we advise.

best of luck though...you may as well take proof of your salary/leave lost money, and travel costs and hope you get a miracle.

System

The main issue will be the UKPC contract, in that it is not signed by the person who appears to have the authority to contract (Ben Belcher) but by someone else.

In addition the particular clause in the contract "confirm Space 2 Manage owns the premises" is too vague in that it does not confirm ownership but is simply an assurance. UKPC could/should carry out its own due diligence. For example, when your brother rented initially he would have had to produce substantial evidence of identity, financial information and the right to rent. Here UKPC have carried out no checks.

Put it to the judge that he adjourn and have UKPC produce evidence that the authority UKPC have presented is genuine, or even have a witness from the Managing Agents produce a Witness Statement themselves with a Statement of Truth.

Add that simply assuming the contract is valid on the "balance of probabilities" leaves too much uncertainty.

Jamran

bargepole wrote: »

What happened to your Witness Statement? Were you not directed by the Court to file and serve a WS + evidence by not later than 14 days before the hearing?

Or did you think you could just file a defence and rock up at court? If so, you could be in trouble.

I've had a lot of personal issues going on and tbh completely forgot about the WS. Come last week I realised and then started researching around. I read on BMPA that for small claims it is not mandatory to present a WS 14 days prior. So that's why I didn't write one up and send it. I will take all my evidences etc tomorrow and present it to the judge. I know I this isn't ideal but considering my situation that's the best I can do tbh.