UKPC County Court Defence

Coupon-mad

The Skelly decision and its possible relevance, is more about his expert property barrister view about the unfairness of expecting residents to jump through hoops and have their peaceful enjoyment of their property ruined by an abject nuisance.

Your brother should argue that this is not a regulation designed in any way, for the 'comfort and convenience' of residents, who are falling victims in their droves (lay it on thick, your brother should show how distressed he is and state if he knows that UKCPM are acting in a predatory way and/or if other neighbours have all been fined too and are up in arms about the unfairness).

And pull apart any lack of evidence of clear signs. Make them prove each and every contravention with photos clearly showing terms breached by whichever driver parked the car, and to show full compliance with the POFA if your brother is saying the driver was a different person each time (or he doesn't know who parked and is only the keeper).

He should bring his car insurance to show others are insured on that car, if it shows that.

He should bring his wage slip or proof of lost earnings/lost leave, in case he wins, and the Skelly wording to make the Judge at least think about the fairness of the terms (saying that, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, unfair terms are not enforceable and the Courts must consider the test of fairness every time) and any other evidence he was planning to use and hope the Judge lets him put his case and evidence forward, even though he never bothered to file it at all.

Don't forget he must ALSO challenge the add-on costs, because no debt collector fees were ever incurred and in the Beavis case i was held that £85 easily covered all admin involved in a parking ticket regime, and allowed a significant profit, so there can be no extra 'damages' to add on and nor were they explicitly stated on the signs (I doubt).

In Beavis it was reiterated that a parking firm could not have argued the parking charge as 'damages' anyway, because they are not in possession of the land and suffered no damages.

Even if he loses, at least he could get them all pegged at £100 per PCN if he argued this well and points out no £60 costs were incurred whatsoever.

Debt collectors offer a 'no-collection, no fee' service to parking firms. No costs have been incurred so make sure your brother puts the Claimant to proof of payment of the £60 a pop, which is actually made up.

Coupon-mad

bargepole wrote: »

I think a more relevant track is A-Ha's Lamb To The Slaughter.

Yep but I am not an A-Ha fan! The Boss is boss, seen him all over Europe.

System

You'll be aware his case is weak only becuase there hasn't been enough information presented. The judge will then use your brother's initial defence and their Witness Statement. Just go down each item of their WS and see which you have challenged in the initial defence - and whether they have answered it.

See if you can get an adjournment by referring to the lack of plausibility in the contract they have presented. Use the phase "lacking credibility" with regards to who signed and why.

You might be lucky and called back on another date as the aircon there is bloody awful. Or by the end of the day, they might all just want to go home - and they throw the case out. Judges are human too.

Jamran

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The Skelly decision and its possible relevance, is more about his expert property barrister view about the unfairness of expecting residents to jump through hoops and have their peaceful enjoyment of their property ruined by an abject nuisance.

Your brother should argue that this is not a regulation designed in any way, for the 'comfort and convenience' of residents, who are falling victims in their droves (lay it on thick, your brother should show how distressed he is and state if he knows that UKCPM are acting in a predatory way and/or if other neighbours have all been fined too and are up in arms about the unfairness).

And pull apart any lack of evidence of clear signs. Make them prove each and every contravention with photos clearly showing terms breached by whichever driver parked the car, and to show full compliance with the POFA if your brother is saying the driver was a different person each time (or he doesn't know who parked and is only the keeper).

He should bring his car insurance to show others are insured on that car, if it shows that.

He should bring his wage slip or proof of lost earnings/lost leave, in case he wins, and the Skelly wording to make the Judge at least think about the fairness of the terms (saying that, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, unfair terms are not enforceable and the Courts must consider the test of fairness every time) and any other evidence he was planning to use and hope the Judge lets him put his case and evidence forward, even though he never bothered to file it at all.

Don't forget he must ALSO challenge the add-on costs, because no debt collector fees were ever incurred and in the Beavis case i was held that £85 easily covered all admin involved in a parking ticket regime, and allowed a significant profit, so there can be no extra 'damages' to add on and nor were they explicitly stated on the signs (I doubt).

In Beavis it was reiterated that a parking firm could not have argued the parking charge as 'damages' anyway, because they are not in possession of the land and suffered no damages.

Even if he loses, at least he could get them all pegged at £100 per PCN if he argued this well and points out no £60 costs were incurred whatsoever.

Debt collectors offer a 'no-collection, no fee' service to parking firms. No costs have been incurred so make sure your brother puts the Claimant to proof of payment of the £60 a pop, which is actually made up.

Thank you for your help. I just got in and met the solicitor. He asked what I was arguing and stated the main defence was there was no contract. He also stated if I'd be raising the other points to which I confirmed I will. I stated that they've shown only one signage in the pack. I read in the PFOA 2012 that there should be more than one type of signage. Is this correct?

Jamran

Also, can I still argue about PFOA and that they can't find keeper liable or is that a no go?

Coupon-mad

In the BPA CoP there must be an entrance sign and prominent signs with the full terms on, throughout the site. Do not let them get away with just showing mock up 'here's what our signs look like' images.

Then again, the signs count for nothing if the Judge goes the DJ Skelly route and finds the Claimant's charges are unconscionable in a residential car park where the Head Lease (presumably, but the Claimant has not produced it to show their due diligence in checking the primacy of contract/rights enjoyed by residents) allows parking.

Jamran wrote: »

Also, can I still argue about PFOA and that they can't find keeper liable or is that a no go?

OMG I already said so and said what your brother needs with him to prove the car is driven by more than one person.Are you reading the last minute advice properly?

Jamran

Coupon-mad wrote: »

In the BPA CoP there must be an entrance sign and prominent signs with the full terms on, throughout the site. Do not let them get away with just showing mock up 'here's what our signs look like' images.

Then again, the signs count for nothing if the Judge goes the DJ Skelly route and finds the Claimant's charges are unconscionable in a residential car park where the Head Lease (presumably, but the Claimant has not produced it to show their due diligence in checking the primacy of contract/rights enjoyed by residents) allows parking.

OMG I already said so and said what your brother needs with him to prove the car is driven by more than one person.Are you reading the last minute advice properly?

I am. However, he was the sole driver and has no other insured person. That's why I was asking. Sorry

Jamran

I also noticed another thing. The postcode they've used on all charges and NtK is the wrong one. One of the letters is incorrect. Even thought the street name is correct. Is that anything?

Coupon-mad

Jamran wrote: »

I am. However, he was the sole driver and has no other insured person. That's why I was asking. Sorry

Is this a joke? You led us to believe the opposite.

No, drop it then. And the postcode likely means diddly squat because some large sites have more than one postcode. As long as the land can be identified as that car park and they didn't completely misdescribe it, then a postcode is not only clutching at straws, it's ripping them up with your nails.

Oh dear.

Put them to proof of the signs, the primacy of contract & their authority (see IamEmanresu's post).

Jamran

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is this a joke? You led us to believe the opposite.

No, drop it then.

Apologies but I didn't state anywhere that he had other people on the insurance. I only stated that he had never admitted to bein the driver. Sorry if that was interpreted differently