Letter before claim recieved

BRS7

All 11 are in the same claim. The other two are from a little bit of off-street parking in a town centre. Come to think of it, I have only received the contract between the land owner and UKPC for the 9 residential ones, not the for the other two. Is it worth me trying to get a residents lease contract or will that be worthless as I am not a resident?

Coupon-mad

How about asking the Council who pays the non-domestic rates for BOTH sites?

That flushes out who really 'owns'/is in possession, and might be very useful at WS stage if UKPC show some wishy-washy rubbish 'contract' sheet of drivel on their own headed notepaper, signed by a random tenant or Managing Agent (non landowner), and you produce the actual landholder's names from the Council's records of non-domestic ratepayers and point out to the Judge that the Claimant appears to have no contract with the landowner at all...

BRS7

Thanks! I will endeavour to get that!


I guess this is not something that I need to have prior to sending off the defence?


I've tweaked it slightly, is this okay to send off? Please let me know if it's too weak.








In the County Court Business Centre


Claim Number: XXXXXX


Between:


Uk Parking Control Ltd v XXXXXX


Preliminary
1) The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are
embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and
complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court
permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add
to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to
limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.



2) The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms
of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of
case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by
contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to
engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol
and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.



Background
3) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.


4) It is denied that any "parking charges or
loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of
claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.



5) The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full
details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to
any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that the parking
charges were incurred for not parking correctly within a marked bay; which is
wholly denied by the Defendant.



Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement for PCN!!!8217;s XXXXX & XXXX.



7) UK Car Park Management Ltd are not 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 rights to bring action regarding this claim.
7.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
7.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
7.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge


8. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the
!!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how
the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost
with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the
POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
8.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the
maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the
Notice to Keeper.
8.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the
charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was
established.
8.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to
pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms
and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.



Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
9) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).


10) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies
using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary
demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free resident
parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.


11) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any
liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons.
The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its
discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a
detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of
success.


12) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when
Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential
service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that
the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which
should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the
opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in
support of this defence.


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





Signed

Coupon-mad

BRS7 wrote: »

All 11 are in the same claim. The other two are from a little bit of off-street parking in a town centre. Come to think of it, I have only received the contract between the land owner and UKPC for the 9 residential ones, not the for the other two.

In view of the mixed bag of PCNs they've thrown into one claim I would add a point near the top, about that. Maybe this, (removing (a), (b) etc):

5) The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract term(s) which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

5.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to
any debt.

5.2. The Claimant has stated that some of the purported parking charges (PCNs) were incurred for not parking correctly within a marked bay. No evidence has been provided and this is wholly denied.

5.3. The claim is a hotchpotch of eleven 'PCNs', two of which appear to relate to an entirely different location, presumably with different signage terms that the claimant alleges formed a contract with the driver(s). No information has been provided about these 'PCNs' and the Defendant finds it almost impossible to make an informed decision about a defence, hence having to cover every eventuality before the Claimant ambushes the Defendant at Witness Statement stage with information that should have been disclosed already.

5.4. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has 'lumped together' completely different allegations about vague 'breach of contract' events (where the driver may have been a different party each time) in order to artificially load each 'charge' with an imaginary £60 'debt collector/indemnity fee' that was never paid by the Claimant, and does not exist. Thus the Claimant has exaggerated the claim, as a thinly-veiled attempt at double recovery by a company desperate to recover monies not owed to make up a shortfall in their dubious income/profits, due to this Claimant being at the time of their Letter before Claim, banned by the DVLA (again) for two months whilst their conduct was under investigation.

BRS7

Coupon-mad thank you for your input. So, in it's entirety below. I will be sending this off later this week.






In the County Court Business Centre


Claim Number: XXXXXX

Between:


Uk Parking Control Ltd v XXXXXX


Preliminary

1) The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2) The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.


Background


3) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

4) It is denied that any "parking charges or loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.


5) The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract term(s) which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

5.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to
any debt.

5.2. The Claimant has stated that some of the purported parking charges (PCNs) were incurred for not parking correctly within a marked bay. No evidence has been provided and this is wholly denied.

5.3. The claim is a hotchpotch of eleven 'PCNs', two of which appear to relate to an entirely different location, presumably with different signage terms that the claimant alleges formed a contract with the driver(s). No information has been provided about these 'PCNs' and the Defendant finds it almost impossible to make an informed decision about a defence, hence having to cover every eventuality before the Claimant ambushes the Defendant at Witness Statement stage with information that should have been disclosed already.

5.4. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has 'lumped together' completely different allegations about vague 'breach of contract' events (where the driver may have been a different party each time) in order to artificially load each 'charge' with an imaginary £60 'debt collector/indemnity fee' that was never paid by the Claimant, and does not exist. Thus the Claimant has exaggerated the claim, as a thinly-veiled attempt at double recovery by a company desperate to recover monies not owed to make up a shortfall in their dubious income/profits, due to this Claimant being at the time of their Letter before Claim, banned by the DVLA (again) for two months whilst their conduct was under investigation.


Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract


6) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement for PCN!!!8217;s XXXXX & XXXX.


7) UK Car Park Management Ltd are not 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 rights to bring action regarding this claim.
7.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
7.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
7.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge


8. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.


8.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.


8.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.


8.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim


9) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

10) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free resident parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

11) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

12) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.


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

Signed

1505grandad

Point 7 says "UK Car Park Management Ltd are not the lawful occupier"

BRS7

Oh! Thank you for noticing! Amended to "UK Parking Control LTD" and will send off today.

BRS7

Hi all,

I have read the newbies thread regarding N180 but can't seem to find the answers to these:
-Can this be emailed exactly like the defence?
-Is it advised to do a covering letter with it? And if so, to both the court and other party?

And is agreeing to mediation always a waste of time?

Thanks

KeithP

BRS7 wrote: »

I have read the newbies thread regarding N180 but can't seem to find the answers to these:
-Can this be emailed exactly like the defence?

Email to the same court address and in the same manner as your Defence.

BRS7 wrote: »

-Is it advised to do a covering letter with it? And if so, to both the court and other party?

No need for a covering letter for the court email, but depending how you intend to send it to the Claimant, a covering letter may be appropriate.

BRS7 wrote: »

And is agreeing to mediation always a waste of time?

Yes. You want to pay nothing. They want all they are asking for.

Have you read the guidance in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread about how to complete that form?

Coupon-mad

Mediation has no place when defending a parking scam. IMHO, all private tickets are scams.