Help please! My small claims hearing against UKPC is in around 20 days...

Coupon-mad

Chris1a wrote: »

@logician, it looks to me like the relevant paragraph on pofa is actually section 9 (4), not 8 (5).
I haven't admitted to being the driver here, so ntk is being taken in to account, not ntd.

She can't reply, but the relevant para re a case with a windscreen PCN is always paragraph 8.

Not 9 - that ONLY applies where the PCN was by post, no windscreen one, e.g. ANPR camera ones.

It's nothing to do with admitting to being the driver, it's about the origin of the PCN.

Chris1a

Gosh, I am so bad at this business. It's all so tricky to do properly, with so much to take in to account.
I am so grateful to have the help from you all though and wouldn't stand a chance without your extremely useful assistance. People like me are so lucky there are such amazing others such as yourselves who find time to help us with our cases.

The government should massively respect you guys for saving innocent members of the pubic so much money and stress when having to deal with these unprofessional parking cowboys. I was so pleased to hear how the MPs feel during the parliamentary discussion when I watched on the video above. It's all very well timed this review & I do hope they will hit back hard at these money grabbing solicitors/parking companies like scs/ukpc, protecting us from them trying to rob people like me blind.

With 2 kids, 2 rabbits, a house and a full time job for starters (etc etc) it is so hard to find the time to focus on this kind of thing. I am almost done updating the statement anyway, taking out unnecessary thanks and having the correct dates/quote from POFA mentioned. Luckily on the pofa front - the evidence is still on our side :-)

If I don't post a copy of the full WS this evening (which I probably won't), then it will come tomorrow for sure - as it has to be done any day now, so I can print and post before the agreed deadline. I have annotated over their statement, but I will quote some/all of it on here as well, to show what I am responding to in my defence.

I hope this thread and my case helps many others who are in this situation, wishing everyone on here (other than the parking pranksters and their lawyers) all the best.

One question for now though.....
How does the following paragraph sound?

'5. With reference to paragraph 8 on page 3 of the claimant!!!8217;s statement, I would like to point out that all the PCN!!!8217;s and correspondence associated to those invoices that were sent to my old address !!!8211; were sent to me prior to the ParkingEye v Beavis case. I took legal advice to ignore those communications, as did many other residents on the *** Place estate who the claimant has been harassing for money. Although I now regret not appealing in good time, I had rights and good reasons to ignore the invoices/letters from ukpc and their debt collector!!!8217;s communications. All the correspondence in relation to this supposed debt, prior to the court hearing, has been unfairly and unjustly issued to me. Not all the other residents on our private estate were receiving tickets some times and I know that the majority of tickets were not paid with those particular residents not being issued with debt collection letters at all/anymore, let alone CCJs.'

Many thanks again
Chris

Coupon-mad

'5. With reference to paragraph 8 on page 3 of the claimant's statement, I would like to point out that all the PCN's and correspondence associated to those invoices that were sent to my old address were sent to me prior to the ParkingEye v Beavis case. I took legal advice to ignore those communications, as did many other residents on the *** Place estate who the claimant has been harassing for money. Although I now regret not appealing in good time, I had rights and good reasons to ignore the invoices/letters from ukpc and their debt collector's communications. All the correspondence in relation to this supposed debt, prior to the court hearing, has been unfairly and unjustly issued to me. Not all the other residents on our private estate were receiving tickets some times and I know that the majority of tickets were not paid with those particular residents not being issued with debt collection letters at all/anymore, let alone CCJs.'

IMHO that sounds like an apology and makes you sound bad for not appealing, and that you feel you were wrong. And it doesn't matter what happened to other people's tickets.

I would maintain the moral high ground and refer to the fact that:

Most residents ignored these unfair PCNs because they were harassing, predatory, unjustified and unsupported by any terms in the lease. UKPC did not issue Notice to Keeper letters in every case and where they did, these did not comply with the POFA 2012, nor did they supply any evidence to identify the driver(s) on each occasion.

So as the keeper of the vehicle, I knew I could not be held liable in law and had no reason to respond to what amounted to fake parking tickets from an ex-clamper firm, whose chequered reputation included being pursued by Trading Standards in late 2011, in a court case where UKPC were convicted on one count. This firm has more recently been banned by the DVLA from handling keeper data, after they admitted falsifying photo evidence:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

The parking was legitimate use of residents' own spaces and the whole estate were fed up with the excessive and predatory ticketing of residents' cars, something that has in February 2018 finally been condemned unanimously by MPs in Parliament in the private parking Code of Practice Bill debate:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02b.1149.0

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5787731

(use some quotes from the debate transcript, about 'residential PCNs' as part of your evidence).

Can you clarify for us, how many PCNs this CCJ related to and across which years? Do you know which PCNs you are defending, and whether some were pre-POFA?

Chris1a

In terms of dates to take in to account and amounts, the dvla records I have show the following, with the NTK letters being received many days after the dvla checks took place/letter dates:
1. Date of event = 11/10/2013 - Date of check = 09/11/2013 (NTK letter dated 12/11/2013)
2. Date of event = 12/10/2013 - Date of check = 11/11/2013 (NTK letter dated 12/11/2013)
3. Date of event = 12/01/2014 - Date of check = 14/02/2014 (NTK letter dated 19/03/2014, after another NTK letter being sent on the 17/02/2014 asking for only £40 or £60, instead of £100)
4. Date of event = 09/02/2014 - Date of check = 10/02/2014 (NTK letter dated 11/03/2014)
5. Date of event = 01/03/2014 - Date of check = 30/03/2014 (NTK letter dated 01/04/2014)
6. Date of event = 09/04/2014 - Date of check = 08/05/2014 (NTK letter dated 09/05/2014)
7. Date of event = 03/05/2014 - Date of check = 01/06/2014 (NTK letter dated 03/06/2014)

So, none were pre-pofa and all were prior to the Beavis case. I am arguing against all of them.
They are attempting to claim £160 per event mentioned above, totalling £1,120.

I still have to finalise the wording around my costs and I am not sure how to word that, or if I have to wait before counterclaiming in order to demand the set aside fee and my costs to be paid back to me.

I have also asked a question below about whether I should include another piece of evidence showing payments to the management company who employed ukpc. Also I am not sure if I have to reference my pay slip/any other documentation like bank statement/annual leave confirmation as actual evidence. Please can someone let me know if I will have to add those as additional exhibits of evidence.

Here is the witness statement as it stands, hopefully without any personal/sensitive details included on it:

Witness Statement of ***NAME*** - ***ADDRESS***

Statement dated XXX February 2018

Claim no: ***
Hearing at *** County Court
Between UKPC Ltd (Claimant) & *** (Defendant)
_________________________________________________________________________________
I, *** can confirm that the facts and details I have provided in this document are all my own words and are the truth, in support of my defence against the above claim.
Having received the final statement on behalf of the claimant; I am responding here, with reference to KA/1-KA/4 being the exhibits of evidence that were attached and sent to me in support if the claimants statement. I also reference here my own evidence, that will support my defence in this case. Exhibits CL1-CL3? are to be taken in to account, proving how I am just an innocent member of the community with no debt whatsoever being owed to the claimant.
1. Within the contract UKPC have provided (evidence KA/1), on page 8 of the claimant!!!8217;s paperwork I see that the agreed charge was initially only £90, whereas I was invoiced £100 each time my vehicle was issued with a parking charge notice (PCN). I am therefore questioning whether the terms of that contract have been broken? To prove otherwise, I suggest evidence is brought to court showing that written notice was provided to UKPC!!!8217;s client, as per the terms and conditions in that contract - section 6.4 - on page 15.

2. In paragraph 4, on page 2 of the claimant!!!8217;s statement I am being accused of causing an obstruction. However, the vehicle in question, along with a large number of other residents!!!8217; vehicles were not actually causing an obstruction. We were safely parked, with ample space for large vehicles such as the refuge collection lorries and fire engines to pass with no issues.
I am referencing here the definition of the word !!!8216;obstruct!!!8217; from the Oxford dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obstruct), !!!8216;Block (an opening, path, road, etc.); be or get in the way of.!!!8217;. Also the Cambridge dictionary definition (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/obstruct), !!!8216;to block a road, passage, entrance, etc. so that nothing can go along it, or to prevent something from happening correctly by putting difficulties in its way!!!8217;. There is no proof to show the vehicle obstructing the road and instead the photo evidence provided by the claimant actually shows otherwise (see photos on page 30 or page 56 for example, where there is plenty of space for large vehicles to pass).

3. I would like to point out that the !!!8216;notice to keeper!!!8217; (NTK) documents as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the claimant!!!8217;s statement, are not actually pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8216;POFA!!!8217;). When issuing an NTK, a requirement of POFA is that the notice must be given in accordance with certain requirements. One specific requirement that has not been met, is shown within a printout of this schedule that I attach as evidence (exhibit CL2). I have highlighted the relevant wording and point out how the NTK!!!8217;s were never received within 28 days of the alleged incidents. In order for the claimant to have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, the claimant should have issued the NTK documents within 28 days. The evidence put forward by the claimant (exhibit KA/3) proves the specific requirement mentioned above - in Section 8(5) of POFA schedule 4, was not met. Please pay attention to the dates when each letter was posted to me. You can also see that little attention was paid to the accuracy of these letters and amounts being claimed. Please see page 50 of the claimant!!!8217;s pack the NTK was dated 17/02/2014, that is referencing a parking charge date matching the letter date, as shown in the top right hand side of the page, but then different to the parking date mentioned within the payment slip below. Also on page 50 within this NTK, the total due is only £60 with a 14-day early payment of £40 being offered, whereas no other PCN!!!8217;s or NTK!!!8217;s being taken in to account here offer that same amount of discount.
Please also find attached the details I received from the DVLA confirming when the registered keeper details were checked, with this being taken in to account as evidence to show how the POFA requirement hasn!!!8217;t been met (exhibit CL2).

4. With reference to paragraph 8 on page 3 of the claimant!!!8217;s statement, I would like to point out that all the PCN!!!8217;s and correspondence associated to those invoices that were sent to my old address !!!8211; were sent to me prior to the ParkingEye v Beavis case. I took legal advice to ignore those communications, as did many other residents on the *** Place estate who the claimant has been harassing for money. As I had rights and good reasons to ignore the invoices/letters from ukpc and their debt collector!!!8217;s communications, I chose not to respond. All the correspondence in relation to this supposed debt, prior to the court hearing, has been unfairly and unjustly issued to me. Not all the other residents on our private estate were receiving tickets some times and I know that the majority of tickets were not paid and those particular residents are not even being issued with debt collection letters these days, let alone CCJs. Please note !!!8211; UKPC are an ex-clamper firm, whose chequered reputation included being pursued by Trading Standards in late 2011, in a court case where UKPC were convicted on one count. This firm has more recently been banned by the DVLA from handling keeper data, after they admitted falsifying photo evidence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html. Please also note !!!8211; This is something that has in February 2018 finally been condemned unanimously by MPs in Parliament in the private parking Code of Practice Bill debate: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02b.1149.0.
Some quotes to consider from the debate in Parliament are shown below:
Greg Knight stated, !!!8216;They show a lack of fairness and a sense of injustice about how the motorists were treated!!!8217;.
Pete Wishart also stated, !!!8216;When people receive PCNs, their rights should be included on them. Too often the parking cowboys dress them up as fines; they are not fines. They are not even effectively legally enforceable!!!8217;.

5. I am arguing with the claimant!!!8217;s point 10, as within our lease there is no such mention of !!!8216;control and management of parking!!!8217;. The only relevant references to take in to account within our lease, that I have attached as evidence (exhibit CL3) are:
- Within the first schedule !!!8216;(a) to pass with or without vehicles (ii) along those parts of the Amenity Areas intended for vehicular use!!!8217;. This reference has no mention of vehicles being stationary or any time limitations when using the roads.
- In the third schedule, it quotes, !!!8216;7. Not to obstruct those parts of the Accessways and Amenity Areas intended for vehicular or pedestrian use.!!!8217;. I refer you back to my paragraph 3 above where I define the word obstruct. I also stress the fact that there is no evidence provided in this case, that can prove the vehicle/s in question were obstructing anyone on the *** Place estate.
- I would also like to point out the reference to Amenity Areas within the seventh schedule 1(d) of and how we paid as much as £280 per year in management fees to UKPC!!!8217;s employer, every year for the 6 years we lived there. (?QUESTION here for forum!!!8230; Should I include evidence for this, perhaps just 1 example of a statement for proof, or all of them?)

Chris1a

As I have to submit my statement and the supporting evidence by Monday, I am going to polish this off later tonight with it being printed tomorrow.

Any further feedback that anyone has is greatly appreciated.

I am planning on including just the 1 statement of account showing where we paid the management company. I am also planning on including the proof of my expenses as a piece of evidence with that being referenced in my final paragraph that is yet to be completed, where I ask for the claimant to cover my costs.

Hope there is nothing seriously worrying included in my statement wording above, please let me know asap otherwise if anyone on here does spot anything you strongly recommend I update.

Many thanks again,
Chris

nosferatu1001

Your WS doesnt include cost schedule, that comes about 3 days before the hearing.

Chris1a

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Your WS doesnt include cost schedule, that comes about 3 days before the hearing.

Thanks for mentioning the above. That is interesting and useful to know, but a bit confusing, as there is no mention within the court papers of the cost schedule and when that should be submitted or how it should be submitted. Any more details you can provide on this will be a big help.

The_Deep

I love that you have dished thee dirt in UKPC, would that everyone acted thusly.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

I love that you have dished thee dirt in UKPC, would that everyone acted thusly.

It might be satisfying to write that stuff, but it has no relevance to the present case.

And their conviction in the Trading Standards case was overturned on appeal.

Redx

Chris1a wrote: »

Thanks for mentioning the above. That is interesting and useful to know, but a bit confusing, as there is no mention within the court papers of the cost schedule and when that should be submitted or how it should be submitted. Any more details you can provide on this will be a big help.

MSE member LOC123 has provided all thosew details in previous replies over the last 4 months and they are linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread , as is the coupon-mad costs schedule written a year ago