UKPCM PCN "Outside of Marked Bay"

Coupon-mad

You could add to this:

It is noted that the UKCPM no longer operates the carpark, which further negates any excuse the Claimant might have purporting to rely upon commercial justification and/or a legitimate interest. The judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished, with the only comparable fact being the retail park location.

Also you can go to town more about the abuse of process of adding fake 'damages':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75520074#post75520074

louiemiro

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You could add to this:

Also you can go to town more about the abuse of process of adding fake 'damages':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75520074#post75520074

Thank you so much Coupon Mad.
So...


Draft #2 then:


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK C** P*** M*****MENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXX Retail Park, and had a valid reason be parked in that bay, namely the use of the shopping facilities in said retail park, for which it was clear the parking zone was intended, and for which the landowner had clearly provided for use of customers of these premises.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant ######## was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) #######;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. (a) Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within parking bays, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked' nor definition of the term "within".

5 (b) It is further noted that The Vehicle in question was on the date in question parked for all intents and purposes as "within a bay" as might be reasonably described as such by any reasonable person.
Further, if any reasonable estimate be made as to the degree to which the vehicle was parked "within" the bay, (by dint of one wheel turned a small proportion over the a marking line, by a matter of approximately 7 inches from any inspection of the paultry and inadequate photographic imagery provided by the Claimant to the defendant) then that estimate would likely show a proportion of the said vehicle being "within" the bay in the environs of 99.9% "within" whether judging by a proportion of mass (in kg) of said vehicle, or even by judging by an estimate of the proportion of volume (in cubic metres) of the said vehicle.

6. (a) The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position (over 7 feet up a post.) that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6 (b) The Claimant has shown no evidence of the number of signage sites (signs) across the site, which the defendant contends was paultry. There is no record in the defendants notes of any more than 2 or 3 signs on a site that had a dimension in the region of 2100 Sq metres.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. It is noted that the UKCPM no longer operates the carpark.

8: It is noted that there is evidence that DRP has used a Gladstones letterhead to write to the defendant, and hencemaay have falsely represented itsel. It has yet to be established whether DRP had the permission to do so. If not, the service (by DRP) appears to have included sending at least one letter on Gladstones headed notepaper that amount to False Instruments.


8 (a) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.


8. (b) The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case being a maximum of £100 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract'.

9. Regarding purported 'legal costs' of £50, according to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred any case-specific legal costs, because no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all.

10. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim that it is not entitled to recover. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot. Claims such as this have recently been struck out by County Courts for reasons of: ''Substantial charge additional to the parking charge. Additional charge not recoverable under the POFA, Pre-action Protocol and CPRs...abuse of process.''

11. Debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so even if letters were sent by any third party, no costs have been incurred, in truth. Nor can a parking operator add any 'damages' to the PCN sum, not even if their member-biased Trade Body pretends they can in a Code of Practice, and not even if a further sum is mentioned on signage, because this would exceed the maximum parking charge, in a flagrant attempt at double recovery. Both law and case law regarding parking on private land, dictates that any additional charge for damages/indemnity costs (howsoever described) is not recoverable under the POFA Schedule 4, nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

12. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this industry's repeated abuse of consumers' rights and remedies.

13: It is noted that the UKCPM no longer operates the carpark, which further negates any excuse the Claimant might have purporting to rely upon commercial justification and/or a legitimate interest. The judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished, with the only comparable fact being the retail park location.


14. 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, the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).


15. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.




p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }

louiemiro

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You could add to this:

Also you can go to town more about the abuse of process of adding fake 'damages':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75520074#post75520074

Hi Folks

Can I get a final thought on the defence I've written from this thread b4 I send it off (it's in the penultimate post above).

Very Many thanks

Le_Kirk

Aren't 8a and 8b the same? Otherwise you've covered all the ground with the usual points. Not sure about the point about debt collectors; how does that help your defence, maybe the Witness Statement is the place for that- - others may comment on this point. You also seem to have gone to town on the "parking within a bay" Is this what the PPC is claiming? If so, then you cannot claim to have sparse particulars, if not, then why is it there?

louiemiro

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Aren't 8a and 8b the same? Otherwise you've covered all the ground with the usual points. Not sure about the point about debt collectors; how does that help your defence, maybe the Witness Statement is the place for that- - others may comment on this point. You also seem to have gone to town on the "parking within a bay" Is this what the PPC is claiming? If so, then you cannot claim to have sparse particulars, if not, then why is it there?

Thanks for replying. Le Kirk

Yes... I'll get rid of 8(b).

yes... the PPC is claiming the vehicle was parked outside a bay.
Mmmm... can i claim to have sparse particulars if they've only sent me one fairly poor pic of the car's wheel outside the bay??

Thank you again

Le_Kirk

louiemiro wrote: »

yes... the PPC is claiming the vehicle was parked outside a bay.
Mmmm... can i claim to have sparse particulars if they've only sent me one fairly poor pic of the car's wheel outside the bay??

Thank you again

Dubious one that, maybe they should write a few words but, as is oft quoted, a picture is worth a thousand words. On balance, I would leave it in but maybe lower down the running order after signs, landowner authority and your words about outside the bay.

louiemiro

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Dubious one that, maybe they should write a few words but, as is oft quoted, a picture is worth a thousand words. On balance, I would leave it in but maybe lower down the running order after signs, landowner authority and your words about outside the bay.

Thank you again.

louiemiro

Have submitted defence, and had it acknowledged by Court.

UKCPM have now (via Gladstones) sent me their next letter telling me they intend to proceed with the claim, and enclosed a copy of their Directions Questionnaire "which will be filed with the court iopon their request"
As predicted... they're saying they're requesting a non oral hearing, that they're not willing to go to mediation and offering me a chance to make any "genuine payment proposals"!!


Its been signed GS! (who is this person!!!??)


I have filed it and await the court's copy etc.

Anything I should be thinking about?

Many thanks all.

KeithP

louiemiro wrote: »

Anything I should be thinking about?

Your Witness Statement and evidence.

Coupon-mad

Its been signed GS! (who is this person!!!??)

Normal for solicitor firms not to sign in person. Why do so many people not know this?