URGENT: UKPC & SCS Law

KeithP

Immy_007 wrote: »

...so now i'm assuming to wait to hear from the court for questionnaire?

No need to assume anything.

I would suggest it's back to post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what's next.

Immy_007

Just had an acknowledgement letter from court stating they have received the defence and sent it accross to the claimant and then send the directions questionnaire

Just a question that i want to be clear about......

The registered keeper was not the driver and the driver is not identified..and i am dealing with this on the registered keeper's behalf so when it does go to court can the registered keeper have a legal representative or i can speak on behalf?

System

can the registered keeper have a legal representative?

Always if they are a registered solicitor and not one of these pretend ones.

or i can speak on behalf?

It is up to the judge if he/she will allow a Lay Rep (someone unpaid and not pretending to be a legal rep) though normally they will.

bargepole

IamEmanresu wrote: »

It is up to the judge if he/she will allow a Lay Rep (someone unpaid and not pretending to be a legal rep) though normally they will.

I disagree.

The right of audience of a Lay Rep is in statute, and in the CPRs. The Judge does not have discretion to vary that.

I've also had that confirmed by a Government lawyer from the MoJ.

System

I've also had that confirmed by a Government lawyer from the MoJ.

Is that available for OP's to take to court so a DJ (master in his/her own court) can view.

I know you are correct but we are dealing with the DJ lottery.

[Deleted User]

Its in the Practice direction to CPR part 27 at para 3.1(2) and 3.2 which helpfully also sets out the relevant statutory instrument

Immy_007

Just received today the General Form of Judgement or Order

Top Right it is date 20th September and bottom dated 14th September..not sure which date to go off as i have 14 days to file a detailed defence

Judge allocated is: Judge Hassall @ Count Court Manchester

So based on the defence already filed.. what can i expand on?

Or do i have to wait for particulars of claim from UKPC then file a defence? Further help would be appreciated as you all have been very helpful throughout

i shall await your instructions.. Thank You

KeithP

That is strange.

You filed a Defence on 30th July didn't you?
Log in to MCOL. What is the status of the Claim?

Have you completed a Directions Questionnaire?

Can we please see a copy of this latest Order - suitably redacted of course?

Coupon-mad

If you submitted bargepole's defence, below (that he wrote for you) then I can't understand why you need to file a defence.

Are you sure the Order is not asking for your Witness Statement and evidence?

bargepole wrote: »

Here it is with all the waffle, repetition, and irrelevant stuff cut out:


In the County Court
Claim Number: [REF]
BETWEEN:
UKPC Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
[NAME] (Defendant)
___________
DEFENCE
__________

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

2. The Particulars of Claim, in para. 2, state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle(s)”. In para. 3, they state that the Defendant has admitted being the driver, or alternatively that the Claimant has the right to bring a claim against the keeper. 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.

3.The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the signage is ‘clearly displayed’ but this is denied. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present.. The Claimant is put to strict proof that their signage at the material location was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of motorists.

5. Absent any clear and prominent signage, the elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.

6. The signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, especially in relation to the sum of the parking charge itself. The poor/lack of lighting further diminishes the ability of any person to read the signs especially during darkness in the hours the alleged breach is said to have occurred.

7. At Cheadle Hulme Shopping Centre, where the alleged incident took place, the signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible. The wording is mostly illegible for a number of reasons, firstly it is very cluttered with a lack of white space as background. It is undisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space drastically reduces the legibility of a sign, especially on which must be read before the action of parking and leaving the car. Secondly, the positioning of the signs on the outskirts of the car park, considerably high up makes it impossible to read the conditions on the sign from inside the car, should the signs even be noticed. Even stood directly below the signs it was difficult to read. With the most important information relating to parking charges being in the smallest font. Even from standing below the sign it is illegible, making it unlikely that drivers would be aware of the conditions of the car park and the charges imposed.

8. 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.

9. The British Parking Association ("BPA") Code of Practice sets the requirements for entrance sings. The following requirements are mandatory:
(a) The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.
(b) Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement takes places at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retroreflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual.

10. The claim form states that the land is ‘managed by UKPC’. They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner. The BPA Code also states that parking operators must have landowner authority to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation. The Claimant is put to strict proof of such authority, by means of a contemporaneous and unredacted contract.

11. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Protection and the BPA Code of Practice for same.

12. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.

13. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise of the following:
a) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment
b) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

14. In summary, for the reasons stated above, the Claimant's case is fatally flawed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signature

Date

cdburten

Hi

I am new to these forums and not sure where to post. I live in an apartment building and they recently introduced signs prohibiting parking. I was away for 6 months and let my friend from Australia stay for a few weeks and use my car. Long story short, since returning home I have received about 10 separate notices from UKPC, and then DRP acting on their behalf. I wrote back and gave them the name and address of the driver, as soon as I had opened the letters myself (about 6-8 weeks after the original 'offences' and giving my friends name and address in Australia (I am not bothered about this as I find it unlikely they will contact someone in another country). They had responded to me saying that as its outside the 28 day window, and that as the address is outside the legal jurisdiction of the offence (ie. England & Wales) then it is irrelevant and I can be pursued. Is that true? What should I do about this? I have no intention of paying obviously.