Ukcpm ignoring my appeal what to do?

Veed3779

ok so have added a little bit more regarding the trespass, was looking at the signage yesterday which I was reading through would it help if I posted there so called signs and terms and conditions up to pull a few more points up or is the defence ok as it is?

Veed3779

N THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT 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 driver, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date on what is believed to be a public road, ,where there were no road markings,or any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction and was well away from the entrance to a residents car park which you would be easily led to believe that any such restrictions in force would start, on entrance to the road is a small unlit sign which states no unauthorised parking and has no terms and conditions relating to such and appears to relate to the private bays and residents car park.

3. The terms on the Claimant's signage were not seen as these were placed high on a lamppost with insufficient lighting well away from the unmarked access road and displayed in a font too small to read from a passing vehicle. The signs at this site are sparse and anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Contrary to Lord Denning's well known 'red hand rule', the Defendant had no fair opportunity to learn about this onerous penalty or 'parking charge' nor did the Defendant even take the notice to relate to parking, It is therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract as stated by the terms and conditions and have no mention of ‘contract’ or ‘agreement’ and can at best only be an act of trespass that can only be pursued by the landowner.

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.
At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

5. The Claimant is put to strict 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, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Coupon-mad

Looks good, covers all the bases.

Please do show us those signs though; good to see what the words say.

Veed3779

That’s the main signs dotted around the one on the entrance is a small unlit sign that just says no unauthorised parking

[Deleted User]

You could add to the particulars:

1. No parking offered to non-residents
* You cannot buy a permit
* You don't have & can't display a permit
the contract is void for impossibility. The terms could not ever be performed by anyone not already a resident. It is not a contract for parking services
2. The fee is not a parking fee but a penalty for breaching terms you have never been able to comply with (clearly expressed "breach of these terms"
3. The sign does not specify any bolt on liquidated damages. They are unenforceable.

Read PACE v Lengyl.

Veed3779

Johnersh wrote: »

You could add to the particulars:

1. No parking offered to non-residents
* You cannot buy a permit
* You don't have & can't display a permit
the contract is void for impossibility. The terms could not ever be performed by anyone not already a resident. It is not a contract for parking services
2. The fee is not a parking fee but a penalty for breaching terms you have never been able to comply with (clearly expressed "breach of these terms"
3. The sign does not specify any bolt on liquidated damages. They are unenforceable.

Read PACE v Lengyl.

Thank you I have added that in going to send tonight as think its due by Monday afternoon.

thanks everyone so far for all the help

Coupon-mad

OK, make sure you email it, not post.

Come back along the way and check 'what happens when' in the NEWBIES thread for things like how to fill in the court DQ N180 form.

Keep PACE v Lengyel in your back pocket as that transcript will be one for your WS file that you have to file & serve before the local hearing.

KeithP

Veed3779 wrote: »

Thank you I have added that in going to send tonight as think its due by Monday afternoon.

Think??

Post #66 above clarifies that.

Veed3779

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, make sure you email it, not post.

Come back along the way and check 'what happens when' in the NEWBIES thread for things like how to fill in the court DQ N180 form.

Keep PACE v Lengyel in your back pocket as that transcript will be one for your WS file that you have to file & serve before the local hearing.

So my printer has chose now to pack up! ink cartridge fault and has now froze. I can email to father in law but I won't be able to sign scan it till possibly sun night, if I emailed it Monday morning and no one reads and updates my case before the 4pm deadline is that going to cause a problem with my case or as long as I have sent the email before the deadline will I be ok?

KeithP

Post #66 above answers that question too.

Where it says...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.

If it arrives with the CCBC before 4pm, make it well before 4pm, then it doesn't matter too much when it is dealt with.

You'll get an automatic email receipt anyway.