Ukcpm ignoring my appeal what to do?

Veed3779

IN 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 registered keeper, was parked on the above date alongside a kerb at the side of the road within a residential site,where there was no road markings or private bays and causing no obstruction.

3. 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 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.

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. 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.

7. 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.

Veed3779

Going to have another read through threads again tomorrow to see if there are any other points relevant to my case to see if I can build on it a bit more.

Le_Kirk

Veed3779 wrote: »

Going to have another read through threads again tomorrow to see if there are any other points relevant to my case to see if I can build on it a bit more.

Pay particular attention to Bargepole's and Coupon-mad's concise defences in NEWBIE thread post # 2 and see how yours compares, for example have you covered all the points relevant to your case.

Veed3779

Yeah I took a lot from barge poles examples, I believe I have most of points covered relevant to me I’m reading through some more to see if there is anything else.

Coupon-mad

Add a (third person) version of this to your defence as it paints a picture of unreasonable conduct:

Veed3779 wrote: »

Also I did check online to see if it had been signed for and it has been signed by someone at the address the next day so they have just chose to ignore it.

A couple of changes suggested to these parts:

where there [STRIKE]was[/STRIKE] were no road markings or private bays and causing no obstruction.

3. The terms on the Claimant's signage [STRIKE]are also[/STRIKE] were not seen, as these were placed on high on the walls of a building, well away from the unmarked access road and displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle. The signs at this site are sparse and [STRIKE]is in such a position that[/STRIKE] 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, given its position which looked to relate to the building, such as a sign about the bin stores, or advisory information about the flat numbers in each block.

Is there anything you can reasonably add to explain that you were authorised, not 'unauthorised' as you were visiting a resident or dropping something off (what were you doing)?

I am assuming your early appeal might well have admitted to driving, and if so, that is how you should continue, hence why I wrote about what 'the Defendant' did, above.

Veed3779

Is there anything you can reasonably add to explain that you were authorised, not 'unauthorised' as you were visiting a resident or dropping something off (what were you doing)?

I am assuming your early appeal they might well have, admitted to driving, and if so, that is how you should continue, hence why I wrote about what 'the Defendant' did, above.[/QUOTE]

The driver has not yet been identified my early appeal was from the newbie thread and did not release driver details.

The driver was not visiting the site but picking something up from the shops opposite, notice states no parking on access roads as not to cause obstruction and keep estate looking tidy and to park only in marked bays although the car is not causing any obstruction as road is pretty wide.

Coupon-mad

Unless I am misunderstanding the area, you should have parked on the single or double yellows that were no doubt somewhere near the shop - that's what they are there for (loading/unloading being an on street exemption, as long as there are no yellow 'kerb blips' as well as the lines). Always look to stop on street, not on private land.

I make it my mission here (apart from murdering PPCs to one day remove them from the food chain, and warning people off 'appeals firms' who are in a couple of cases, more aggressive than the PPCs) to make sure people realise NOT to seek out private car parks.

Unless this was a London red route, you could and should have stopped onstreet if collecting an item, not taken up space on a road adjoining someone's private car park.

Anyway what's done is done, but think ''on street'' not ''car park/private road'' in future.

You can add the bit from bargepole's other concise defence example (both are in the NEWBIES thread) that says the road had the appearance of unmarked public highway and thus the Defendant had no idea this was 'managed' or even 'private' land.

You should defend this as driver, IMHO (unless you were not driving, in which case, say so in the defence for the avoidance of doubt).

You need to be able to speak honestly to the Judge about the lack of signs and that you thought this was part of the public highway; to all intents and purposes, this had the appearance of an access road with no markings prohibiting parking and certainly no contractual charge trap.

Veed3779

When I edit paragraph 3 shall I keep it as (defendant) or shall I refer to as driver as details have not been revealed?

Coupon-mad

You should defend this as driver, IMHO (unless you were not driving, in which case, say so in the defence for the avoidance of doubt). As I explained above.

Veed3779

I take your point on the parking and driver was genuinely not looking for a private car park, there was no space outside shops and was an honest mistake and was wrongly assumed that the access road was not part of any private parking rules.

Ok so I will now re edit the defence adding the above parts you have advised and will change it so it reads defendant and defend this as the driver.