Ukcpm ignoring my appeal what to do?

Veed3779

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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.

Yep will do think I posted that question at same time as you answered.

Just a quick point on the initial appeal letter, I stated that they ignored my appeal as I received nothing back from them after my first appeal.
I have just been reading through all the info they sent me in reply to the sar and they have included a reply to the appeal now I have never received a copy of this through the post but they are claiming to have sent it? looks as though it was just within 28 days as well according to the date.

Veed3779

Ok so I have adjusted the bits as advised can’t seem to find anymore points that I can put in that relates to my case. My main argument is that the signs were quite small placed high up on a lamppost without sufficient light and that the car was parked away from numbered bays believed to be a public road of which it gives the appearance of and had other vehicles parked on.
Not sure if I elaborate on this now or is my witness statement more for this.
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 driver, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date on a public road, where there were no road markings private bays,or any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.

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, 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. 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.

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

Veed3779 wrote: »

''they operate in a residential car park where I used to live.''

Received a notice to keeper before Christmas with a terrible picture in the dark of my car parked on road way in an area controlled by cpm, sent an initial appeal using template from the newbie thread, included my new address as notice was sent to old address.

Your defence needs to talk about the fact you were a resident

edit - this case is not about a resident.

Veed3779

Sorry think I may have created some confusion earlier within this thread, when I posted originally I talked about ukcpm patrolling a residential car park where I used to live but the notice in question was given elsewhere so I was not a resident in that car park. I stopped there for a few minutes whilst visiting shop as it’s opposite and gives the impression that it is a public road and there were other cars parked there I mistakenly believed I could park there.

Coupon-mad

Ah, OK, yes I was confused then. I would remove this, which made me think the area was a block of flats:

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.

Your main defence will be:

gives the impression that it is a public road

...and that the sign only offers a parking contract to permit holders, so this is void for impossibility for non permit holders misled into thinking it's an unmarked road beside a shop. No consideration flowed between the parties and the area is clearly a trap.

Have a read of PACE v Lengyel in the Parking Prankster's case law pages. Use it later at WS stage, but learn from it now and use some of the Judge's words.

Veed3779

It was still a block of flats just I was not a resident there, I was parked on the side road that led in to the estate, so I could leave that bit in.

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't.

I would draw a huge distinction between the area that looks like a public road, and a car park for flats, because to park there is selfish whereas the former can be painted as a trap. So no talk about seeing signs beside bins and flats.

See what I added to my reply above; read PACE v Lengyel.

Veed3779

Yeah have made a note to read that, ok will remove the bit regarding the signs about bins and flats I shall try and put some more in about it looking like a public road instead.

Veed3779

So am looking to change paragraph 2 to this.
Am aware it could probably be worded a lot better I’m not great at this kind of stuff.

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 where you would expect such restrictions to start, I therefore believe this appearance deliberately lures drivers to feel safe parking here causing them to fall foul of the poor signage.

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

I think you will find more to add, from Lengyel, about trespass, and no contract being possible with a non permit holder - no licence to park was offered.