Letter Before Claim - UKPPO

System

Since UKPPO are by now following this, there is evidence in the form of a DVLA FOI that UKPPO use self-ticketers. The FOI showed that not all UKPPO's ticketers had been trained and had signed that they abided by the BPA (or IPC) Code of Practice.

You could send a letter to UKPPO even at this stage to allege ghost ticketing and ask them to confirm that the person issuing the Notices to Drivers were a) in their employ or b) if not, had they signed to say adhered to the IPC Code as you are aware that there have been issues with their ticketers before.

Elmo111

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Since UKPPO are by now following this, there is evidence in the form of a DVLA FOI that UKPPO use self-ticketers. The FOI showed that not all UKPPO's ticketers had been trained and had signed that they abided by the BPA (or IPC) Code of Practice.

You could send a letter to UKPPO even at this stage to allege ghost ticketing and ask them to confirm that the person issuing the Notices to Drivers were a) in their employ or b) if not, had they signed to say adhered to the IPC Code as you are aware that there have been issues with their ticketers before.

Hey IamEmanresu, oh that certainly is interesting - do you have a direct link/point me to a source?

I've sent a letter this morning regarding ghost ticketing.

Coupon-mad

You'd find it by Googling FOI UKPPO I expect.

FOIs held on the 'whatdotheyknow' website are in the Public domain.

Umkomaas

FOIs held on the 'whatdotheyknow' website are in the Public domain.

I had a look there yesterday CM, but only one UKPPO FOI came up (nothing to do with self-ticketers), which was about their arrangement with NIAL and the contract with (the apparently defunct) Park & Fly, with the DVLA once again seeming to do backward somersaults to protect the PPC.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/UKPPO/all

Elmo111

My third draft after some recommendations from Coupon-Mad.

**********

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

UK PARKING PATROL OFFICE LTD
(Claimant)

-and-


XXXXX
(Defendant)

___________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE
___________________________________________________________________________

Preliminary

1. The Defendant denies receiving correspondence from the Claimant regarding any of the alleged parking contraventions. In pre-action communication, UKPPO Ltd states that 24 letters were sent to the Defendant's address acquired from the DVLA for strictly limited purpose of !!!8216;enquiring who was driving!!!8217;.

2. It is with distress that I note that the Claimants amount of letters sent, is approximately twice as many demands than the unwarranted demands which bombarded the consumer victim in the case of Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46, where the company's course of conduct amounted to unlawful harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and they were liable to pay the defendant over £10,000 in compensation.

Background

3. It is admitted that on the material dates, the Defendant's vehicle was parked at the location stated.

4. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle which is the subject of these proceedings.

5. No driver of the vehicle reported finding a windscreen PCN. After correspondence from the landowner regarding CCTV footage, this is also unavailable due to only 4 weeks footage being on file at any one time.

6. The Claimant failed to issue a Notice to Keeper (NTK) for the alleged infringement. This is not in accordance with the requirements of The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA). Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. UK Parking Patrol have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-
The notice must be given by; (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) Sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

6.2. Paragraph 5.2 of the October 2017 pre-action protocol, which UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd, states that in our pre-action communications:-

If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must:- (a) provide the document or information; or (b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request.

6.3 UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd could not supply the defendant with a copy of a compliant NTK and (b) did not explain why the requested NTK is unavailable. Instead, UK Parking Patrol Ltd decided to continually evade providing the defendant with a copy of the required documents, vital to their case.

7. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract with any correspondence as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the !!!8216;Creditor!!!8217;; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner!!!8217;s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions;

7.1. The claimant provided an example !!!8216;contractual notice!!!8217;, that was not a picture directly from the event of each parking offence, but instead an out-of-date PDF, titled !!!8216;Parking Patrol july2013!!!8217;, which states at the bottom of the document, !!!8220;Non-payment will result in additional charges which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis.!!!8221;


8. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence; no dates, the reason for each PCN or whether the vehicle was parked on the roadway or car park.
9.1. The Claimant has stated that 4 !!!8216;parking charges!!!8217; were incurred.
9.2. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
9.3. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It simply states !!!8216;parking charges!!!8217;; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
9.4. It was only during pre-action communication that information regarding why the charge arose, what the initial charge was, what the alleged contract was and anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

10. It is not known that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

10.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
10.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
10.2.1. There was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217;; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
10.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
10.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver.

11. For the Claimant to utilise The Interpretations Act of 1978, proof of postings must be given to the Defendant. UKPPO were unable to supply proof of postings for the NTK(s), nor even true copies showing the address utilised.

12. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought and it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant, which bear no relation to the maximum sum potentially able to be recovered from a registered keeper, as set out in the POFA, namely the sum stated in the Notice to Keeper.

13. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd have failed to adhere to POFA 2012 and should chase the appropriate party.

The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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

(Defendant) (Date)


**********

If anybody else has been following and would like to support in this, I'd be massively grateful! Got to have it sent off by Monday evening as that's the 28th day since the claim form hit the door mat!

Thanks!

KeithP

Elmo111 wrote: »

Got to have it sent off by Monday evening as that's the 28th day since the claim form hit the door mat!

The date of issue on your Claim Form is 30 April 2018.

That means that your Defence must be filed by 4pm on Monday 4th June 2018.

So another week. Don't panic.

Coupon-mad

This is a little oddly worded:

10. It is not known that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

These points need paragraph numbers:

UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd have failed to adhere to POFA 2012 and should chase the appropriate party.

The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I was confused as to what the contravention is alleged to be and I think you defence should deal with that, or say you have no idea because of the sparse POC.

Finally I didn't see this, nothing said 'ghost ticketing' or these words that I saw:

I would have a point stating that:

No driver of your car reported finding any windscreen PCN, and so this suggests that ''ghost ticketing'' might have been occurring at this site. One missing PCN could be a prank by a third party, but for four alleged windscreen PCNs to have never been seen, suggests something different. As such, photos are not enough because they form part of a typical ''ghost ticketing'' rogue operation and the Defendant would expect the employee who ticketed the vehicle, to provide witness statement evidence and to be questioned at the hearing.

IamEmanresu also suggested you should allege ghost ticketing and untrained self-ticketers (which may not even work for UKPPO nor even have ever seen the BPA Code of Practice).

System

You'd find it by Googling FOI UKPPO I expect.

FOIs held on the 'whatdotheyknow' website are in the Public domain.

I have a copy so if you need it at the Witness Statement stage in about 4 months time, come back and you can add it to your pack - if it gets there.

Or you can ask the DVLA for a copy of FOI 5220. It is an extensive FOI but the details are in the Appendices. - B at page 28

Elmo111

Just finishing up some touches to the fourth draft now!

I've been added to a Facebook group full of those who currently reside in the apartment block - they've got lots of interesting things to say about the overall state of the building, including what seems a complete lack of adequate maintenance from the landlord. There is also a tonne of pictures regarding broken shutters of the underground car park (broken for weeks at a time according to some), which means that pretty much anybody is welcome on the premises... From memory, I recall a lot of times when there was homeless people rummaging around the bin-stores, also underground.

Do you think I'd be able to include this in my defence? A lack of due diligence from the landlord (UrbanBubble)?

Coupon-mad

Yes if you twist it to say that all of this is indicative of the continued disdain and negligent attitude of Urban Bubble, who appear to do nothing useful to resolve serious nuisances to residents' peaceful enjoyment. Indeed they have inflicted an unacceptable nuisance directly on residents themselves, in the form of appointing an IPC firm, clearly with no due diligence (because IPC firms do not offer POPLA as a fair ADR, and will not cancel their predatory tickets, and are targeting residents). In fact you and other residents believe the agreement is purely for the convenience of Urban Bubble who are likely to be collecting an otherwise undeclared bounty from 'ticketing' and you put the Claimant to strict proof and full disclosure of the contract with Urban Bubble, and what steps were take in advance of enforcement to take account of the primacy of contract of existing residents and to avoid unconscionable ticketing of genuine residents/their visitors, rather than a genuine aim to deter trespassers.