Letter Before Claim - UKPPO

Elmo111

Hey Coupon-Mad

Here is my first draft. As said in my comments on the previous page, it's very much grabbing information from previous defences/chopping and changing here and there and adding bits in. Out of curiosity, this was a previous attachment in a previous email from Karen, would this be an acceptable (compliant) NTK? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XQu2BjmIdzdSsoL4xlCQuAM8BIXqM5kQ/view

**********

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

UKPPO Ltd
(Claimant)

-and-


XXXXX
(Defendant)

___________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT
___________________________________________________________________________


I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

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.

Paragraph 5.2 of the October 2012 pre-action protocol, which UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd suggested the defendant use, 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.

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.

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;
4.1. During pre-action communication, UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd informed the defendant that it sets a fine of £60.00 per PCN (Parking Charge Notice) if acknowledged within 14 days and £100.00 if acknowledged between days 14 and 28. On 10/04/2018, as a gesture of !!!8216;goodwill!!!8217;, UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd granted a final payment of £600.00
4.2. The Claimant has stated that 4 !!!8216;parking charges!!!8217; were incurred.
4.3. 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.
4.4. 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.

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.


It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

5.1. 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")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. There was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217;; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. 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.

5.3. 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.

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.

**********

Hope it's not bad for a first attempt, looking forward to seeing how I can improve.

KeithP

Elmo111, please stop using !!!!!! links.

I for one won't click on them because they hide the real URL.

Elmo111

KeithP wrote: »

Elmo111, please stop using !!!!!! links.

I for one won't click on them because they hide the real URL.

Understood, I've fixed the link above my defence statement.

Elmo111

Hi everyone,

Bumping to the top as I'd love some critique on my first draft. It's posted above, post #82.

Any comments or additions are welcome.

Thanks!

Elmo111

Morning all,

Bumping again for critique on my defence statement above, comment #82.

Coupon-mad

Bumping for comments by anyone around.

Elmo111

@Coupon-Mad: thanks for your support on this so far!

It seems that these defences are meant to be as meticulous as possible and I know that time is of the essence, with just under 2 weeks to get this done.

Do you have any thoughts yourself on how this looks so far? Have I missed anything crucial that I should mention in past correspondence with UKPPO? For example, their use of the Interpretations Act?

At this point I'd just like somebody to tell me I'm on the right lines with how this should look.

Coupon-mad

I've only skim read, and saw these:

UKPPO Ltd
(Claimant)

Put their name in full as it appears on the Claim Form.

Not 'statement':

DEFENCE [STRIKE]STATEMENT[/STRIKE]

I assume on your word document, all the paragraphs are numbered?

Are you actually DENYING, or saying the driver has not been identified? Think about it, this is court, you must be honest. No 'denying' being the driver if you KNOW that's not true:

It is denied that the Defendant was the driver

This bit is odd and makes them look reasonable, don't call their demands a 'gesture of goodwill' even if they did. I would delete this entirely:

During pre-action communication, UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd informed the defendant that it sets a fine of £60.00 per PCN (Parking Charge Notice) if acknowledged within 14 days and £100.00 if acknowledged between days 14 and 28. On 10/04/2018, as a gesture of 'goodwill' UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd granted a final payment of £600.00

I didn't see much, if anything, about unclear signs/no contract/permits?

I am not seeing anything at the start that tells the Judge what it's about? To see claims that start that way, search 'defence common ground' as keywords.

Computersaysno

Amazed that PPO are doing court.....

Computersaysno

Ask them if the money they obtain goes to the court [as it should do] or do they keep it for themselves/the landowner??


I think you'll find they drop they drop the case pretty sharp once that hits the electronic door mat!!