County Court Claim Defence letter UKPC

Coupon-mad

We've seen this before from UKPC in a very similar case, and the advice was to tell them that of course, their client must already have a copy of the head lease. This is a good opportunity to make them get lost (and possibly discontinue this claim) by a robust reply that says (you will need to re-word this into the first person, but do use it all because you WANT this in evidence for your Judge to read, if a hearing takes place):


You believe they must already have seen the Head Lease and if they haven't, then this contact desperately asking for it at the eleventh hour from a mere tenant (after harassing residents beyond belief, with predatory ticketing regardless of the residents' primacy of contract) proves the entire claim is meritless and pure intimidation of people in their own homes. This is exactly the sort of baseless litigation that was singled out by MPs on 2nd February during the unanimous scam-shaming of the private parking industry, in the Second Reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, where the highlights from Hansard were:

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; ''unfair treatment''; ''signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued''; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; ''bloodsuckers''; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; ''extortionate fines''; ''rogue operators''; ''sense of injustice''; ''wilfully misleading''; ''signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead''; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; ''unreasonable''; ''a curse''; ''harassing''; ''operating in a disgusting way''; ''appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing''; ''loathed''; ''outrageous scam''; ''dodgy practice''; ''outrageous abuse''; ''unscrupulous practices;''; ''the British Parking Association (BPA) is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert'' and by way fo conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

UKPC cannot possibly protest that the above does not apply to them, given that they are currently banned by the DVLA again (April 2018 onwards), and facing yet another investigation which follows their 2016 ban for altering data on time-stamps in order to issue fraudulent tickets. It was said at the time by the CEO of the BPA, that further transgressions by UKPC could lead to expulsion, so this latest investigation and ban (which the DVLA do not impose lightly) merely confirms UKPC's continued rogue practices.

UKPC appear to the reasonable man, to be the epitome of the type of rogue ticketer discussed in Parliament, and are not operating in a way that the courts should uphold, to the detriment of law abiding residents who rely upon an existing right to park without such encumbrance and harassment. UKPC routinely ruin the peaceful enjoyment of people's property and have no cause of action whatsoever in this case.

Regarding this location, when UKPC first rocked up to infest this car park, their duty of due diligence as a so-called 'service provider' at people's home addresses, must surely have included a thorough consideration of the rights and grants of the existing leaseholders and tenant residents, to avoid causing any derogation from grant.

Tell them that your right to park at this location in that demised bay flows from the landlord who actually owns the space, and who has never contracted with UKPC nor signed any variation of his lease which could have removed, restricted or charged for his parking rights.

Further, in order to have varied the leases of residents who have an existing grant of unfettered free parking and exclusive use of certain bays, UKPC would have had to have liaised in depth with the Managing Agent, who must have taken steps at the outset (before any enforcement) to vary all of the leases. Any variation of leases must have been approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 (L&T Act), thus, you require that UKPC:

(1) contact the Managing Agent for a copy of the Head Lease and for evidence of the formal lease variations and consensus obtained, in accordance with the L&T Act, and

(2) supply you with this evidence if they are to proceed further.

In the absence of the above, UKPC clearly have no cause of action and should immediately discontinue and cease trespassing in that demised bay which your landlord has confirmed he/she owns. Whether or not a 'permit' is displayed by cars parked in that bay is no business of UKPC and if they continue to trespass on cars parked there you will seek an injunction, similar to that in the case of Roger Davey v UKPC, and will then sue UKPC for the costs of that action.

ShazEll

This is amazing!! Thank you so much! Will send the response and let you know how I get on.