County Court Claim Form from UKPC

TKNDWN

Hello everyone,

Here is what we have up so far:

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXX
Between
UK Parking Control
and
XXXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:


1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. It is denied that any ‘parking charges/damages and indemnity costs’ (whatever they may be) as stated on the Particulars of the Claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. The Particulars of the Claim provide no statement to the nature of the Claim and the Defendant does not believe these Particulars to be compliant with Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 nor Practice Direction 16 7.3-7.5 inhibiting the ability of the Defendant to provide a proper comprehensive and conclusive Defence.

3. The Defendant has prepared the Defence on the presumption that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in an unallocated available residential parking space.
The Defendant has no liability as they are registered keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the alleged charges.
a) The Claimant did not identify the driver and the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.
b) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the barrister, Henry Gleenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ as set out in Schedule 4.
c) The Claimant’s increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal ‘Parking Charge Notice’) failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the ’28 day period’ which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the ‘keeper liability’ provisions of the POFA.

4. UK Parking Control’s (Claimant) signage in relation to the claim does not meet the BPA Code of Practice and therefore is considered inadequate signage. At the time of the alleged (denied) contravention it was very dark and whilst pictures shown later in day show the signs in the daylight, the only notices are high up on a post and a wall and are very poorly lit, therefore unreadable during certain times of the day. Please see Exhibit A [Car Park Entrance], Exhibit B [Main Car Park] and Exhibit C [Car Park Exit] for reference.
Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice (the BPA CoP) which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

5. UK Parking Control’s (Claimant) only sign within the car park states:
“Unpaid Parking Charges will be passed to our debt recovery agent at which point an additional charge of £60 will apply” (See Exhibit D [UKPC Sign]). UK Parking Control uses a debt recovery company, Debt Recovery Plus (DRP), in order to recover unpaid parking charges. Debt Recovery Plus are a “no collection, no fee” service as stated on their website (See Exhibit E [DRP]). The claimant is claiming for £420 as part of their overall claim on the basis of using DRP as means to recover unpaid parking charges. As I have had no correspondence with DRP (i.e. no collection), these funds are unrecoverable as the charge of £60, £420 in the case the claimant is claiming for, was not paid to DRP due to their “no collection, no fee” service. It is important to make the court aware that this is fraud.

6. On the subject of fraud it is also important to make the court aware that UK Parking Control. In 2015, UK Parking Control was caught, on multiple accounts, doctoring photo times in order to issue overstay tickets to unsuspecting motorists in a NHS car park. Please see Exhibit Daily Mail for reference.
In 2016 UK Parking Control was suspended from the DVLA under investigation for misleading drivers and was placed under investigation by the British Parking Association, the very body they are contracted to follow. Please see Exhibit BBC for reference.
In 2018, just last year, UK Parking Control was suspended yet again by the DVLA over allegations of data misuse. Please see Exhibit Independent for reference.

--

The exhibit names will have actual names. This is just a draft. I've uploaded all evidence here: https://imgur.com/a/n9pisw3

I'm not sure if the reference to their fraudulent activity will support the case although I hope it will make the judge see them for what they are. Would it be possible to take evidence from the defence first sent to them, referencing other points such as what the tenancy states and what not? I know I need more points but I'm trying to think of others against them. Any ideas?

Thanks a lot for the help received so far. I hope the wording is OK too. Please let me know if there's anything that needs rectifying.

Edit: Edited for better formatting for easier reading.

Coupon-mad

A WS needs to be in the first person 'I am xxxxxx xxxxx and I will say as follows' (then state the facts of what happened) whereas that reads more like a defence: 'the Defendant has prepared...'.

The Defendant has prepared the Defence on the presumption that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in an unallocated available residential parking space.

Are you not able to show evidence of a right to park there?

The WS should also tear apart their evidence, seeing as you've received it. Like the version currently on the first page or two of this forum today, by PrettyKittyKat, who has also had no experience of this but has put together a damning WS about the signs/location and the facts, referring to attached evidence.

I am sure the examples of WS in the NEWBIES thread show that?

TKNDWN

Thank you Coupon, this helps.

I'll post up a better version of the WS later on today. I'll also check out the post you referenced.

TKNDWN

Here's what I have so far in addition to what has been posted above:

7. I will make the following points in response to the Claimant’s Witness Statement:

8. Paragraph 12 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant states:

“There was an offer, namely that a driver can park their vehicle at the site subject to terms and conditions.”

The Claimant then uses their own Exhibit, Exhibit AY/2 as a reference including one sign ‘PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY – SEE NOTICES IN CAR PARK FOR CONDITIONS’ as well as a NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING’ sign. The Claimant believes that an offer was made to park on the site from “ample” and “clear” signage at the site. The Claimant then goes on to say:

“Due to the sufficiency of signage, the driver was put on notice of this offer.”

This is wholly denied. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (2015 – 2018) Appendix B “Signs” 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage”, which UK Parking Control Ltd was operating under at the time of the alleged parking contravention, states:

“You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

Included in the Claimant’s Witness Statement Exhibit AY/4 is an image of one sign they believe to have given the driver a chance to see at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. The Claimant has failed to take images of any other signs that could’ve been placed THROUGHOUT the site that gives drivers the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. This does not follow the BPA Signage terms as mentioned previously. Exhibit B shows the majority of the car park with the one sign placed on the left hand wall that could easily be missed, especially by motorists parking near the entrance.

9. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (2015 – 2018) Appendix B “Signs” 18.9 “Specific parking-terms signage” states:

“So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.”

Included in the Claimant’s own Exhibit AY/4 are images of the vehicle in question, with no images of the sign that would allow someone parked in that position to be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. I will refer the Court to Exhibit Recreation which is a recreation of where the vehicle is parked, proving there are no adequate signage viewable from the parked position.

10. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant, I will refer the courts to Paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 9.

11. In response to Paragraph 7 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant, I will refer the courts to Paragraph 5.

12. In response to Paragraph 8 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant: It is anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of ParkingEye -v- Beavis. I would refer the court to Exhibit Beavis Sign and Exhibit UK Parking Control Sign that demonstrates clear ParkingEye signage displaying the £85 charge in the largest font with contrasting colours, making it clear to the motorist that a charge is involved. Such is not the case with the UK Parking Control sign which, as mentioned, does not comply with BPA Code of Practice Appendix B “Signs”.

--

To sum this up, as it may seem like a mess (and please tell me if it does!) I've responded to their own Witness Statement with the relevant facts including the Beavis case (as they made reference to it), their view that there was a contract, all while referencing the BPA CoP.

Please let me know if this all should be kept in or amended. Coupon-mad, would this be more suitable? There are more parts I have to sift through with their Witness Statement but this is what I have so far.

Thanks a lot!

Coupon-mad

Yes that reads fine, always tear into their 'evidence' effort (it's a template).

TKNDWN

Thank you, Coupon-mad. Here's the most recent WS in its entirety. I'm not sure there's any other paragraphs I could tear into that would be relevant to the case:

In the County Court at XXXXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXX
Between
UK Parking Control
and
XXXXXXX XXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

I am XXXXXXX XXXXXX and will say as follows:


1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. It is denied that any ‘parking charges/damages and indemnity costs’ (whatever they may be) as stated on the Particulars of the Claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. The Particulars of the Claim provide no statement to the nature of the Claim and the Defendant does not believe these Particulars to be compliant with Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 nor Practice Direction 16 7.3-7.5 inhibiting the ability of the Defendant to provide a proper comprehensive and conclusive Defence.

3. The Defendant has prepared the Defence on the presumption that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in an unallocated available residential parking space. I refer to Exhibit J which states:

“The Tenant has the right to occupy the Premises without interruption or interference from the Landlord for the duration of this Tenancy so long as the Tenant complies with the terms of this agreement and has proper respect for other tenants and neighbours."

The Defendant has no liability as they are registered keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the alleged charges.

a) The Claimant did not identify the driver and the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.
b) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the barrister, Henry Gleenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ as set out in Schedule 4.
c) The Claimant’s increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal ‘Parking Charge Notice’) failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the ’28 day period’ which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the ‘keeper liability’ provisions of the POFA.

4. UK Parking Control’s (Claimant) signage in relation to the claim does not meet the BPA Code of Practice and therefore is considered inadequate signage. The car park, at night, contains no lighting by the signs which makes their so called ‘terms’ unreadable. Please see Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C for reference.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice (the BPA CoP) which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

5. UK Parking Control’s (Claimant) only sign within the car park states:

“Unpaid Parking Charges will be passed to our debt recovery agent at which point an additional charge of £60 will apply” (See Exhibit D [UKPC Sign]). UK Parking Control uses a debt recovery company, Debt Recovery Plus (DRP), in order to recover unpaid parking charges. Debt Recovery Plus are a “no collection, no fee” service as stated on their website (See Exhibit E [DRP]). The claimant is claiming for £420 as part of their overall claim on the basis of using DRP as means to recover unpaid parking charges. As I have had no correspondence with DRP (i.e. no collection), these funds are unrecoverable as the charge of £60, £420 in the case the claimant is claiming for, was not paid to DRP due to their “no collection, no fee” service. It is important to make the court aware that this is fraud.

6. On the subject of fraud it is also important to make the court aware that UK Parking Control. In 2015, UK Parking Control was caught, on multiple accounts; doctoring photo times in order to issue overstay tickets to unsuspecting motorists in a NHS car park. Please see Exhibit G for reference.
In 2016 UK Parking Control was suspended from the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) under investigation for misleading drivers and was placed under investigation by the British Parking Association, the very body they are contracted to follow. Please see Exhibit D for reference.
In 2018, just last year, UK Parking Control was suspended yet again by the DVLA over allegations of data misuse. Please see Exhibit F for reference.

With all of the evidence against UK Parking Control I believe this to be relevant to my defence.

7. I will make the following points in response to the Claimant’s Witness Statement:

8. (a) Paragraph 12 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant states:

“There was an offer, namely that a driver can park their vehicle at the site subject to terms and conditions.”

The Claimant then uses their own Exhibit, Exhibit AY/2 as a reference including one sign ‘PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY – SEE NOTICES IN CAR PARK FOR CONDITIONS’ as well as a NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING’ sign. The Claimant believes that an offer was made to park on the site from “ample” and “clear” signage at the site. The Claimant then goes on to say:

“Due to the sufficiency of signage, the driver was put on notice of this offer.”

This is wholly denied. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (2015 – 2018) Appendix B “Signs” 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage”, which UK Parking Control Ltd was operating under at the time of the alleged parking contravention, states:

“You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

Included in the Claimant’s Witness Statement Exhibit AY/4 is an image of one sign they believe to have given the driver a chance to see at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. The Claimant has failed to take images of any other signs that could’ve been placed THROUGHOUT the site that gives drivers the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. This does not follow the BPA Signage terms as mentioned previously. Exhibit B shows the majority of the car park with the one sign placed on the left hand wall that could easily be missed, especially by motorists parking near the entrance.

(b) The Claimant’s Exhibit AY/1 contains an “Agreement for Warden Patrol Service” contract between the Housing Association, Wech, and UK Parking Control Ltd, to allow UK Parking Control to pursue motorists for £90 parking charges, £50 if paid within 14 days of issue. Exhibit I demonstrates that the only sign within the car park, through small lettering, does state a £90, £50 if paid within 14 days. I must ask the court where the £100 charge, £60 if paid within 14 days has come from as the contract provided in their Exhibit AY/1, as well as the sign provided (Exhibit I) both state £90, £50 if paid within 14 days. I ask that the courts request that UK Parking Control provide a clear image of their signage which states a £100 charge, £60 if paid within 14 days.

9. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (2015 – 2018) Appendix B “Signs” 18.9 “Specific parking-terms signage” states:

“So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.”

Included in the Claimant’s own Exhibit AY/4 are images of the vehicle in question, with no images of the sign that would allow someone parked in that position to be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. I will refer the Court to Exhibit Recreation which is a recreation of where the vehicle is parked, proving there are no adequate signage viewable from the parked position.

10. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant, I will refer the courts to Paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 9.

11. In response to Paragraph 7 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant, I will refer the courts to Paragraph 5.

12. In response to Paragraph 8 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant: It is anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of ParkingEye -v- Beavis. I would refer the court to Exhibit H that demonstrates clear ParkingEye signage displaying the £85 charge in the largest font with contrasting colours, making it clear to the motorist that a charge is involved. Such is not the case with the UK Parking Control sign (Exhibit I) which, as mentioned, does not comply with BPA Code of Practice Appendix B “Signs”.

13. In response to Paragraph 17 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant I would refer the courts to Paragraph 8(b).

14. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature
Date


--
Exhibits:

Exibit A = Photo of the car park entrance
Exhibit B = Photo of the main car park with the obscure UKPC sign
Exhibit C = Photo of the car park facing the exit
Exhibit D = BBC Webpage about UKPC being investigated
Exhibit E = DRP page
Exhibit F = Independent webpage about UKPC data misuse
Exhibit G = Daily Mail webpage about UKPC doctoring images
Exhibit H = Photo of the Beavis case sign
Exhibit J = Photo of the tenancy agreement clause
Exhibit I = Photo of UKPC sign stating the £90 charge, £50 if paid within 14 days wording.

I don't know what else to include. I may come back to it later in order to add points on I may have missed. I hope this reads well and I'm willing to take any criticism regarding the WS.

Thank you all for your assistance, especially you Coupon-mad!

beamerguy

Personally, I would leave no 6 out. You run the risk of a judge asking what is this to do with your case ???

Everyone knows of the fraudulent activity of UKPC, even the courts

Others here may say different

TKNDWN

Thanks Beamerguy. I'd also be interested to see what other say about it. How does the rest seem to you?

[Deleted User]

That is I'm afraid a mess.

Lump all your photos into one exhibit with numbered pages. It's alphabet soup and you don't even start with A. Which would at least be logical.

Exhibit Recreation?

Para 6 is irrelevant.

The statement in an effort to stick the boot in fails to set out any witness evidence proper. You can have an account, "I visited the site on X at approximately the same time as the charge was issued. I was struck by how poor the signs were and that they were not lit" etc.

I'd even sack off paras about Beavis. You'll be able to make all those points on the day - this is a chance to give a FACTUAL account above all else, not to argue law.

TKNDWN

Thanks Johnersh.

I thought it may be a mess hence posting it here for critique. I'll make amendments tonight.

Sorry, Exhibit Recreation was my way of reminding myself to recreate where they say the car was parked. I left that in by accident.

Ah I see what you mean about that statement. I'll reword this in a way that provides clear evidence. Thanks!

Noted about Paragraph 6. I'll remove.

The Beavis case was in there as they referenced it in their own witness statement. But if you believe it shouldn't be in there then I'll remove.