County Court Claim Form from UKPC

Coupon-mad

As UKPC is a member of the BPA I have reasonable grounds to believe that your signage

If this is a defence it's addressed to the court, not to 'you' (as in UKPC).

Why didn't you simply copy another UKPC multi-PCN defence from one of the other 23 threads from the suggested search, and adapt it to suit?

Defences seen here have at least 10 points, sometimes 20.

Loads of 'no permit' cases to read & crib from!

beamerguy

TKNDWN wrote: »

2. Amount claimed does not correspond with UKPC signage. The amount claimed by UKPC is for seven parking charges at £160 each, totalling £1,120 however, signage within the car park states that failing to comply would result in a £90 parking charge, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, and £60 on top of £90 for unpaid parking charges. The amount should total £1,050. This is against AOS Code of Practice Section 19.1 as the parking charges has to be reasonable.

Not happy with your figures

Before this happened, you would have received debt collector
letters and probably from DRP (Debt Recovery Plus)
DRP try to add £60 per ticket .

DRP operate on the basis of "no win, no fee".

Therefore as you did not deal with a debt collector, in the
end they gave up (as they will) and passed it back to UKPC.
It will be a "no fee" for UKPC and if they are adding a
purported fee of £60 which they did not pay, that is fraud
(£60 x 7 tickets = £420)

Therefore 7 tickets amount to £630 @ £90 each plus the court
fees and possible interest plus about £50 for the legal.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I recall that, with a bad outcome. When they didn't do the AOS and waited, the person got a default CCJ because the MCOL system does not account for or work with, a case with no POC.

It assumes a POC was included and allows a PPC to apply for a default CCJ, and they did.

So, even with no POC, I say AOS must be done. Then work on a defence with half an eye on the calendar to call the PPC out for no POC.

@CM - thanks for this. I didn't spot that at the time. But I was definitely flying around then ...... escaping UK winter!

TKNDWN

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If this is a defence it's addressed to the court, not to 'you' (as in UKPC).

Why didn't you simply copy another UKPC multi-PCN defence from one of the other 23 threads from the suggested search, and adapt it to suit?

Defences seen here have at least 10 points, sometimes 20.

Loads of 'no permit' cases to read & crib from!

Thank you, still learning. Admittedly I did not want to completely copy someone's work as I didn't know whether or not the points made could be related to my case. Alas, I have done so and have changed a few bits to suit as you suggested from the posts using the search function.


Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.


Background

3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

4. It is denied that any "parking charges or loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5. The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

6. It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material dates, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

7. The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charges in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

8. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

9. It is stated within the Tenancy agreement that "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".

10. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

11. The Defendant avers that the operators signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

11. Accordingly it is denied that:
11.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
11.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
11.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
12.1 It has been noticed that the signage within the Premises does not add up to the amount claimed by the Claimant, inciting doubt and arousing questions as to where the extra "charges" have come from.

13. How can there be a "legitimate interest" in penalising residents for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is contrary to the requirement of good faith and "out of all proportion to any legitimate interest" to fine residents or their visitors for using the parking spaces provided.
13.1. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

14. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

--

I added a few points but most others, as they're UKPC and similar to the case here, fits the bill. Thanks for the help CM.

TKNDWN

beamerguy wrote: »

Not happy with your figures

Before this happened, you would have received debt collector
letters and probably from DRP (Debt Recovery Plus)
DRP try to add £60 per ticket .

DRP operate on the basis of "no win, no fee".

Therefore as you did not deal with a debt collector, in the
end they gave up (as they will) and passed it back to UKPC.
It will be a "no fee" for UKPC and if they are adding a
purported fee of £60 which they did not pay, that is fraud
(£60 x 7 tickets = £420)

Therefore 7 tickets amount to £630 @ £90 each plus the court
fees and possible interest plus about £50 for the legal.

That is extremely interesting! I was not aware that DRP work on the basis of 'no win, no fee'. UKPC signage explicitly states that 'Unpaid Parking Charges will be passed to our debt recovery agent at which point an additional charge of £60 will apply'. That's horrific, albeit not surprising from the likes of UKPC. Thank you for making me aware of this. How do I work that into the defence?

Coupon-mad

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pcn-collection/

PCN Collection
We offer a 'no collection, no fee service', therefore our growth has been achieved by making successful collections, not by charging upfront fees.

Print off that page now and put it in your evidence file now as a hard copy, in case DRPlus remove it later. You can see that no debt recovery fee has been expended by the scumbag PPC. It's clearly a lie.

TKNDWN

Coupon-mad wrote: »

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pcn-collection/


Print off that page now and put it in your evidence file now as a hard copy, in case DRPlus remove it later. You can see that no debt recovery fee has been expended by the scumbag PPC. It's clearly a lie.

Not only that, I've screenshots of the page and also discovered that they say the same thing in their brochure...which I have also downloaded. How does the defence look so far to you CM?

beamerguy

TKNDWN wrote: »

That is extremely interesting! I was not aware that DRP work on the basis of 'no win, no fee'. UKPC signage explicitly states that 'Unpaid Parking Charges will be passed to our debt recovery agent at which point an additional charge of £60 will apply'. That's horrific, albeit not surprising from the likes of UKPC. Thank you for making me aware of this. How do I work that into the defence?

From the horses mouth ......

"We offer a ‘no collection, no fee service’, therefore our growth has been achieved by making successful collections, not by charging upfront fees."

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pcn-collection/

Suggest you capture this page and save it.

They cannot add on an amount if they never paid it.

I hope you are aware that UKPC were banned by the DVLA
for faking pictures which s fraud.
The foolish DVLA let UKPC continue.
Then the other month the DVLA banned them again
for what appears to be a data problem. Again they let
UKPC continue ???

None of this by the way has an affect on you but you should
be aware. If UKPC use this fakery to extort money then
this has to go back to the DVLA for a lifetime ban from
accessing data

TKNDWN

beamerguy wrote: »

From the horses mouth ......

"We offer a ‘no collection, no fee service’, therefore our growth has been achieved by making successful collections, not by charging upfront fees."

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pcn-collection/

Suggest you capture this page and save it.

They cannot add on an amount if they never paid it.

I hope you are aware that UKPC were banned by the DVLA
for faking pictures which s fraud.
The foolish DVLA let UKPC continue.
Then the other month the DVLA banned them again
for what appears to be a data problem. Again they let
UKPC continue ???

None of this by the way has an affect on you but you should
be aware. If UKPC use this fakery to extort money then
this has to go back to the DVLA for a lifetime ban from
accessing data

I was aware of the first ban for UKPC doctoring images but I was unaware that they were banned again by DVLA for data issues. I'll definitely keep this in mind, thank you!

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5835351/do-not-appeal-a-ukpc-windscreen-pcn-ukpc-are-banned-by-the-dvla-april-may-2018

Only released back into the shark-infested KADOE waters two weeks ago.