UKCPM County court claim form recieved

CBABBS

Hello some of your expertise here would be much appreciated!


Back in October 2016 I received a PCN outside of my own front door for not correctly displaying a permit. The permit was displayed, it was face up and it was on the dashboard - what I can only assume they are trying to fine me for here is that it was partly covered by the little opaque black area by the window screen wipers (I can only assume because obviously nobody has actually taken any time to clarify the issue but just told me its not "clear") . The 'evidence' they are relying on are photographs taken at the scene that show my permit, but the photo has been taken below the window screen wiper at an upward angle rather than from the windscreen at a downward angle which naturally and cleverly, makes the permit seem more obstructed by the bottom of the windscreen.


I have followed the no nonsense approach and I immediately wrote saying I will not be paying, explaining the reasons why laid out above. They rejected my "appeal" and said that I should go via the IAS - I tried and tried to log in but failed. I called about once or twice a week a total of three times in the 28 days appeal window and even left a voicemail outlining the issues I was having with the system. No response.


They signed me up to appeal via another route with the IAS, of which would cost me £30 to do and I was gobsmacked. I have never experienced service levels like it and on doing my research - an independent appeal is their responsibility to provide. I did not accept appealing through this route.


Fast forward 18 months and countless (monthly) letters from the DRP, of which I stopped replying to in the end and a few from Gladstones (I followed the PAP and as expected did not get what I asked for - mainly something proving their superiority over my signed tenant agreement stating my parking space and what I actually did wrong to warrant the fine), I have my court claim for the original increased £169 (which is now £179.90 strangely) plus a £25 court fee plus £50 legal rep costs.


I demanded they take me to court as I will not be spending any more time on this and was getting extremely frustrated spending all my free time on researching, composing letters, scrawling through my own evidence and essentially getting a brick wall. It's a stressful and draining situation. But now I feel a little out of my depth here. I will need to obtain phone records, at a cost right at the point of changing over phone providers (I assume this makes it harder), I have lost a lot of my original correspondence (moving house and jobs and the fact this has gone on for nearly 2 years) and just having to compile a defence to go up against a big firm and their lawyer.


Any advice or help with a defence and how I even go about writing it would be great (I tend to find it difficult to take the emotion out of this)! I also want to counter claim, for time wasted (my currently hourly rate, if possible), costs incurred phoning, sending tracked letters, any time off of work I need to take and obtaining evidence to go against these bullies. Has anybody ever done this and won? How do I do it - the claim isn't clear and talks of fees - does this come when I'm there defending??


Thanks again!


Regards,

Coupon-mad

Back in October 2016 I received a PCN outside of my own front door for not correctly displaying a permit.

The permit was displayed, it was face up and it was on the dashboard - what I can only assume they are trying to fine me for here is that it was partly covered by the little opaque black area by the window screen wipers (I can only assume because obviously nobody has actually taken any time to clarify the issue but just told me its not "clear") .

The 'evidence' they are relying on are photographs taken at the scene that show my permit, but the photo has been taken below the window screen wiper at an upward angle rather than from the windscreen at a downward angle which naturally and cleverly, makes the permit seem more obstructed by the bottom of the windscreen.

What an outrageous scam, well worth defending.

They signed me up to appeal via another route with the IAS, of which would cost me £30 to do and I was gobsmacked. I have never experienced service levels like it and on doing my research - an independent appeal is their responsibility to provide. I did not accept appealing through this route.

Thank Christ for that! But I thought the non-standard IAS crappy 'kangaroo court' cost £15? You do realise it would have been binding on you...and you would almost certainly have lost...guess why?

Wow, you dodged a bullet, glad to read you didn't bite.

Any advice or help with a defence and how I even go about writing it would be great (I tend to find it difficult to take the emotion out of this)!

You seem to have missed the thread called 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' where the second post tell you ALL about court stage, acknowledging, defending and what to do when and how.

We won't be repeating it but will answer questions of course, AFTER you've read it at each and every stage.

I also want to counter claim, for time wasted (my currently hourly rate, if possible), costs incurred phoning, sending tracked letters, any time off of work I need to take and obtaining evidence to go against these bullies.

No you don't.

Why do people think their costs are a counter claim, come on Google it.

Has anybody ever done this and won?

Wow. You've not read many threads! We see people win in court 99% of the time here, and we handle around 500 cases or so every year. So of course people keep winning!

How do I do it - the claim isn't clear and talks of fees - does this come when I'm there defending??

Read the NEWBIES thread please.

What fees are you talking about, obviously the Claimant pays the fees, but has added them onto the claim in the hope they win, in which case (usually) you would pay their costs.

Same as (usually) they'd pay yours, when you win! NOT a counter claim.

CBABBS

Thanks coupon-mad.

Actually the newbies thread and a lot of the links on it got me through to this stage. I found it really helpful!

I saw in post 2 you say start your own thread urgently if you have a claim and then it went onto talk about LBCs so it's what I did! But reading past the LBC portion I see a draft for parked in my own space so I will give that a whirl. I also saw you don't have to do a counter claim to request costs so thanks again!! Apologies, there is a lot of information in these threads and not all directly relevant (I've trawled the Internet ALOT) so it makes it easy to look past things I guess.
I did mean has anybody ever won a counter claim against these guys rather than win defending in court. I did try to look that up too at the early stages of this process with no clear answer.

Out of curiosity, though what did you mean by had I have appealed by that method it would have been binding?

Regards

KeithP

CBABBS wrote: »

Out of curiosity, though what did you mean by had I have appealed by that method it would have been binding?

To use the super-duper IAS 'premium' appeal service you have to agree to be bound by the decision of the IAS.

You are almost guaranteed to lose that appeal and be obliged to pay the amount sought by the PPC.

CBABBS

Wow Amazon Prime eat your heart out!

I take it I'm not only one of few to be offered that as I first thought. Lucky I didn't even entertain it then! Thanks KeithP.

Coupon-mad

UKCPM must have churned out a whole batch this month, there are at least 4 new threads right now about a claim from them.

Let's hope you all stick to the task, beat them in court & claim costs against them.

CBABBS

Hello,


I'm working my way through the defence provided on the newbie thread and I see here points regarding claimant not identifying the driver- I want to take this out but do you recommend I keep it in? I have never contested that I was the driver, and it was parked outside my property, plus i'm a bit worried about having to explain the jargon:


5. 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 Defendant 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.


Thanks again for any help.

The_Slithy_Tove

CBABBS wrote: »

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

You must only say this if you genuinely were not the driver who left the car there. Do not lie. You should simply put the Claimant to proof that you were; you don't need to give them any help in trying to do so. So do not say here or anywhere else who was the driver.

Their notices almost certainly fail to conform to POFA, so of course you must leave this in as one of your defence points.

Obviously you also put them to prove that the permit was not shown. If all they have is their photo which was plainly taken so as to suggest there was not permit, then that will be to your advantage. Get your own photos with the permit where it normally is. Take one from the angle they used, and another from a more sensible angle, clearly showing the permit.

While we are talking permits, why do you need one anyway? There are loads of threads about residential parking. You need to look through them. As for your own circumstances, what are the parking arrangements in your LEASE or TENANCY AGREEMENT. These override any signs some scumbag PPC may put up.

CBABBS

Hi slithy tove,

Thank you for being so clear.

Yes!! I put this to gladstone in my PAP. I have my tenancy agreement with my space number clearly shown. You just use your permit to follow the rules and avoid this parlava really.

Speaking of following rules I literally said how high when they asked me to jump at each stage and they have just been diabolical in their responses and 'assistance' really. I want to put this as a part of my defence too.

Only thing is my car and home has changed since 2 years ago. I did what you recommended and took those photographs, but my phone has since been stolen. (not to mention my phone contract has been changed to try and get old phone records)... Everything is against me here this process has just been so long and drawn out and life has gotten in the way.

I have a copy of my old permit from inventory, and another smart car luckily enough so I can recreate it. Do you think this will be sufficient?

Coupon-mad

I have a copy of my old permit from inventory,

Good. I would defend as admitted driver, and not hide behind the POFA in your case.

CBABBS

OK here goes - thanks in advance!




DEFENCE

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.


3. The Defendant has on several occasions tried to contact the Claimant and discuss the claim and particulars to the claim that proves trespass or other tort according to provisions of Schedule 4 POFA but the Claimant has been unresponsive, wasting time and money for both parties and directly and purposefully breaching the pre-action protocol.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark [CAR REG] which is the subject of these proceedings.



4. It is admitted that on [DD/MM/YYY] the Defendant's vehicle was parked in space [ALLOCATED SPACE NUMBER, STREET].

5. It is denied that there was a breach of parking contract or trespass by the defendant to receive a PCN by the Claimant.


5.1 It is admitted that at the time the defendant was a resident of Blenheim Mews and as such was authorised to park in allocated space [ALLOCATED SPACE NUMBER] according to the signed Tenancy Agreement and Inventory and Schedule of Condition between the Defendant and Leaders (The Estate Agent) on Behalf of [LANDLORD].


5.2 It is admitted that the Defendant had a parking permit on the dashboard of the above mentioned vehicle, visible through the windscreen


5.3 It is denied that the permit was obstructed to the extent shown in the claimants biased photography


5.4 It is denied that the signed Tenancy Agreement or Inventory and Schedule of Condition has any clause of right to park only when displaying a permit, nor do they have any mention of said parking permit.





6. The Claimant has not ensured they have followed the British Parking Association (!!!8220;BPA!!!8221;) code of practice, of which being a signatory they have agreed to follow, before issuing the claim. In particular schedule 20.5b which states a thorough visual check of dashboard and windows is required before issuing a PCN.


6.1 The Claimant did not allow the Defendant a free of charge independent appeals service as per the requirements under the BPA and International Parking Community (!!!8220;IPC!!!8221;), both of which the Claimant is a member.


6.2 The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that they posses seniority over the Defendant!!!8217;s Tenancy Agreement to issue a PCN.





7. The Defendant understands the use of a Parking Operator as a deterrent for unlawful parking, but the Claimant has been made aware that they are issuing a PCN to a resident displaying a permit and was therefore trespassing at the time of issue and has been complicit in harassment since.






Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
8. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [ADDRESS], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

9. The Defendant avers that the UKCPM!!!8217;s 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.

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

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
11. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
11.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to her primary defence above, inadequate.
11.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
11.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory.
11.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

12. 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.

13. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

14. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.