UKCPM County court claim form recieved

[Deleted User]

To be clear, although they are permitted to operate on site, by Southdowns Park Management Company Limited, they are not contracted;

OK - so you have clear authority that they can ticket.

UKCPM are not paid to operate / monitor the site; by ourselves or Southdowns Park Management Company Limited.

OK - so you know they work for free and (presumably) rely on a business model of making money from issuing tickets. This may (or may not) provide a perverse incentive not to undertake any pragmatic/common sense approach but simply to issue tickets - even where a permit is displayed
I

must also advise that UKCPM are an entirely third party company to Crabtree; they are not employed by us or Southdowns Park Management Company Limited, nor are we their agent; they do not act on our behalf.

Which means that they act on their own account. Does the permission ("they are permitted to operate on site") extend to issuing court proceedings?

Can you post an image of the partially obscured permit via dropbox? That'd be helpful.

CBABBS

It looks worse than it is...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fxbzxc0pobdqkfn/AADNF94PY8JUr84CFJ51aMvva?dl=0

[Deleted User]

Ok now reposition a permit (if you have one) or something that looks similar - perhaps mock one up with same wording - and recreate the images but from ALL angles. That will be your witness statement exhibit, if you say that there was an intention to obscure the photo.

You may be able to argue that enough was visible that there was substantial compliance with the terms (an amusing concept, given that Gladstones often rely on arguments that they have substantially complied with court rules.:rotfl:

System

25th Jun 18, 9:04 PM
Ok now reposition a permit (if you have one) or something that looks similar - perhaps mock one up with same wording - and recreate the images but from ALL angles.

Suspect that in order to get the pic the PPC has taken they would need to have been kneeling or sitting on the ground. Perhaps a pic of you recreating the pics might demonstrate what the PPC has done.

CBABBS

Ok so I took a few from different angles. It's a different car (I've since sold that one) and so the wipers aren't in the same position, window screen is a different angle, different time of day etc but what do you think of these? Do you recommend I be more scientific than this?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fxbzxc0pobdqkfn/AADNF94PY8JUr84CFJ51aMvva?dl=0

[Deleted User]

Nice one. So that is in the same position, but just different camera angles? It's quite different isn't it? So now you need a statement to have a section talking through what you've done to recreate the original image and the various angles.

CBABBS

Hi all,


UKCPM have requested a paper trial. I can't trust any move they make, so is there a disadvantage to this?

geordie777

The advice of this forum is to always request an oral hearing in front of the judge, otherwise the judge just reads everything and makes a decision without actually speaking to you. Also transfer to your local court.

Coupon-mad

Search Gladstones straightforward papers on this forum, to save us typing.

CBABBS

Hi All,


Was hoping you could read through my witness statement and advise? Thanks so much in advance!




In the matter of

UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)
v
Miss XXXXXXXXX (defendant)

Claim no: XXXXXXXX

Witness statement of Miss XXXXXXXXXX, defendant


I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.


1. At the time of Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”), the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXX

2. At the time of PCN, the defendant was a resident of XXXXXXX with an allocated parking space XX (see Appendix 1)

3. At the time of PCN, there was a permit in the window, face up, that had slid forward from the center of the dashboard to between the dashboard and the windscreen where the meeting point of the structures held the permit secure (Appendix 2 shows a recreation of events as the defendant is no longer the owner of the vehicle with a view of the permit and it’s clarity from alternate profiles).



4. At the time of PCN the car was parked in space XX on XXXXXXXXX



5. The PCN was issued in the form of a window invoice, followed up by a request in writing to pay the £100 fine for not displaying a valid CPM parking permit, discounted to £60 for payment within two weeks.

6. This letter came with their evidence; a photo of my permit in the window, albeit partially obstructed using clever photography with the camera placed below the window screen wiper (Appendix 3) and various other photographs of my car and the parking sign.

7. The defendant accepted the invitation to appeal the PCN however unsurprisingly it was unsuccessful.

8. The defendant then accepted the invitation to appeal via the Independent Appeals Service (“IAS”), however was unable to log on using the portal provided on https://www.theias.org/appeal; receiving the error message in Appendix 4 stating that the defendant should contact the operator directly.

9. The defendant tried to contact the operator/claimant on the phone number given at the bottom of each correspondence on three separate occasions and also left three messages. The claimant never responded.


10. The claimant then offered a separate appeals route, having not provided any explanation as to why I was not able to appeal via the standard route and no evidence to support their claim that they had in fact submitted the details contrary to the error message on https://www.theias.org/appeal. This appeals route required the defendant to pay money and so it was refused by the defendant having not properly had the opportunity for a mandatory free of charge standard appeal.


11. After this time, Debt Recovery Plus Limited (“DRP”) then began to frequently and continuously chase the defendant for payment.


12. Both the UKCPM and DRP denied that the claimant had tried to call. Please see Appendix 5 for phone records from the defendant that prove otherwise. The defendant is not liable for any misconduct in the Claimant’s processes.


13. The defendant up to this point has not received any sensible or reliable correspondence from the claimant and their agents and so began to ignore further correspondence from the DRP, which was erratic and pestering. Appendix 6 shows eight letters from DRP between February 2017 and July 2017, sometimes twice in a month and with nonsense regarding frozen accounts in them.


14. The defendant called DRP to try to understand the content of these letters but was threatened with a CCJ which was a gross exaggeration of the court process and an unfair tactic is to persuade the defendant to pay and so communication was stopped with DRP.


15. The claimant refused to act accordingly to the Pre-Action Protocol and was told on two separate occasions, the response to the PAP on 15th March 2018 and again on the 23rd April that if the claimant could provide the defendant with more information and evidence aside from the repeated “a valid permit was not displayed” then the defendant could take stock of their position and settle out of court. This option was refused by the claimant and the PAP was not followed (Appendix 7).
16. The claimant has pursued a resident of the complex that they were hired to protect for two years, trying to abuse what power they have been given, wasting the defendants time with robo-claims lacking information or relevancy and has shown a complete lack of respect for the defendant and both the PCN and Court processes and should not be awarded with a single penny.

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