UKCPM Windscreen PCN

tank4228

Hello all,

I'm unfortunately back to this post again as they have not let this issue drop (after nearly 18 months) and I've just recieved a letter from county court.

So, in April, I emailed them stating it had been 30 days since I sent over my evidence to which I had to wait until August for a reply. Their email stated 'as no further action had arisen, they trust no prejudice has been suffered.' It finished by stating their legal team were reviewing the evidence and they were awaiting their clients response. 2 months later, the letter has arrived.

I've got to admit, I'm a bit out the loop with it all now and after my email in April, I haven't contacted them since.

Any advice of next steps I can do to beat this, is greatly appreciated!

KeithP

tank4228 wrote: »

I've just recieved a letter from county court.

I wonder what this letter might be?

Could it perhaps be a County Court Claim Form?

If so, then please tell us the Issue Date on that form and if it came from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton or from somewhere else?

If it is not a Claim Form, then please tell us what it is.

tank4228

Yep it's a claim form issued on 7th October.

Spot on with the court address being Northampton. Does that mean they expect me to go to court in that area ?

KeithP

tank4228 wrote: »

Yep it's a claim form issued on 7th October.

Spot on with the court address being Northampton. Does that mean they expect me to go to court in that area ?

No, later in the process, some weeks/months away, you get to choose your local County Court.


With a Claim Issue Date of 7th October, you have until Monday 28th October to do the Acknowledgement of Service. If possible, do not do the AoS before 12th October, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th November 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

tank4228

Thanks KeithP! I'll make sure to do everything exactly as stated !

Much appreciated as always

tank4228

Hi all,

This is my 1st defence draft please let me know your thoughts.

DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability, no cause for action against the defendant. The claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant, no cause for action can have arisen.

4. The Particulars of Claim state ‘the driver of the vehicle with registration xxxxxxx (the ‘Vehicle’) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the ‘contract’).’ However, an agreement for discounted parking, on the day in question, between an employee of the college, acting on behalf of the landowner, and the driver of the vehicle, makes the claimant’s so-called ‘contract’ null and void. Thus, the terms of said ‘contract’, such as the issue reason of ‘no parking outside of a designated area’, are not enforceable.

5. Change of Conditions from the landowner, whereby prior to 13th November 2017 there was no fee required to park on the land. This change in restrictions wasn’t clearly, or fairly advertised; especially to any driver(s) that prior to this date were familiar with the car park and cannot reasonably be expected to seek out signage or PDT machine, especially when sparse, unclear or hard to find.

6. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.

7. Photos obtained of the signage, following a subject access request to the claimant, do not state the implications of the ‘contract’ are followed, when parking is arranged with the landowner directly, in this case being an employee, to which evidence was provided to the claimant for their consideration.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

9. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

10. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

11. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

12. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims.

13. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

14. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

15. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

16. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

17. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

18. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge.

Also, if I intend to counterclaim over distress this has caused etc, how do I go about this? I sent an email to UKCPM stating I would counterclaim for harassment etc and I'd like to be a man of my word.

Umkomaas

Also, if I intend to counterclaim over distress this has caused etc, how do I go about this? I sent an email to UKCPM stating I would counterclaim for harassment etc and I'd like to be a man of my word.

You attach a second sheet to your Defence. You would need to detail the particulars of your counterclaim and pay the appropriate fee at the time of submission. But ‘harassment’ is a very high bar. Check out the ‘Protection from Harassment Act 1997’ to look at the levels of harassment where a (counter)claim might be appropriate.

Coupon-mad

Google Henry Hippo counterclaim and read his pepipoo thread with his successful UKPC counterclaim. You need to plead it correctly and pay a fee.

tank4228

Thanks guys! I'll look into the counter claim.

Any suggestions on the defence?

Le_Kirk

In your point 2, perhaps better to say that "the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has ......." rather than "the Defendant does not believe....."

With your point 15, you need to make sure that your are quoting from a judgment rather than issuing an order to the court by adding "Here the defendant quotes the words of the judge" before "IT IS ORDERED....." and that needs a number, then renumber the rest of your points. There are more cases recently that will add weight to your argument. Search the forum for Abuse of Process by beamerguy and read the comment by Coupon-mad at post # 14 on that thread.