Court Claim - UKPC / SCS LAW - DEFENCE PENDING IMMEDIATE SUBMISSION

namiku

Le_Kirk wrote: »

At the beginning of your WS, you state that Civil Enforcement is the claimant. You still have "no such notices" in point 7.

That was just a generic one I copied for formatting, the Claimant in my case is UKPC.

I will go over the whole thing and check spelling etc.

Many thanks everyone!

KeithP

namiku wrote: »

That was just a generic one I copied for formatting...

HaHaHa.


But yesterday you told us it was your final draft...

namiku wrote: »

This is what my final draft looks like for submission tomorrow:

---

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
and
namiku (Defendant)

<snip>

Any thoughts critiques etc are highly appreciated.

Twice...

namiku wrote: »

Final draft?

namiku

KeithP wrote: »

HaHaHa.


But yesterday you told us it was your final draft...

Twice...

I've copied the formatting for the start from the beginning and kept it the same

I've gone through it I have changed UKPC to Claimant and fixing some spelling mistake. I have added a separate point that CouponMad suggested and moved my final point to the end!

namiku

Evening all,

I have received a massive document with all the evidence from SCS and a statement of costs:

Fixed fee for drafting & sending letter before action: £8
Fixed fee for issuing claim: £64
Drafting DQ WS Instructing advocate to attent hearing: £195

Claim Issue fee: £60
Hearing fee: £80
Advocate for attendance at hearing: £105

Vat on costs: £53.40

Are these claimable at all?

Also I have received the contract which they have with the trust it seems, they have redacted the parts where it says about commission.

I am trying to construct a skeleton argument and one of the points will definitly be about comission not forming any part of the losses and as we do not know what the comission is then we cannot know what the losses are? Its possible I'm being completely daft...

namiku

They keep banging on about schedule 4 in their witness statement and that they're entitled to recover from me as the keeper but throughout it they keep referring to it as if I was the driver.

Should I post their redacted WS up and contract to see if someone can spot something that can be exploited?

Umkomaas

namiku wrote: »

Evening all,

I have received a massive document with all the evidence from SCS and a statement of costs:

Fixed fee for drafting & sending letter before action: £8
Fixed fee for issuing claim: £64
Drafting DQ WS Instructing advocate to attent hearing: £195

Claim Issue fee: £60
Hearing fee: £80
Advocate for attendance at hearing: £105

Vat on costs: £53.40

Are these claimable at all?

Also I have received the contract which they have with the trust it seems, they have redacted the parts where it says about commission.

I am trying to construct a skeleton argument and one of the points will definitly be about comission not forming any part of the losses and as we do not know what the comission is then we cannot know what the losses are? Its possible I'm being completely daft...

As long as they all add up to £50, then yes they are!

Coupon-mad

namiku wrote: »

Should I post their redacted WS up and contract to see if someone can spot something that can be exploited?

Yes please. We like pulling dodgy WS apart (see Lop5's thread for clues).

I have received a massive document with all the evidence from SCS and a statement of costs:

Fixed fee for drafting & sending letter before action: £8
Fixed fee for issuing claim: £64
Drafting DQ WS Instructing advocate to attent hearing: £195

Claim Issue fee: £60
Hearing fee: £80
Advocate for attendance at hearing: £105

Vat on costs: £53.40

Are these claimable at all?

Hahahahahaha!!

NO. Only the fees in red (the court fees) are recoverable if they win.

You should show that disingenuous document to the Judge, and allege an abuse of process and attempt at double recovery.

How many PCNs were there in this claim, and were they actually £100 each, or less (they can't be more, can't add £60 to each one).

You must be VERY clear about explaining why they can't add more money, pursuant to:

- the BPA CoP £100 ceiling for NTKs
- the POFA Schedule 4 ceiling being the sum on a NTK
- the CPRs re damages
- the Beavis case re damages

namiku

https://www.scribd.com/document/405618748/INFO-Redacted

This is the document for Statement of Costs, Witness statement UKPC contract as well as some of the signage and original PCN which are part of their eveidnce.

If anyone can poke any holes for my skeleton argument would be greatly appreciated.

Ive laready identified the comission that is received by the landowner on PCN's issued which is obviously cannot be part of losses and unless they identify this amount in court then the actual losses cannot be determined.

Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

Have you seen this thread also about UKPC at a Hospital, same stage as you:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75681992#Comment_75681992

Ive already identified the comission that is received by the landowner on PCN's issued which is obviously cannot be part of losses and unless they identify this amount in court then the actual losses cannot be determined.

Do not go there with any argument about losses.

Costs = yes, but losses, NO. Avoid the argument, as the Beavis case removed it.

You'll know that the costs they listed can't be claimed, except court fees, but you need to be confident in how to argue that at the hearing, clearly and with citations from the Beavis case, the BPA CoP at the time and the policy for a ceiling of £100 per event, the CPRs and the POFA all supporting that view about double recovery/no damages being able to be recovered above the 'parking charge' (£60 in this case, per PCN).

How many PCNs is this claim about? Is it five, as they say? Remind us.

Whose bright idea was it, to MOVE the car & get a 2nd PCN the same day? If the car was left where it was, they couldn't have issued a 2nd one...and this was done TWICE?

#8 from the UKPC witness statement is a LIE and you need to expose it; they've tried to mislead the court re paying £60 to Debt Recovery Plus. Here's your evidence to print out:

https://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/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.''

What about using the NHS Car Parking Principles as one of your exhibits? Google it.

namiku

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have you seen this thread also about UKPC at a Hospital, same stage as you:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75681992#Comment_75681992

Do not go there with any argument about losses.

Costs = yes, but losses, NO. Avoid the argument, as the Beavis case removed it.

You'll know that the costs they listed can't be claimed, except court fees, but you need to be confident in how to argue that at the hearing, clearly and with citations from the Beavis case, the BPA CoP at the time and the policy for a ceiling of £100 per event, the CPRs and the POFA all supporting that view about double recovery/no damages being able to be recovered above the 'parking charge' (£60 in this case, per PCN).

How many PCNs is this claim about? Is it five, as they say? Remind us.

Whose bright idea was it, to MOVE the car & get a 2nd PCN the same day? If the car was left where it was, they couldn't have issued a 2nd one...and this was done TWICE?

#8 from the UKPC witness statement is a LIE and you need to expose it; they've tried to mislead the court re paying £60 to Debt Recovery Plus. Here's your evidence to print out:

https://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/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.''

What about using the NHS Car Parking Principles as one of your exhibits? Google it.

I will make a skeleton argument and post it ASAP tomorrow. I'm due in court this week.

Regarding NHS principles this is one of my exhibits it was sent with my WS.

Regarding moving the car at the time it was an all nighter childbirth there were complications and difficuilties. The driver went home to get stuff etc however I will say in court that the Claimant has made an assumption that there was only one driver driving the car on all ocassions and this is flawed. The only thing that is for certain is that the keeper was not the driver, there is no proof that the same driver drove the vehicle.

Thanks on the DRP I was looking for that but couldn't find it in their terms and conditions. I was searching for no win no fee that's why.