We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
UKCPS County Court Claim (MCOL)
Pirate_Fighter
Posts: 6 Forumite
Hi all, I have received a County Court claim detailing proceedings which are being taken against me by UKCPS. Having found and read various posts in this forum (which has been really helpful so far - thanks all) I have completed the necessary response at MCOL (Money Claim Online) with regards to submission of AOS (which was received today).
In short, I am a University employee and have a valid permit for the car park managed by UKCPS in the claim. However, there are a small number of so-called 'private' parking bays within this car park (i.e. the 'land'), also managed by UKCPS, which they allege I did not have a valid permit for - and so for which I have incurred the penalty claimed for. It would appear I followed outdated advice and ignored the threatening chase letters to this point - alas, to no avail! The signage and markings relating to these bays is completely inadequate in my view (even in terms of prominence/visibility, let alone content/clarity) and I have taken pictures to evidence this.
As with others using this forum, I have informed the Court that I wish to defend the claim and would now really appreciate your assistance in drafting and refining my defence statement. I have outlined the details of the claim below, and then an initial draft of my defence statement below that - appreciate you're all busy people, but any guidance/help would be greatly appreciated on any/all of these points.
The claim by UKCPS states:
A claim for an outstanding parking charge has been issued against the defendant of the vehicle, registration XXXX XXX parked on XXXXX XXXXX (the Land). This land is managed by the claimant UKCPS Ltd, and signage is present on the land stipulating conditions of parking, that a £100 charge will be due for any breach of those conditions, including additional costs if recovery steps are taken. In parking on the land, the driver contractually agreed to be bound by these conditions. The driver of the vehicle parked on 27-11-2017 at XX:XX, was in breach of one or more conditions. The registered keeper who may have been the driver or alternatively has chosen not to name the driver is responsible for the charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The parking charge remains unpaid; an additional charge of £60.00 for administration cost (admin, postage and letters) has been incurred whereby this becomes a commercially justifiable figure.
Draft Defence (which I think I've had a fair stab at, but apologies if it misses basic points!):
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
In The County Court Business Centre
Claim No: XXXXXXX
UKCPS Ltd
1200 Century Way, Thorpe Park Business Park, Colton, LS15 8ZA
V
XXXXXXX
The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the 27th November 2017.
The defendant denies the Claim in its entirety, asserts that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount.
As an unrepresented litigant in person, I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimants case.
1. The Claim states that, “a parking charge has been issued against the defendant of the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX parked on XXXXXXX (‘the land’). This land is managed by the claimant UKCPS Ltd, and signage is present on the land stipulating conditions of parking [and that] in parking on the land, the driver contractually agreed to be bound by these conditions”.
2. The Defendant disputes the relevance and legitimacy of the said contract in this case due to the particulars of the signage in which the Claimant refers to “PRIVATE LAND” and that “PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR PERMIT HOLDERS” for the following reasons:
a. I am an Employee at the University of XXXXXXX, and have continued to hold a valid parking permit for University car parking for the last 10 years. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces located amongst those forming a much larger University car park (for which University parking permits are valid). There are between 20-25 UKCPS signs displayed at entrances and within this car park which outline the parking conditions for University permit holders (i.e. the defendant) on this ‘private land’. In contrast, there is far less prominent and partially visible signage which outlines the parking conditions for the ‘private land’ on which the current claim is based. As such, there is absolutely no information on the UKCPS signage which distinguishes between the ‘private land’ of the University and its permit holders (which UKCPS manage) and the ‘private land’ to which the current claim relates (which UKCPS also manage), despite the fact that they are both located in the same car park. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a University employee with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract was ever agreed if a contract ever existed, or subject to the “Terms or Conditions” of said contract.
b. Given the aforementioned point, the defendant asserts that failure to provide adequate signage for University employees specifically indicating any “Parking Restrictions” or “Terms of Conditions” which apply to their, otherwise valid, permits cannot form any contractual agreement.
3. The signage for the ‘private land’ in question was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist, in terms of its positioning, prominence, visibility and clarity, and particularly with regards to the lack of clear differentiation between this signage and those more prominent signs relating to the ‘private land’ permissible to University permit holders within the same car park. Indeed, UKCPS’s signage has previously been found by County Courts to be woefully inadequate, cluttered and incapable of binding a consumer driver, let alone an authorised employee of a company (i.e. University) which owns the car park within which the ‘private land’ in question is located, and it is clear that UKCPS has not improved its practice which suggests their intent really is for drivers to receive a PCN.
a. The signage on this site (i.e. ‘land’) is inadequate to form a contract. For the parking bays in question, it is located at such a height that it is obstructed to other users of the car park when any vehicles are parked in any of the spaces in front of it – something which happens daily given the relatively small number of bays located within the so-called ‘private land’ of the claimant. The signage adjacent to the space in question is also set-back in and amongst a number bushes and trees which mean that, even when the spaces in front of it are empty, it is either obscured completely by branches and leaves or is, at best, extremely difficult to see. Even if it was positioned more prominently, it is barely legible at the distance viewed by drivers using the car park and would only be seen by those parking forwards into the bay, both of which would make it virtually impossible to read and understand to the level required for any form of contract to be formed, if one existed. Indeed, all other signage relating to the ‘private land’ of the claimant that is located further away and out of view from the parking spaces in question (attached to a set-back perimeter fence further along the car park), is equally poor in prominence and clarity. Furthermore, it is evident that other signage in this area of ‘private land’ that is not obstructed by trees and bushes is not maintained sufficiently by UKCPS to be constantly visible to all those wishing to use the parking bays (i.e. signs broken and folded-over). Each of these points clearly differentiates the signage on the claimant’s so-called ‘private land’ as inadequate compared to that seen in the Beavis case, which utilised large prominent lettering on brief, clear and multiple signs which were prominently positioned so as to be visible and understandable to all users of the parking space.
b. The signs fail because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for; this is an ICO breach and contrary to the code of practice.
c. Despite being extremely wordy, the signage does not contain any detail whatsoever with regards to what differentiates a ‘valid permit’ for the ‘private land’ of the claimant in this case, from those permits which are valid for University staff to use on the ‘private land’ indicated by UKCPS signs within the same car park (including bays adjacent and opposite those in this case). No other employer or company is mentioned as the owner of the parking bays in question, making any differentiation between these parking bays and the relative validity of permits on differing areas of ‘private land’ within this University car park virtually impossible.As such, there cannot have been any breach of any “relevant obligation” or “relevant contract” as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
d. In the absence of “adequate notice” of the terms of charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) the signage on the so-called ‘private land’ of the claimant fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
e. Further to the above, signage upon entry to the car park does not include sufficient detail regarding the terms and conditions, of parking permit validity (or when and where parking permits are not-valid) or otherwise, with the size and placement of the additional signage not doing enough to bring the existence of terms to the attention of someone parking. In any case, the signage at the entrance is at best an invitation to treat. Therefore no contract could be formed and any additional terms and conditions on further signage do not need to be accepted.
e. The Claimants signage states they are members of the British Motoring Association (BPA) however, having consulted the BPA website [accessed 24th Sept 2018] UKCPS are not listed as members of the BPA “Approved Operators Scheme” (AOS), so the signage is either out of date or incorrect.
4. No Standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case, UKCPS Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring this case.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient 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. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
5. This claim is distinct from the Beavis Case given that:
a. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting, or positioning.
b. The sum pursued exceeds £100.
c. There is/was no compliant Landowner contract.
6. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on 24th September 2018 requesting the following information:
a. Full particulars of the parking charges.
b. Who the party was that was contracted with UKCPS Ltd with regards to the ‘private land’.
c. The full legal identity of the Landowner.
d. A full copy of the contract with the landowner that demonstrated that UKCPS Ltd had their authority.
e. If their charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
f. If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and if so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this “service”.
g. To provide a copy of the signs that UKCPS Ltd can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
The Claimant has not responded. Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant, is against SRA code.
6. a. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed (which suggested to the Defendant they would ultimately be calling round like Bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was “agreed” nor could it have formed part of the alleged “contract” because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of the air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
c. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum of £100 has been calculated, or the conduct that gave rise to it. The only breakdown of additional costs by UKCPS (should further action be taken) is to form a scaremongering threat in their belief this will force the owner/driver to pay.
a. The protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
8. I put UKCPS to strict proof to declare in front of the court the reason for their firm’s sanction for a significant breach, i.e. the fact that UKCPS have been banned previously by the DVLA, as the defendant has legitimate concerns having read the IPC Code of Practice and KADOE (DVLA) rules that this PCN was one where the IPC and/or KADOE rules were not followed.
Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
In short, I am a University employee and have a valid permit for the car park managed by UKCPS in the claim. However, there are a small number of so-called 'private' parking bays within this car park (i.e. the 'land'), also managed by UKCPS, which they allege I did not have a valid permit for - and so for which I have incurred the penalty claimed for. It would appear I followed outdated advice and ignored the threatening chase letters to this point - alas, to no avail! The signage and markings relating to these bays is completely inadequate in my view (even in terms of prominence/visibility, let alone content/clarity) and I have taken pictures to evidence this.
As with others using this forum, I have informed the Court that I wish to defend the claim and would now really appreciate your assistance in drafting and refining my defence statement. I have outlined the details of the claim below, and then an initial draft of my defence statement below that - appreciate you're all busy people, but any guidance/help would be greatly appreciated on any/all of these points.
The claim by UKCPS states:
A claim for an outstanding parking charge has been issued against the defendant of the vehicle, registration XXXX XXX parked on XXXXX XXXXX (the Land). This land is managed by the claimant UKCPS Ltd, and signage is present on the land stipulating conditions of parking, that a £100 charge will be due for any breach of those conditions, including additional costs if recovery steps are taken. In parking on the land, the driver contractually agreed to be bound by these conditions. The driver of the vehicle parked on 27-11-2017 at XX:XX, was in breach of one or more conditions. The registered keeper who may have been the driver or alternatively has chosen not to name the driver is responsible for the charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The parking charge remains unpaid; an additional charge of £60.00 for administration cost (admin, postage and letters) has been incurred whereby this becomes a commercially justifiable figure.
Draft Defence (which I think I've had a fair stab at, but apologies if it misses basic points!):
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
In The County Court Business Centre
Claim No: XXXXXXX
UKCPS Ltd
1200 Century Way, Thorpe Park Business Park, Colton, LS15 8ZA
V
XXXXXXX
The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the 27th November 2017.
The defendant denies the Claim in its entirety, asserts that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount.
As an unrepresented litigant in person, I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimants case.
1. The Claim states that, “a parking charge has been issued against the defendant of the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX parked on XXXXXXX (‘the land’). This land is managed by the claimant UKCPS Ltd, and signage is present on the land stipulating conditions of parking [and that] in parking on the land, the driver contractually agreed to be bound by these conditions”.
2. The Defendant disputes the relevance and legitimacy of the said contract in this case due to the particulars of the signage in which the Claimant refers to “PRIVATE LAND” and that “PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR PERMIT HOLDERS” for the following reasons:
a. I am an Employee at the University of XXXXXXX, and have continued to hold a valid parking permit for University car parking for the last 10 years. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces located amongst those forming a much larger University car park (for which University parking permits are valid). There are between 20-25 UKCPS signs displayed at entrances and within this car park which outline the parking conditions for University permit holders (i.e. the defendant) on this ‘private land’. In contrast, there is far less prominent and partially visible signage which outlines the parking conditions for the ‘private land’ on which the current claim is based. As such, there is absolutely no information on the UKCPS signage which distinguishes between the ‘private land’ of the University and its permit holders (which UKCPS manage) and the ‘private land’ to which the current claim relates (which UKCPS also manage), despite the fact that they are both located in the same car park. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a University employee with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract was ever agreed if a contract ever existed, or subject to the “Terms or Conditions” of said contract.
b. Given the aforementioned point, the defendant asserts that failure to provide adequate signage for University employees specifically indicating any “Parking Restrictions” or “Terms of Conditions” which apply to their, otherwise valid, permits cannot form any contractual agreement.
3. The signage for the ‘private land’ in question was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist, in terms of its positioning, prominence, visibility and clarity, and particularly with regards to the lack of clear differentiation between this signage and those more prominent signs relating to the ‘private land’ permissible to University permit holders within the same car park. Indeed, UKCPS’s signage has previously been found by County Courts to be woefully inadequate, cluttered and incapable of binding a consumer driver, let alone an authorised employee of a company (i.e. University) which owns the car park within which the ‘private land’ in question is located, and it is clear that UKCPS has not improved its practice which suggests their intent really is for drivers to receive a PCN.
a. The signage on this site (i.e. ‘land’) is inadequate to form a contract. For the parking bays in question, it is located at such a height that it is obstructed to other users of the car park when any vehicles are parked in any of the spaces in front of it – something which happens daily given the relatively small number of bays located within the so-called ‘private land’ of the claimant. The signage adjacent to the space in question is also set-back in and amongst a number bushes and trees which mean that, even when the spaces in front of it are empty, it is either obscured completely by branches and leaves or is, at best, extremely difficult to see. Even if it was positioned more prominently, it is barely legible at the distance viewed by drivers using the car park and would only be seen by those parking forwards into the bay, both of which would make it virtually impossible to read and understand to the level required for any form of contract to be formed, if one existed. Indeed, all other signage relating to the ‘private land’ of the claimant that is located further away and out of view from the parking spaces in question (attached to a set-back perimeter fence further along the car park), is equally poor in prominence and clarity. Furthermore, it is evident that other signage in this area of ‘private land’ that is not obstructed by trees and bushes is not maintained sufficiently by UKCPS to be constantly visible to all those wishing to use the parking bays (i.e. signs broken and folded-over). Each of these points clearly differentiates the signage on the claimant’s so-called ‘private land’ as inadequate compared to that seen in the Beavis case, which utilised large prominent lettering on brief, clear and multiple signs which were prominently positioned so as to be visible and understandable to all users of the parking space.
b. The signs fail because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for; this is an ICO breach and contrary to the code of practice.
c. Despite being extremely wordy, the signage does not contain any detail whatsoever with regards to what differentiates a ‘valid permit’ for the ‘private land’ of the claimant in this case, from those permits which are valid for University staff to use on the ‘private land’ indicated by UKCPS signs within the same car park (including bays adjacent and opposite those in this case). No other employer or company is mentioned as the owner of the parking bays in question, making any differentiation between these parking bays and the relative validity of permits on differing areas of ‘private land’ within this University car park virtually impossible.As such, there cannot have been any breach of any “relevant obligation” or “relevant contract” as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
d. In the absence of “adequate notice” of the terms of charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) the signage on the so-called ‘private land’ of the claimant fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
e. Further to the above, signage upon entry to the car park does not include sufficient detail regarding the terms and conditions, of parking permit validity (or when and where parking permits are not-valid) or otherwise, with the size and placement of the additional signage not doing enough to bring the existence of terms to the attention of someone parking. In any case, the signage at the entrance is at best an invitation to treat. Therefore no contract could be formed and any additional terms and conditions on further signage do not need to be accepted.
e. The Claimants signage states they are members of the British Motoring Association (BPA) however, having consulted the BPA website [accessed 24th Sept 2018] UKCPS are not listed as members of the BPA “Approved Operators Scheme” (AOS), so the signage is either out of date or incorrect.
4. No Standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case, UKCPS Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring this case.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient 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. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
5. This claim is distinct from the Beavis Case given that:
a. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting, or positioning.
b. The sum pursued exceeds £100.
c. There is/was no compliant Landowner contract.
6. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on 24th September 2018 requesting the following information:
a. Full particulars of the parking charges.
b. Who the party was that was contracted with UKCPS Ltd with regards to the ‘private land’.
c. The full legal identity of the Landowner.
d. A full copy of the contract with the landowner that demonstrated that UKCPS Ltd had their authority.
e. If their charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
f. If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and if so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this “service”.
g. To provide a copy of the signs that UKCPS Ltd can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
The Claimant has not responded. Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant, is against SRA code.
6. a. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed (which suggested to the Defendant they would ultimately be calling round like Bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was “agreed” nor could it have formed part of the alleged “contract” because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of the air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
c. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum of £100 has been calculated, or the conduct that gave rise to it. The only breakdown of additional costs by UKCPS (should further action be taken) is to form a scaremongering threat in their belief this will force the owner/driver to pay.
a. The protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
8. I put UKCPS to strict proof to declare in front of the court the reason for their firm’s sanction for a significant breach, i.e. the fact that UKCPS have been banned previously by the DVLA, as the defendant has legitimate concerns having read the IPC Code of Practice and KADOE (DVLA) rules that this PCN was one where the IPC and/or KADOE rules were not followed.
Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
0
Comments
-
I do not believe that UKCPS used the legal word PENALTY , because its a Parking Charge Notice . they would be in trouble if they said its a penalty
and all that rubbish about BPA, they are IPC members and have been for a few years, so hogwash I am afraid
and its just
DEFENCE
no additions like STATEMENT are needed, just DEFENCE0 -
Surely it wasn't ANPR (a postal PCN issued by ANPR camera images), if you parked in a bay they say was restricted?b. The signs fail because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for; this is an ICO breach and contrary to the code of practice.
Surely a windscreen PCN, not ANPR at all?
needs to be in the third person throughout, so:I amThe Defendant is
#6 makes no sense, if you have only just written today for this info you can't blame them for not replying, in this defence:6. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on 24th September 2018 requesting the following information:
a. Full particulars of the parking charges.
b. Who the party was that was contracted with UKCPS Ltd with regards to the ‘private land’.
c. The full legal identity of the Landowner.
d. A full copy of the contract with the landowner that demonstrated that UKCPS Ltd had their authority.
e. If their charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
f. If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and if so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this “service”.
g. To provide a copy of the signs that UKCPS Ltd can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
The Claimant has not responded. Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant, is against SRA code.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you for such quick replies and apologies as I’m now off laptop and on mobile - to answer briefly to questions:
No windscreen PCN and photos have been mentioned in previous correspondence - so assumed ANPR?
Apologies for the confusion of including lack of response by claimant to request for information - clearly this is not currently appropriate given timescales, but had included in draft to remove or address if/when this information is returned - there is still 14 days but would rather have wordage ready than writing at last minute.0 -
DO NOT ASSUME anything
if you are going to assume, ASSUME that its "ghost ticketing" , because ANPR does not monitor bays, it monitors IN and OUT times
use a SAR using GDPR to get all evidence including photos etc0 -
I doubt it.No windscreen PCN and photos have been mentioned in previous correspondence - so assumed ANPR?
ANPR photos show a car driving in and out of an area, and zoom in on the VRN only, in moving traffic at the entrance & exit of a location.
UKCPS are more likely to have used some goon with a hand held camera, and you can tell by the angle of the camera images and the fact the person has walked up to the car and signs.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for the clarification/explanation - will redraft in light of your comments and will remove that point regarding ANPR - unless there is equivalent for such handheld cameras?0
-
Draft defence now updated in light of previous feedback - is it helpful to upload images (of mine) here and refer to these or do these come in later? Thanks again and any further feedback/input appreciated.
DEFENCE
In The County Court Business Centre
Claim No: XXXXXXX
UKCPS Ltd
1200 Century Way, Thorpe Park Business Park, Colton, LS15 8ZA
V
XXXXXXX
The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the 27th November 2017.
The defendant denies the Claim in its entirety, asserts that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount.
As an unrepresented litigant in person, the defendant respectfully ask that they be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimants case.
1. The Claim states that, “a parking charge has been issued against the defendant of the vehicle, registration XXXXXX parked on XXXXXXX (‘the land’). This land is managed by the claimant UKCPS Ltd, and signage is present on the land stipulating conditions of parking [and that] in parking on the land, the driver contractually agreed to be bound by these conditions”.
2. The Defendant disputes the relevance and legitimacy of the said contract in this case due to the particulars of the signage in which the Claimant refers to “PRIVATE LAND” and that “PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR PERMIT HOLDERS” for the following reasons:
a. The defendant is an employee at the University of XXXXXXX, and have continued to hold a valid parking permit for University car parking for the last 10 years. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces located amongst those forming a much larger University car park (for which University parking permits are valid). There are between 20-25 UKCPS signs displayed at entrances and within this car park which outline the parking conditions for University permit holders (i.e. the defendant) on this ‘private land’. In contrast, there is far less prominent and partially visible signage which outlines the parking conditions for the ‘private land’ on which the current claim is based. As such, there is absolutely no information on the UKCPS signage which distinguishes between the ‘private land’ of the University and its permit holders (which UKCPS manage) and the ‘private land’ to which the current claim relates (which UKCPS also manage), despite the fact that they are both located in the same car park. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a University employee with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract was ever agreed if a contract ever existed, or subject to the “Terms or Conditions” of said contract.
b. Given the aforementioned point, the defendant asserts that failure to provide adequate signage for University employees specifically indicating any “Parking Restrictions” or “Terms of Conditions” which apply to their, otherwise valid, permits cannot form any contractual agreement.
3. The signage for the ‘private land’ in question was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist, in terms of its positioning, prominence, visibility and clarity, and particularly with regards to the lack of clear differentiation between this signage and those more prominent signs relating to the ‘private land’ permissible to University permit holders within the same car park. Indeed, UKCPS’s signage has previously been found by County Courts to be woefully inadequate, cluttered and incapable of binding a consumer driver, let alone an authorised employee of a company (i.e. University) which owns the car park within which the ‘private land’ in question is located, and it is clear that UKCPS has not improved its practice which suggests their intent really is for drivers to receive a PCN.
a. The signage on this site (i.e. ‘land’) is inadequate to form a contract. For the parking bays in question, it is located at such a height that it is obstructed to other users of the car park when any vehicles are parked in any of the spaces in front of it – something which happens daily given the relatively small number of bays located within the so-called ‘private land’ of the claimant. The signage adjacent to the space in question is also set-back in and amongst a number bushes and trees which mean that, even when the spaces in front of it are empty, it is either obscured completely by branches and leaves or is, at best, extremely difficult to see. Even if it was positioned more prominently, it is barely legible at the distance viewed by drivers using the car park and would only be seen by those parking forwards into the bay, both of which would make it virtually impossible to read and understand to the level required for any form of contract to be formed, if one existed. Indeed, all other signage relating to the ‘private land’ of the claimant that is located further away and out of view from the parking spaces in question (attached to a set-back perimeter fence further along the car park), is equally poor in prominence and clarity. Furthermore, it is evident that other signage in this area of ‘private land’ that is not obstructed by trees and bushes is not maintained sufficiently by UKCPS to be constantly visible to all those wishing to use the parking bays (i.e. signs broken and folded-over). Each of these points clearly differentiates the signage on the claimant’s so-called ‘private land’ as inadequate compared to that seen in the Beavis case, which utilised large prominent lettering on brief, clear and multiple signs which were prominently positioned so as to be visible and understandable to all users of the parking space.
b. Despite being extremely wordy, the signage does not contain any detail whatsoever with regards to what differentiates a ‘valid permit’ for the ‘private land’ of the claimant in this case, from those permits which are valid for University staff to use on the ‘private land’ indicated by UKCPS signs within the same car park (including bays adjacent and opposite those in this case). No other employer or company is mentioned as the owner of the parking bays in question, making any differentiation between these parking bays and the relative validity of permits on differing areas of ‘private land’ within this University car park virtually impossible. As such, there cannot have been any breach of any “relevant obligation” or “relevant contract” as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
c. In the absence of “adequate notice” of the terms of charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) the signage on the so-called ‘private land’ of the claimant fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
d. Further to the above, signage upon entry to the car park does not include sufficient detail regarding the terms and conditions, of parking permit validity (or when and where parking permits are not valid for University staff) or otherwise, with the size and placement of the additional signage not doing enough to bring the existence of terms to the attention of someone parking. In any case, the signage at the entrance is at best an invitation to treat. Therefore no contract could be formed and any additional terms and conditions on further signage do not need to be accepted.
e. The Claimants signage states they are members of the British Motoring Association (BPA) however, having consulted the BPA website [accessed 24th Sept 2018] UKCPS are not listed as members of the BPA “Approved Operators Scheme” (AOS), so the signage is either out of date or incorrect.
4. No Standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case, UKCPS Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. The defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring this case.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient 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. The defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
5. This claim is distinct from the Beavis Case given that:
a. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting, or positioning.
b. The sum pursued exceeds £100.
c. There is/was no compliant Landowner contract.
6. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on 24th September 2018 requesting the following information:
a. Full particulars of the parking charges.
b. Who the party was that was contracted with UKCPS Ltd with regards to the ‘private land’.
c. The full legal identity of the Landowner.
d. A full copy of the contract with the landowner that demonstrated that UKCPS Ltd had their authority.
e. If their charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
f. If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and if so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this “service”.
g. To provide a copy of the signs that UKCPS Ltd can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
The Claimant has not responded. Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant, is against SRA code.
6. a. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed (which suggested to the Defendant they would ultimately be calling round like Bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was “agreed” nor could it have formed part of the alleged “contract” because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of the air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
c. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum of £100 has been calculated, or the conduct that gave rise to it. The only breakdown of additional costs by UKCPS (should further action be taken) is to form a scaremongering threat in their belief this will force the owner/driver to pay.
a. The protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
8. The defendant puts UKCPS to strict proof to declare in front of the court the reason for their firm’s sanction for a significant breach, i.e. the fact that UKCPS have been banned previously by the DVLA, as the defendant has legitimate concerns having read the IPC Code of Practice and KADOE (DVLA) rules that this PCN was one where the IPC and/or KADOE rules were not followed.
Statement of Truth:
The defendant confirms that the contents of this statement are true to the best of their knowledge and belief.0 -
I have already told you that the claimant is an IPC AOS member , yet the BPA reference is still there
read the NEWBIES thread again, especially the link to the explanations about BPA and IPC memberships
UKCPS will be a corporate member of the BPA, but not in their AOS list because they dont pay for that service
my opinion ? UKCPS are BPA members and the BPA will likely conform that aspect if you ask them
not sure why you did not remove it considering I already pointed it out ?
and please put some paragraphs in if you want people to actually read it, copy and paste is just not good enough, sorry (like you did in post #1 which was a better layout)0 -
This is far too long, too much repetition, waffle, and irrelevant statements. Also you don't need all those sub-paras. The idea is not to try and fire all the bullets in one go in the Defence, save that for the witness statement and evidence, which comes at a later stage.Pirate_Fighter wrote: »Draft defence now updated in light of previous feedback - is it helpful to upload images (of mine) here and refer to these or do these come in later? Thanks again and any further feedback/input appreciated.
.
This is all you need for now:
In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXXBetweenUKCPS Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX (Defendant)
____________
DEFENCE
____________
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is an employee at the University of XXXXXXX, and has continued to hold a valid parking permit for University car parking for the last 10 years. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces located amongst those forming a much larger University car park (for which University parking permits are valid). Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a University employee with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.
3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient 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.
5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.
6. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
wot he said, lol ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
use that, you wont get better advice
and this is from one of the many posts here by KeithPWith a Claim Issue Date of xxth September, you have until xxth October to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it.
Do the AoS by following the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.
Having done the AoS, you then have until (due date) to file your defence
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:
1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to [EMAIL="CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk"]CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
5) 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'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.
this assumes that yoo know the fie by date (issue date plus 5 days plus 4 weeks) and that the claim came from Northampton CCBC
you can embed an electronic signature if you wish, otherwise stick to what KeithP and Bargepole say
evidence including pics come much nearer any court date
read the linked thread in the sticky thread, by member BARGEPOLE, for a timeline on what is done and when , he explained it all 2 years ago, so only the method of defence delivery to email instead of royal mail has changed0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards