UKCPS County Court Claim (MCOL)

nosferatu1001

Bargepole - I am not sure 5 is relevant, given the drivers identity is known?

bargepole

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Bargepole - I am not sure 5 is relevant, given the drivers identity is known?

Strictly speaking it isn't, but always worth pointing out that the charges are artificially inflated, and even where defendants lose in court, most Judges won't allow the £60 'add on'.

nosferatu1001

Fair enough, I was just checking

Pirate_Fighter

Thank you all so much for the advice and patience - I really do appreciate it - and apologies for the naivety (and oversight) in my drafts/redrafts - I count my self as reasonably switched on, but I've found the volume of information on other threads (which is all insightful) a little tricky to digest/navigate and pick out as needed (despite my reading of the newbie thread). Those signposts to other timeline/process threads look really helpful, and the re-draft/condensing of the defence makes a lot of sense. It looks like the email approach will be applicable so I'll get that printed etc and sent.

Once any response is received back is it best/ok to use this existing thread for further advice as needed? Again, really do appreciate everyone's time and effort in helping with this.

bargepole

Pirate_Fighter wrote: »

Once any response is received back is it best/ok to use this existing thread for further advice as needed? .

Yes, all updates should be added to this thread, so that anyone who wants to contribute can see the whole story.

Starting another thread for an ongoing case will result in a slapped wrist and a yellow card.

Pirate_Fighter

Hi all,

An update on progress since the previous post(s) - having sent the defence off, I then received, completed and returned the N180 notice of proposed allocation to small claims track (as per the newbies thread instructions). I have since received a 'final settlement offer' from UKCPS (£160 instead of £185) along with a set of photographs of my car/car park signage on the date the claim relates to, and then another bundle of 'requested information' - including a set of the same photographs accompanied by a basic 'authority agreement' declaring their right to manage the land (which is redacted of any third party information).

My understanding is that I should simply wait for the process of hearing date confirmation and then WS request/submission etc via the court - and thus ignore this correspondence. However, if anything, the photographs support many of the points in my (long winded) initial draft defence - which will ultimately form the basis of my WS. Having seen mention of 'drop hands' requests, is it of value to write to UKCPS and clarify that their evidence supports my defence and then outline similar to the text at the bottom of this post?

Either way, I'll keep the thread updated as and when further progress is made past this point.
Best wishes and thanks again!

The claimant is invited to withdraw his claim with no order for costs. This is a "drop hands" offer to settle with each party bearing their own costs. The offer is available for acceptance for a period of [ ] days from the date of this letter.

The terms of the offer have value to the claimant insofar as the defendant will not seek his costs of defending the action, where recoverable and will not pursue any additional but related claim(s) in connection with the unauthorised ticketing on public highway.

If the offer is not accepted, the defendant will seek to claim his costs of the defence and additional costs for unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR Part 27.

Coupon-mad

Having seen mention of 'drop hands' requests, is it of value to write to UKCPS and clarify that their evidence supports my defence and then outline similar to the text at the bottom of this post?

Yes, nothing to lose by making a drop hands offer.

cookiesaremyfavourite

Hi,

I have left this post until the very last day - I know - I have had ages and I still have left it till the last day. To be honest the whole thing is rather stressful and I am just hoping this will be read by some of the experts here.

I have read quite a few of the Defenses and can see that there is a lot of information in some and some which are a little more concise. I like the concise one with regards to the University parking on this thread. In my particular case, I received a PCN after parking in a bay at a local tesco express. The site is a residential unit with a Tesco Express. It used to be parking in any bay but as I discovered after my PCN, they made changes to only have some bays as parking for Tesco customers. There are lots of signs up that talk about private parking for residents only but no signs about where to park as a Tesco customer. Indeed, the markings for the Tesco Bays are on the floor - covered when a car is parked over them. I was not aware of the change, did not see where to park and parked in an available bay. The attendant I am advised used to hide out in the flats and wait till customers were in the shop before pouncing! I have been chased since by UKCPM and now Gladstones. I was hoping to use something similar to the version on this forum thread. My defence would read as follows:

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UKCPS 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

cookiesaremyfavourite

Further to my above post, any help woud be gratefully received! I really do only have until today (I am submitting this via email as recommended elsewhere on this forum). Thank you.

KeithP

cookiesaremyfavourite, If you were to start your own thread with that information on it you may get more help.

When starting your own thread please tell us the Issue Date on your Claim Form.

This is someone else's thread. Please delete your posts from here.