County Court Claim by SCS and UKPC

FutureTrunks

Hi guys, it's been a while since I've been on here and the last time I was on here, it was in regards to a set of parking tickets I had received during my time at university when my car was parked outside my halls of residence. I apologise for the long post, but I want to try and explain the situation as best as I can.

During the year I was there, I had received a total of 9 tickets (stupid, I know). However, for each ticket that I received, I followed the advice given on the newbies thread and appealed to POPLA. In total I had sent 6 appeals to POPLA; I had won 5 of these with the appeal pack I had provided, however I lost one because the adjudicator had asked me for more evidence within 7 days, however I was unable to provide an update to my appeal at that time as I was out of the city and did not have access to my emails, and as I did not respond to whatever they had asked for, the PPC had won this appeal.

You may have noticed that I had only sent 5 appeals to POPLA, and may be asking what about the other 4? Well, over time I received four more “tickets” and eventually received the NTKs for each of these. However, I believe (I may be correct or incorrect about this) that two of these tickets may have been removed by the operator.

This seems like a bit of a far-fetched statement but the reason I say this is because I clearly remember one occasion where I caught the operator taking a picture of my car with the ticket on the windscreen. When I caught him in the act, he removed the ticket from my windscreen, said he’ll “let me off” this one time, told me to move me car, and walked off. Now that didn’t ring any bells then, but it does now. I was a bit naive to believe he'd not issue the ticket but lo-and-behold, I got an NTK a month later. Could someone advise me on this too?

Anyways, each of the tickets that were successfully appealed were due to:
1) Insufficient signage
2) No evidence of Landowner Authority
3) No grace period given

Another member of this forum had a similar problem and I had used their appeal as a draft and just filled in pictures that were relevant to my situation. I tried posting a link to my Dropbox with my appeal but since I'm still a new user I can't post links, any advice on how I can provide the appeal to you guys?

Now I had received several more NTKs in regards to the 4 remaining tickets over the past 2 years, with the collection agency switching hands multiple times, from DRP Ltd, to Zenith Collections, and now finally to SCS Law.

Today I have received a Claim Form from SCS Law for the 4 tickets, totalling for over £700! Now I really want to fight this as I believe that, had I had the chance to appeal these at the POPLA stage, I would have won, and the fact that I beat 5 other tickets at POPLA would maybe give me a bit of an edge for this case?

I’m now going to acknowledge the claim & MCOL process, I really appreciate all and any help I can get during this time. Thank you all to everyone who’s helped me out in the past, hopefully I can beat these pricks at this stage as well.

Redx

post a dead URL link, changing http to hxxp, its really that simple


you need to make sure the AOS is done online according to the links in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread


then post the DATE OF ISSUE and the POC below, so people can check them and advise you


then start drafting your DEFENCE (too late for any appeal)

FutureTrunks

Redx wrote: »

post a dead URL link, changing http to hxxp, its really that simple


you need to make sure the AOS is done online according to the links in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread


then post the DATE OF ISSUE and the POC below, so people can check them and advise you


then start drafting your DEFENCE (too late for any appeal)

Whoops didn't realise it was that easy! Here it is: -link removed-

What do you mean by AOS? I'm not quite sure what that means in regards to defending a claim, I know it matters at the appeal stage but could you let me know?

The Date of Issue is 28th September 2018 and the POC is as follows:

"The Claimant claims from the Defendant the sum of £640 in respect to unpaid parking notices issued as a result of the Defendant's breach of terms and conditions of parking at a site managed by the Claimant. I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form"

Signed: Andrew Morgan.

Redx

AOS etc is all explained in that NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread , post #2 , that I asked you to read (like doing research at UNI ?) - it even has a pictorial walkthrough

dont expect people to explain the basics or stuff you can easily google


its also one of the forms you received too

Coupon-mad

Check out post #5 of the NEWBIES thread for all acronyms, then post #2 about court procedures and how to do that online AOS, then defence.

KeithP

AoS = Acknowledgement of Service.


With a Claim Issue Date of 28th September, you have until Wednesday 17th October to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Wednesday 31st October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to hone your Defence to perfection.


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 CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
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 your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

FutureTrunks

Redx wrote: »

AOS etc is all explained in that NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread , post #2 , that I asked you to read (like doing research at UNI ?) - it even has a pictorial walkthrough

dont expect people to explain the basics or stuff you can easily google


its also one of the forms you received too

Not to be rude or anything as I do appreciate everything you guys do but the NEWBIES guide has this down for AOS:

"AOS = Approved Operator Scheme of an Accredited Trade Association such as the BPA (or the new one, the IPC). Only AOS members can get DVLA data."

So I'm sure you can see where the confusion came from... I'm doing the AOS now.

Redx

yes, its a shame that the same AOS acronym is used more than once for different purposes , but I did direct you to post #2 of that NEWBIES thread for the AOS and court claims , not to post #5

FutureTrunks

Redx wrote: »

yes, its a shame that the same AOS acronym is used more than once for different purposes , but I did direct you to post #2 of that NEWBIES thread for the AOS and court claims , not to post #5

I understand, but not once is the acronym AOS used in the entirety of post #2, the words "acknowledge service" is used, but not AOS and this is where I got confused. Maybe this could be updated within the NEWBIES guide? I know you must see hundreds of posts where people don't even read the guide and just want to be spoonfed but I assure you this isn't the case.

Anyways! I've just submitted to AOS and will now go on to draft my defence

Coupon-mad

Good point well made, I will try to make it clearer in the NEWBIES thread!

FutureTrunks

So I've made an initial draft of my defence, this will most likely change as I think I will be receiving more detailed particulars for each PCN. But this is what I have for now, could you please give it a quick scan and see if I'm on the right track? Thanks!

In the County Court
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX
Between:
UK PARKING CONTROL LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date.
a. The Claimant did not identify the driver.
b. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
3. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.
4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “breach of terms and conditions” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. (This could possibly be removed if they provide me with separate particulars)
5. It is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person who would be able to read them. Not to mention the signs are also located at a distance in a pale, and unlit environment and placed high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The doctrine of contra preferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the Claimant says they did.
6. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim as the signage is a “forbidding offer”, which isn’t an offer at all, which means there can be no contract.
a. Further to this, the signage displayed clearly only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefor only permit holders can be bound by the contractual terms given.
7. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The landowner, Brunel University, is the proper Claimant. UK Parking Control Ltd cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof that shows there is an unredacted chain of contracts leading from Brunel University to UK Parking Control Ltd is required.
a. A contract is absent with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.
b. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.
8. If the driver(s) on each occasion were considered to be trespassers if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
9. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4 has not been complied with. 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. Any added solicitor’s fees are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
10. 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.