County Court Claim by SCS and UKPC

Redx

on a skim read , no statement of truth at the bottom for a start

Coupon-mad

The Protection of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4 has not been complied with.

Are you SURE?

With UKPC, it probably has...so that's not the main point of defence, I would suggest, and if you go to the hearing as a young person about your own University parking regime, you are more likely than some people, to be asked by the Judge whether you were the driver.

I noticed you said this in an earlier post:

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?

We 100% believe you when you say this (above) and you should IMHO defend as the driver, and call them out on this conduct in a section in your defence about a breach of the BPA CoP sections on 'predatory ticketing' and 'professionalism' (citing the fact that UKPC were banned by the DVLA twice recently, once was for more than one employee at various locations, fraudulently altering evidence photos).


Also at the start, you need to explain that this claim is about x number of PCNs issued at University, and answer whatever the POC says in the Claim, e.g.

'1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of VRN xxxxxx when it was parked at Brunel University. However, the Defendant denies any breach of prominently displayed terms and denies that any consideration flowed between the driver and the parking operator, or that there was any 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' that could give rise to the Claimant's punitive charges.

2. The facts are that the Claimant was known for issuing hundreds of dubious PCNs to students/staff/visitors, and despite concentrating on the primary purpose of University (namely studying), the Defendant managed to get half a dozen cancelled by POPLA, the independent appeals service, but the unfair and predatory PCNs within this claim remain in dispute.

3. {explain, as driver, why you parked there and why you feel you were authorised to park (unload or load at the library, maybe?) and why you are not liable for penalties for that conduct...}

I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

Remove the above as it adds nothing and isn't written in the third person. All needs to be 'the Defendant', not ''I'' so other changes will be needed, like here:

[STRIKE]I have[/STRIKE] The Defendant has the reasonable belief

And the end should be like this, I'd suggest:

10. In the Defendant's case, there was no prominent contract for the defendant to read and accept. The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:

i) Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.

ii) Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

iii) Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

11. The Claimant has inexplicably added £60 in 'costs' bolted onto each and every £100 PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

11.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. The Claimant harassed the Defendant with debt collector demands but these are sent on a no-win-no-fee basis by the likes of Debt Recovery Plus who advertise they only charge when they collect monies. To add £60 per PCN, plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

11.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred any damages, nor admin, nor legal costs that are not already encompassed within the inflated 'parking charge' (that the Supreme Court held in Beavis, was mostly profit and more than covers the very minimal template letter cost of running a parking operation). The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste robo-claims at all, and that the filing of yet another fact-unchecked parking claim by SCS Law is purely a daily administrative function.

11.3. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim and to allow such defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

The Defendant believes the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name

Signature

Date

FutureTrunks

Now THAT is some real good advice right there Coupon-mad! Thank you so much, I'm in the process of amending and updating my defence with the points you have provided.

Whilst I do this, I've read about using a SAR letter to get everything they have on me on these PCNs. Would it be worth sending this out also? I've seen a template letter used where the Defendant provided a copy of their V5 document within the SAR to prove they were the owner of the vehicle, unfortunately I can't do that as I took part in a scrappage scheme and now the car doesn't even exist, is providing the V5 necessary? Sorry if these are stupid questions, I'd rather just run everything by everyone on this forum.

nosferatu1001

Of course it is worth it
The more info you have the better.
STate that the vehicle has since been scrapped no V5 exists, however as they have been communicating with you as defendant on claim ref XYZ you have adeuqately proven your identity.

FutureTrunks

Hi again guys, so just to update everyone, I sent of a SAR to UKPC using the template provided within the NEWBIES guide, this way I'll hopefully have access to all the photos relating to this case. I have also updated my defence to include the changes that Coupon-mad has provided, I won't post the whole thing again to save people's time but the specific additions that weren't written for my by Coupon-mad are below (except for point 3):

3. The facts are that the Claimant was known for issuing hundreds of dubious PCNs to students/staff/visitors, and despite concentrating on the primary purpose of University (namely studying for coursework and exams), the Defendant managed to get half a dozen of these PCNs cancelled by POPLA, the independent appeals service, but the unfair and predatory PCNs within this claim remain in dispute.

4. The Defendant parked in the location directly outside of their halls residence, and felt they were authorised to park the to load and unload their personal belongings from the vehicle (groceries, laundry, etc). Since the Defendant was a resident of the building, and the car park is directly outside the front entrance of said building, it is the Defendant’s belief that they are not liable for any penalties related to simply parking outside the location where they lived for a brief period of time.

5. The BPA Code of Practice regarding predatory tactics was not followed by the Claimant. At least one of the PCNs in question were allegedly supposed to have been cancelled when the Defendant had caught up with the parking operator during which they were taking pictures of the PCN on the windscreen of the vehicle. Upon being caught by the Defendant, they then promptly removed the yellow PCN stuck to the windscreen, and told the Defendant that they would subsequently be “let off this time”. However, the Defendant received a Notice to Keeper the following month regardless.

6. This Claimant has been exposed in the national press - and was investigated by the BPA - for falsifying photo evidence, which was admitted by the Claimant. Not to mention they were also banned from accessing the DVLA database as recently as April 2018. It is submitted that this is not a parking company which complies with the strict rules of their Trade Body, which were held as a vital regulatory feature in ParkingEye v Beavis.

Could anyone see if my points 4-6 are okay, I have a feeling I may be speaking too frankly and providing irrelevant details which the Judge won't really care about.

Coupon-mad

I really like it, and it's very clear, not something a Judge would think was too frank. Lots of them seem to be learning about PPC scammers.

I would just change a bit of wording here, then it's ready for you to print, sign/date, then scan & attach to an email for the CCBC (see post #6 above by KeithP):

4. The Defendant parked in the location directly outside of their halls residence, [STRIKE]and felt[/STRIKE] having the reasonable and honest belief that they were authorised to park the to load and unload their personal belongings from the vehicle (groceries, laundry, etc). Since the Defendant was a resident of the building, and the car park is directly outside the front entrance of said building, it is the Defendant’s belief that they are not liable for any penalties related to simply parking to unload outside the location where they lived for a brief period of time. None of the signs or lines referred to any kind of loading ban or charge for such conduct, which is not parking.

4.1. In the absence of any signs to the contrary that addressed loading/unloading, boarding or alighting - normal activity in any black of residences - there was no reason to assume that different rules than the accepted norm, applied here for exempt activity.

4.2. The Defendant avers that residents and their visitors/delivery drivers etc., can rely upon an easement and/or rights of way, which allow for passing and re-passing, including stopping. This every-day activity must have been in the contemplation of the University.

4.3. The Defendant relies upon persuasive higher court/appeal cases, including Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, Kettel v Bloomfold [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) and the findings of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.

4.4. In the case of Moncrieff, Lord Neuberger defined parking as longer term/leaving of a vehicle for a period of time, and this definition was echoed more recently at a County Court Appeal case, regarding a very similar unfair/predatory parking charge, where HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) held that life at a block of flats would be 'unworkable' if people were penalised for brief stopping to unload.

For your reading:
https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

Also go to The Parking Prankster's case law and read the transcript.

FutureTrunks

So I just received the PoC in the post today, could I possibly scan and send them over to you in a PM as I have some concerns

nosferatu1001

Why cant you show them here?
Or explain what you think your concerns are.
Way more useful than a cryptic post.

Coupon-mad

I don't take pm's, sorry (and newbies should certainly don't send anything to a new poster, if some other non-regular contacts you!).

Say here what your concerns are.

FutureTrunks

I understand, I think I was just being a muppet about putting too much info out there but tbh I've already done that, and sorry for the delay in my response, been a busy 2 days at work. So here's the link to the particulars SCS sent me: -link removed as it contained personal info-

Now I have some concerns with this:

1) Paragraph 3 on the first page about admitting that I was the driver seems a bit weird, it's almost as if they themselves don't actually know whether or not I admitted I was the driver (which I didn't), just a small point but thought I'd point it out.

2) The first contravention I have is that they have stated I parked in a disabled space outside my halls. Now I do remember this one plain as day because this was when I came back to my halls in the early hours of the morning and it was still dark, I didn't even notice that it was a "disabled space" because there weren't any space to accommodate for wheelchairs, and they had two spaces that were just like regular parking bays but it was like they just slapped a wheelchair symbol on the ground underneath which I couldn't see because of the lighting, there weren't any extra signposts or other provisions to show that they are disabled bays. So I'm not sure about this one

3) Another contravention says that I parked with an expired permit, now this is another one that I found weird because this specific permit had expired over 2 years prior and was only allowed to be used for the car park behind the library which was on a completely different side of the campus. It had no relevance to the car park outside my halls and even if it WASN'T expired, it would have even been valid, so I'm not sure why the operator said that it had any relevance? I had stuck it to my windscreen in 2014 and had just left it there ever since.

4) The final concern is that they said I parked in a permit holder parking space, but there are no marked bays at all, just a long brick section that doesn't even define any separation or spaces. Could this aid my case?

I don't know how to take these two specific contraventions.