County Court Claim by SCS and UKPC

FutureTrunks

I have another picture of the signage to the entrance of my halls on how a driver would see it under dark conditions, unfortunately I don't have any right now of the signage closer to the area where I parked but I can get some tomorrow evening to give a better indication of how bad the signage is

Coupon-mad

The POC is a standard template, ''either/or'' BUT as I think I must have already suggested, the driver is pretty obviously you the Uni student so I would not try to defend these as 'keeper' anyway.

This helps you to defend with knowledge, and you can deny any breach and (briefly) add to a concise defence template - go find bargepole's one about unclear signs/lines, in the NEWBIES thread - saying in your added bit near the start, what the facts were.

I know you've already drafted a defence but maybe redraft a little more specifically mentioning unlit signs/no lines, now.

System

Where is the UKPC contract with the client? Have they included it and is it unnredacted? Or does it have lots of black stuff over it?

FutureTrunks

The POC is a standard template, ''either/or'' BUT as I think I must have already suggested, the driver is pretty obviously you the Uni student so I would not try to defend these as 'keeper' anyway.

This helps you to defend with knowledge, and you can deny any breach and (briefly) add to a concise defence template - go find bargepole's one about unclear signs/lines, in the NEWBIES thread - saying in your added bit near the start, what the facts were.

I know you've already drafted a defence but maybe redraft a little more specifically mentioning unlit signs/no lines, now.

Thank you for the advice, I'll be working on updating the draft accordingly!

Where is the UKPC contract with the client? Have they included it and is it unnredacted? Or does it have lots of black stuff over it?

They haven't included it at all!

There was also one more thing I noticed which I should have mentioned but it completely slipped my mind, they say that they have complied with the pre-action protocol for debt claims, however I didn't receive any sort of Letter before Claim? I'm 100% sure I never received it is I have copies of every bit of correspondence that was sent to me backed up online. Would this be worth mentioning in my defence or would it just be a "he-said she-said" matter?

System

They haven't included it at all!

Best to see if you can find one e.g. ask the Uni through a Freedom of Information request.

Also though it is Uni land, is the accommodation run by the Uni or a third party?

FutureTrunks

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Best to see if you can find one e.g. ask the Uni through a Freedom of Information request.

Also though it is Uni land, is the accommodation run by the Uni or a third party?

Okay I will try to get a copy of it, and the accommodation is run by the university itself. At the beginning of this whole debacle I did request these tickets to be cancelled by the university, but they said the couldn't do anything about it and to deal with it with UKPC

System

Also why not cannibalise your POPLA appeal which is comprehensive though not in the "recognised" format. You can then point to the issues within your appeal being accepted by POPLA.

You can then highlight that these other tickets shouldn't have been to court and ask for them to be referred back to ADR which is POPLA in order to save the court's time, resources so that this case does not become a burden to other court users. [Some judges will jump at that]

FutureTrunks

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Also why not cannibalise your POPLA appeal which is comprehensive though not in the "recognised" format. You can then point to the issues within your appeal being accepted by POPLA.

You can then highlight that these other tickets shouldn't have been to court and ask for them to be referred back to ADR which is POPLA in order to save the court's time, resources so that this case does not become a burden to other court users. [Some judges will jump at that]

That's a very good idea, however one of the tickets they are claiming for had already been at the POPLA stage and failed so I'm not sure if they'll go for it, but it's definitely worth a try.

Le_Kirk

4. The Defendant parked in the location directly outside of their halls residence, and felt 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.

........their halls of residence.....
........park there to load .........

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.

......... activity in any block of ........
........rules other than the accepted norm[STRIKE],[/STRIKE] applied.....

Might be worth checking through for other typos etc.

FutureTrunks

Hi guys, it's been a long and busy 2 weeks. Apologies for the delay but I've finally managed to sit down and update the draft defence we initially made. It will definitely need some work, but once again here is the updated version. Apologies in advance as it is quite large:

In the County Court

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

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. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of VRN XXXXXXX 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.

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 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.

5. 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.

6. The Defendant parked in the location directly outside of their halls of residence, having the reasonable and honest belief that they were authorised to park there 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.

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

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. 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.

7. 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.

a. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. This was stated as one of the main appeal points within the POPLA appeals for the previous PCNs which were received by the Defendant, and said PCNs were cancelled by POPLA due to the insufficient signage in place.

b. As such, the Defendant avers that the tickets should never have been to court and requests that these PCNs be referred back to the Alternative Dispute Resolution provider (in this case POPLA) in order to save the court’s time and resources so that this case does not become a burden to other court users.

8. 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.

9. The Claimant states that the Defendant breached the terms of the agreement by parking in a designated disabled parking space, as the parking space itself was inadequately provisioned and no signage corresponding to each bay was displayed. The Parking for Disabled people, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/95 published by the Department for Transport states that an additional width of at least 1200mm on each side of the bay should be available. The bays are not clearly coloured (in yellow as recommended) and are very hard to see at times of low lighting. There are also no clear sings in front of each disabled bay that states it is in-fact a disabled bay.

10. The Claimant also states that the Defendant was parked whilst displaying a ticket or permit which had expired and was no longer valid. The “expired permit” in question was a permit allowing the defendant to park at the library (which is on a completely different part of the university campus) which was used almost 2 years prior, and was not even a permit which could have been used at any other location, but was simply left on the dashboard. The fact that a PCN was raised for this reason, where an expired permit for a completely different location was displayed, brings in to question the validity of the PCN raised for this itself.

11. 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, The Defendant has 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.

12. If the driver(s) on each occasion were 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.

13. 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:

a. 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''.

b. 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.''

c. 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.''

14. 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.

a. 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.

b. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant had 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.

c. 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.

15. 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: