County Court Claim by SCS and UKPC

FutureTrunks

Is everything okay with the witness statement everyone?

FutureTrunks

I'm gonna arrange my evidence pack tonight and send it off first thing tomorrow, please do let me know if there are any recommendations that you guys have!

FutureTrunks

Hi guys, I just got UKPCs witness statement and evidence pack today. It's pretty big but I'm gonna go through their points (am I allowed to post it on here?). However one of the things they've stated is some case law, namely UKPC v Mr Somduth Peenith. The case is regarding a forbidding offer and how the case went in favour of UKPC. They also put down costs of nearly £550?! Starting to get a little nervous about the whole ordeal now

Coupon-mad

Peenith (sounds like a guy with a lisp! ) is just another county court decision turning on different facts. Not 'case law' and not a precedent, not like the Beavis case that has real clout.

I just got UKPCs witness statement and evidence pack today. It's pretty big but I'm gonna go through their points (am I allowed to post it on here?)

Yes, and if it's not too cheeky to ask (as I assume they included it) show us Peenith!

:rotfl:

FutureTrunks

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Peenith (sounds like a guy with a lisp! ) is just another county court decision turning on different facts. Not 'case law' and not a precedent, not like the Beavis case that has real clout.
Yes, and if it's not too cheeky to ask (as I assume they included it) show us Peenith!

:rotfl:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
I didn't even clock on to that until you mentioned it haha. I'm afraid I can't post a scan of the documents right now as I don't have a scanner, but I can send a proper copy tomorrow. For now here are some pics I've taken with my phone: https://imgur.com/a/toT9PfN

FutureTrunks

So I'm going through the evidence pack and I can see they've supplied the contract between themselves and the university, for "self-ticketing services" and a witness statement signed by someone from the uni stating that UKPC are authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs.

They've also stated that a copy of some of the signage is displayed at various locations of the site, and have included close up pictures of the signs (it doesn't show their location in proximity to any bays though), and one of the pictures is a sign I don't recognise which is timestamped from 2012. This 2012 sign is also a pay-and-display sign, which has no bearing on this case because all of the signs in my case are forbidding offers.

They've then gone on to talk about one of the tickets where I was parked in a disabled bay, and my appeal to UKPC and their response asking for a badge.

The next point talks about how there were no appeals lodged in relation to two of the PCNs (these are the ones I believe may have been taken off the car after pictures were taken, so I couldn't appeal). But how was I supposed to appeal these if I didn't see the GD physical ticket?!

They then talk about how the signs are prominent and clear (lol). They say that "The Claimant confirms that some PCNs were cancelled after an appeal to POPLA, however the reason for the cancellation was because it transpired that the parking attendant had noted the wrong contravention code and thus the PCNs were cancelled". Now this makes no sense to me because I remember at least 1 of the POPLA appeals went through to the adjudicator's decision, and their decision was that the signage was indeed inadequate. So UKPC are lying through their teeth here? I'm going to try and find a copy of that decision so I can hopefully show the judge this is just a lie.

I'd also like to note that some of these PCNs which got cancelled, have the same contravention noted down as some of the PCNs which they are taking me to court for. I.e. I had two PCNs cancelled for "Not displaying a valid permit" but 2 of the PCNs they're taking me to court for is for the same contravention. I also had 2 PCNs cancelled for "displayed an expired permit". And they're taking me to court for the same reason. Why were these deemed "invalid" by UKPC, but the ones they're taking to court for are suddenly "valid"

Now when I mentioned in my defence on the time I caught the guy they've said "they are unable to comment on the Defendant's interaction with the parking attendant. I would note however that the Defendant provides no evidence to substantiate his assertion, neither did the Claimant receive any correspondence or complaint". Is this a valid claim for them to make? Either way I've included a witness statement from a friend who was with me on the day I caught the guy putting the ticket on my car, so maybe this invalidates that claim? This paragraph goes on to talk about how I've mentioned they were caught doctoring photos, and they say "these were isolated incidents and fail to see the relevance of the Defendant's reference to these incidents that occurred over three years previously". This is wrong because these events happened between 2016 and 2017, closer to one year than the three years that they state. They've attached a massive list of pictures and documents which is basically all correspondence of the letters they've sent me, pictures of my car for each "offence".

Then they say that "I had parked my vehicle to load and unload, but that the evidence shows the vehicle parked with all doors shut and no sign of any active loading and unloading taking place". Now this is complete and utter !!!!!!!!, I lived in a block of flats on the fourth floor, with no view of my vehicle once I'm inside my apartment. Am I supposed to keep my doors unlocked open for theft during this time?! What a complete load of !!!!!!!!.

Now they talk about the permit I left of my windscreen (which was for the library almost 2-3 years prior to these events). In my defence I stated that "the expired permit was for another location at the site and was simply left on the dashboard". They then say "this is not the case as demonstrated as the evidence which shows a permit affixed to the windshield and not 'simply left on the dashboard'". That's a bit pedantic isn't it, surely that can't be a valid argument. "The Claimant would question why the Defendant would knowingly leave an expired permit prominently affixed to his windshield". Because I'm a lazy student and I don't think having an expired permit for a different location would affect anything? "Given that the Defendant states that he was a student resident of the site, it is reasonable to assume that he was familiar with the parking restrictions at the site and would have known that displaying an expired permit was in contravention of the terms and conditions of parking". I don't get this? Why would a permit which is valid only for a specific location, have any bearing on parking at another location? If I have a permit for a Location A in London which expires, but then park in Location B in Liverpool, why would the expired permit have any relevance?

Next up is the £60 charge bolted on to each PCN. They say that the additional charge is a contractual term stated on the signage. They say that "The signage clearly states that unpaid parking charges will be passed to our debt recovery agent at which point an additional charge of £60 will apply". They then say I was warned "adequately" based on the warning that was stated on the multiple NTKs.

The_Deep

Go though paragraph by paragraph refuting everything with which you disagree, anything which you do not refute may be taken as the truth.

They may have shot themselves in the foot with the DCA charges, can they produce v.a.t. invoices. Usually they do not pay a DCA ywho usually oerates on a no win no fee basis . Ask to see their contract with the DCA, put them to strict proof that these amounts have been aid. Do they use the word "will" in the signs, if so it may be an unfair term in a consumer contract. UTCC

If they are trying to claim for monies which they have incurred then ask the judge to consider CPR27.14(2)(g) costs for unreasonable behaviour and abuse of process.

This may cost them a lot of money, especially if you are willing to play hard ball.

The_Deep

I found this on Legal Beagles

11. Furthermore, the defendant's assertion that signage was incapable of forming a contract is wrong. The finding of District Judge Gillman in the recent case of UK Parking Control Ltd v Mr Somduth Peenith (2016), sitting at the County Court at Edmonton, which has decided on similar facts, stated that such signage is not an absolute prohibition but merely states that if a driver is to park a vehicle at this site, they must be authorised to do so and will be authorised if they comply with the T&C's of parking, it is reasonable and logical to interpret from the signage that parking is offered subject to the clearly displayed terms and conditions. A copy of the judgement is attached at Exhibit AY/5.

and this on Parking Prankster

The SCS Law rep referred the Judge to UKPC V Peenith (C9QZ6915) and stated signage erected at the site was proof of a contract. The Judge said of this case 'that's not binding on me'.

UKPC may struggle if they intend to rely on this.

FutureTrunks

So I just handed my bundle in to the County Court, unfortunately there wasn't anyone there to accept the bundle so the security guard told me to put it in a Dropbox specifically for documents which would be picked up later.

I was hesitant to put it in there because I would have rather waited and gave it to someone official but whoever the relevant person would be wouldn't be back for a while so I left it there and sent an email to the court immediately informing them of my action.

Hope this was the right thing to do

Coupon-mad

Yes, given the next working day is next Tuesday, this was the right thing to do.

I assume you have also emailed everything - your WS and all evidence attached - to SCS law as well, and please print out the proof of the sent email and put that in your file in case at the hearing they pretend they were never served the WS/evidence.

Happens a LOT and people need to be ready to expose the lies.