Appeal Rejection

Danipt8

Hi everyone

I had a parking charge notice a while back by UK PCM, although after reading a few threads here, where people mentioned not to appeal straight after, and wait until they send the first letter, and then appeal, Which I did after I received it.


I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

Formal note:

Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

That was my appeal, although I've received recently an email from them with the following.
Unfortunately, we are unable to process your appeal as it has been submitted outside of the required 21 day period.

The Independent Appeals Service provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. We will engage with, the IAS Non-Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection.

All PCN's will be uploaded to the IAS website by the end of this working day.
Please note. We will not be responding to any further emails we receive in relation to the above matter.

What should I do next after this email?

Kind regards

Coupon-mad

What can I do to make it clearer in the NEWBIES thread, that newbies do not to ask 'what to do' when inevitably turned down by IPC firms? I really want to cover this because we can't cope with all these threads, all the same, here's two more from today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5904119/wembley-stadium-retail-park

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74869837#Comment_74869837

Here's one from yesterday about UKCPM, I really want to stop these threads (not your fault but we cannot keep up):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5903686/uk-cpm-query


Come back at court claim or Gladstones LBC stage, please, no asking about it, just read about it and be ready to win it then.

Danipt8

Hi guys

As I was told to come back at the court stage, I've just received a claim form from the County Court business centre.
A claim was issued against you on 08/08/2019

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 21/08/2019 at 23:57:27

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 22/08/2019 at 08:05:48

As you can see I've acknowledged the claim and that as bought me a few days to prepare my defence.
Can someone please help to prepare my defence ?

Kind regards

Coupon-mad

Other way round! We will help when you show us your draft defence.

That's why there are 17 examples linked in the NEWBIES thread, and seventeen hundred more (well loads anyway) all in this forum, and easily found if you search using 2 or 3 keywords like 'UKCPM permit defence' or 'UKCPM residential defence' or whatever your case is about.

Whatever it is a defence or several have been written before, and you can copy them.

If it is about a residential estate where you lived then dig out the lease/tenancy agreement obviously as the wording about your rights of way and parking will clearly form part of your defence.

waamo

Danipt8 wrote: »

Hi guys

As I was told to come back at the court stage, I've just received a claim form from the County Court business centre.
A claim was issued against you on 08/08/2019

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 21/08/2019 at 23:57:27

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 22/08/2019 at 08:05:48

As you can see I've acknowledged the claim and that as bought me a few days to prepare my defence.
Can someone please help to prepare my defence ?

Kind regards

Have you checked out the Newbies thread? It contains defence details

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th August, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 10th September 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

Danipt8

Thanks for the all the answers, after reading a few similar threads, I've written down my defence.
Any opinions?

Kind regards

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXX
Between
UKCPM Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX(Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consisted of a site where other cars were parked with no parking restriction signage at the entrance of the site or any parking bays/lines marked on the floor where the vehicle was parked. There was only a single small poorly marked UKCPM signage right next to a private Company Name on the wall as per evidence(photos) provided by UKCPM. The vehical stated wasn't interfering with the normal traffic flowing or blocking other vehicles or being parked. This poor and unclear signage makes its visualisation very difficult to observe. Given this lack of clarity regarding, 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 Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant dated 15th June 2018 was not sent or received within the timeframe permitted under Schedule 4, Para 8(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

5. 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.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £71.16 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.

7. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

8. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

9. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

10. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

11.According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

13. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

14. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

15. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

16. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

1505grandad

Can you clarify as to the full name of claimant from the claim form.

Also in para 13 put "The Judge stated" or similar before ''IT IS ORDERED THAT.

Danipt8

Claimant name

UK Car Park Management Limited
19 NEW Road
BN1 1UF

Address for sending documents and payments:
Gladstones solicitors Limited

Will change para 13

Thanks

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Danipt8

The Deep, sorry my possible ignorance but I'm quite new to these things, how would I formally complain to my MP?

Also Im already at the court stage, so will it be worthy complain to the MP?

Thanks