Residents parking - UKCPM - Claim Form

Coupon-mad

Search this parking forum for Union Jack (those keywords, Advanced search) and you will see a Judge's findings on whether ''reasonable regulations made...from time to time for the proper management and use of the Development'' can include a permit scheme imposed on residents that fines them £100 a pop for not displaying a permit they never previously had to display.

pogo88

Thanks Coupon,

I have searched the parking forum for both "Union Jack" and "Landlord & Tenant Act 75% consensus", but whilst I found many relevant posts and threads that I can relate to in my own case, I could not find the specific post that details the judge's findings on the "imposition of a residence permit scheme" that you refer to in your reply.

Would you be able to confirm the title of that particular thread please? I have gone through the 22 threads returned from the search, but I could not see this in any of them.

Many thanks
Pogo

KeithP

You are not using the search facility properly.

You need to ensure you have clicked on Show Posts.

When I do that the first item returned, after two mentions in this thread, is the one you want.

pogo88

Thanks KeithP, I'll continue to research and form my defence which I hope to have drafted by the end of this week.

pogo88

A couple of quick questions...

I unfortunately ignored the LBC for this claim, and understand that I should had requested a SAR from the PCN at that stage. Is it too late to request this from them now? I did not keep much of the physical correspondence I've had in regards to this claim (i.e. the PCNs, the appeal results, the photos taken by the PCN operatives...) will this harm my defence in any way?

Thanks
Pogo

KeithP

Send the SAR now. It's not too late.

pogo88

Thanks KeithP, SAR sent via email to UKCPM as follows:

[My Address]
[My contact number]

26th November 2018

UK Car Park Management Ltd, 19 New Road, Brighton, BN1 1UF


Dear Sir or Madam
Subject Access Request ( Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) )

Re:[ My name and address – PCN Refs: xxxx/xxxx/xxxx]

Please supply the following data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law relating to myself.

- All photos taken of the alleged incidences resulting in the issuance of the above PCNs. Including date and timestamps.
- A close up of the signs on the day(s) in question. Evidencing the right of UKCPM Ltd to operate on the site and to seek charges against the registered keepers of the authorised vehicles parked there.
- Evidence that UKCPM LTD have paid a debt recovery firm to pursue these claims against me and the total costs of this in relation to the above PCNs.
- All letters/emails sent and received in relation to the PCNs referenced above, including any appeal correspondence and outcomes.
- All data held in relation to the above PCNs including and full copies of the PCNs and Notice to Keepers.
- A list of all PCNs they consider are outstanding against me.
If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Yep that's fine; send it by email to the Data Protection Officer contact on their PRIVACY page.

pogo88

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep that's fine; send it by email to the Data Protection Officer contact on their PRIVACY page.

Thanks Coupon, they have asked me to provide photo ID and proof of address before they will provide the data I have asked for. Standard stalling tactics I assume.

I've gone back to them saying they already have my address and as I don't want to provide them with anymore of my personal data, I am happy for them to send the data requested to that address rather than via email. That's not an unreasonable/ detrimental request is it?

Thanks
Pogo

pogo88

Hi All,

Below is the first draft of my defence. Appreciate any feedback on the content, whether you feel I may have left crucial points out or just general suggestions on improvements.

The majority is from one the templates picked up from other threads (huge thanks for producing this), but I have added my own points 14, 19, 20 & 21.

Also, I wanted to ask whether I should keep points 15.1.2 & 15.1.3 in my defence, as I am not 100% certain the signs do not comply with IPC guidelines.

Thanks all,

Pogo

Statement of Defence

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Uk Car Park Management v ___

DEFENCE


Preliminary
Add note about defendant representing himself in litigation and considered for leniency in any mistakes during the legal proceedings.

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

1.1 The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

1.2 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

2.1 The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

2.2 The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charge in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute, including what was described by the Claimant as an 'independent' review by the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). There is no scrutiny board and IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice and shift the burden to the consumer to prove matters outside of their knowledge and evidence, causing a significant imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

2.3 The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant's Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently. They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the IAS.

2.4 The Defendant now submits that the IAS 'decision' should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). It is unsurprising then, given the relationship between the parties, that the IAS rejected the Defendant's appeal.

2.5 Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.



Background

3) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

4) It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

6) It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material dates, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that can have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.


Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

7) It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Lease Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle on this land. The Defendant avers that there was at the very least, a prior and overriding grant of a licence to park, and indeed believes there was an absolute entitlement to park, deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide residents with the right to park a vehicle within allocated parking bays as specified within the lease agreement, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays'.

8) It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

9) The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:

(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease Agreement, or
(iii) decide to amend the layout of parking bays in use by residents and/or start charging for them.

10) Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Claimant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


No contract established

11) Upon gaining access to this privately owned area, the Claimant begun a predatory parking regime targeting residents and has unilaterally attempted to impose upon residents a change of rules, in complete disregard to any existing rights and grants; the Claimant being a stranger to the various residents' Agreements. No variation of residents' Agreements has taken place and any such variation would be solely a matter between the landowner and the leaseholders, in any case.

12) The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, an exclusive right to park in the allocated parking bay and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.

13) It is denied that there was any breach of contract or of any relevant parking terms. The Claimant's claim is wholly misconceived.
14) The Defendant would also like to submit to the court that (Evidence ref: xxxxx) which confirms that, in recognition of the illegitimate practices and conduct imposed upon the residents by the operators of the Claimant, the Claimant themselves have subsequently agreed to waiver any such ‘parking charges’ demanded from residents in the future.


In the Alternative: Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished

15) The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear.

15.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
15.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
15.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
15.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

15.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.

15.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.


Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

16) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

17) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

18) The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).
19) The Defendant would also like to state, that as a matter of courtesy, the Defendant had registered his vehicle details to the allocated parking bay with the managing agent of the Residential Complex. This registration was completed prior to the dates of the alleged offences and a permit issued by the Claimant themselves was present on the dashboard of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offences.
20) The court is also invited to take notice that the wholly unreasonable and unfair practices with which private parking firms, such as the claimant, have continued to use, have been recognised as a nationwide problem and that MPs have agreed to enact parliamentary bill to regulate such firms. The first reading of the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill took place on 26th November 2018, with a second reading to take place in due course.

21) The Defendant would also submit to the court “Evidence (ref: XXXX)” which shows that the managing agents were deliberately misinformed by the Claimant in relation to the authority of the Claimant to cease and desist their pursuit of charges against the defendant.

22) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

23) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.


I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


Signed

Date