SCS Law/PCN

Mykep85

I just got the below, from UKPC, in response to my SAR:

"Good afternoon,

We are pleased to be able to provide you with some of the information you requested.

We have not provided all of the information requested. This is because it does not relate to your personal data:

• Close up of signs (other than those images associated with the parking charges)
• Evidence that a debt collector was paid
• ‘PDT machine records’

Because we have refused to comply with some of your request, we are required to notify you of:

a) The reasons why we have decided not to comply with all of your request (please see above);
b) Your right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office; and
c) Your ability to seek to enforce your right to rectification of the data through a judicial remedy


Surely, when I present this to judge he/she will see they are acting unreasonably?

Mykep85

Regarding defence construction, is this true?

"(1). The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimant’s contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade
Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover
parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not
necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

(2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars
of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.


Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of
claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money
owed £1000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant"

The Defendant in the case I mention in this thread didn't ever receive a copy any kind of contract from UKPC...is this therefore a legitimate point to enter into the Defence?

Mykep85

Good morning, please could I have an opinion on the defence below?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK PARKING CONTROL LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

Preliminary Matters

(1). The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimant’s contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover
parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not
necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

(2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars
of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.


Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of
claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money
owed £1000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

Defence

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material dates of the alleged offences at YYYYYY. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of the Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; these assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, 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 reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

5. 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.

6. At YYYY, the location of the alleged breaches, it is unclear which car parks operate on a Pay and Display basis, and which operate on an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) basis, again, signage at the front of the premises is very unclear.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claims includes an additional £40, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. On at least one of the occasions that the Claimant alleges an offence took place, the PDT (Pay and Display Ticket) Machine was faulty.

9. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Defendant refers the court to paragraph 4 on non-compliance and sanction and would also like to also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

10. The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:

(a) ALL photos taken
(b) a close up of the signs on the days in question
(c) evidence that the Claimant has paid a debt collector.
(d) all letters/emails sent and received
(e) PDT machine records from the days in question, that the PCNs relate to
(f) all data held, all evidence the Claimant will rely on, and a full copy of the PCN, Note to Keeper.
(g) a list of all PCNs you consider are outstanding against the Defendant.

The claimant has responded with some information, but has refused to provide:

-Close up of signs (other than those images associated with the parking charges)
-Evidence that a debt collector was paid
-‘PDT machine records’

11. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £130 costs.

12. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.

13. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the
unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant has provided some photos of questionable quality of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.

14. UK Parking Control Limited are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

(i) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
(ii) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
(iii) The Claimant is put to 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

15. The Defendant researched the Claimant’s trading history online, and was not surprised to learn, that UK Parking Control have twice been banned from obtaining details from the DVLA, and in 2015 were the subject of an investigation, after admitting doctoring photos and issuing fake tickets.

16. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

17. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

18. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre-court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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

Mykep85

Ok, as I've heard nothing, I'm presuming the above is alright. I will go ahead and submit it.

Mykep85

Quick update...

Sent off the Directions Questionnaire as recommended, and received a copy of UKPC's one (via SCS). They have ticked 'yes' to mediation...I wonder if they now realise they are unlikely to win in court?

Presume this will be going to court, so now waiting for a date, and can then start to construct witness statements.

beamerguy

Mykep85 wrote: »

Quick update...

Sent off the Directions Questionnaire as recommended, and received a copy of UKPC's one (via SCS). They have ticked 'yes' to mediation...I wonder if they now realise they are unlikely to win in court?

Presume this will be going to court, so now waiting for a date, and can then start to construct witness statements.

Well you know all about the mediation pitfall. Highly possible they know they won't win

Make sure the court knows you decline mediation and you want
an oral hearing with the judge

Coupon-mad

They always tick yes to Mediation. We always tick no.

Mykep85

Hello,

Not been on here for a while, as there have been no updates, but thought I'd let you know, that upon only having my SAR partially satisfied from UKPC, I raised a complaint with the ICO, which they have upheld, and agreed that UKPC haven't fulfilled their obligation. They have written to UKPC and instructed them to do so.

Unless people think otherwise, I was going to present this in court, as a further example of their deplorable tactics and cowboy-esque behaviour. Any thoughts?

I've not been given a court date yet, still waiting on that.

Mykep85

Court date set for May 22nd, unless UKPC fail to pay £80 trial fee. Does that ever happen by the way? Get all this way, and then they don't pay the court fee?

beamerguy

Mykep85 wrote: »

Court date set for May 22nd, unless UKPC fail to pay £80 trial fee. Does that ever happen by the way? Get all this way, and then they don't pay the court fee?

Yes, they either leave it to the last minute or discontinue.
All depends if the dodgy legal thinks it is safe.