SCS Law/PCN

Link2475

Not sure if this is useful, but I have a name of a contact at UKPC which you may find useful:

John Roberts
Senior Customer Service
DDI: 0333 220 1037
Mobile: 07710 854 944

Unit 29, 1-2 Denham Parade,
Oxford Road, Uxbridge,
Middlesex UB9 4DZ

Please feel free to share. Thank you.

beamerguy

Link2475 wrote: »

Not sure if this is useful, but I have a name of a contact at UKPC which you may find useful:

John Roberts
Senior Customer Service
DDI: 0333 220 1037
Mobile: 07710 854 944

Unit 29, 1-2 Denham Parade,
Oxford Road, Uxbridge,
Middlesex UB9 4DZ

Please feel free to share. Thank you.

Not a good idea to make contact unless you want to be bullied
into payment

Denham Parade is just a mail box attached to a shop

It's what is called a "hide away"

Mykep85

In the County Court at Brentford, Alexandra Road, Brentford, TW8 0JJ

Claim No. XXXXX

Between

UK PARKING CONTROL LTD (Claimant)

and

XXXXXX (Defendant)


WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXXX, of XXXXX, will say as follows:

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence already filed.

3. This case, brought by the Claimant refers to parking tickets issued on 20th April 2016, 25th April 2016, 28th October 2016 and 9th November 2017 at West Middlesex University Hospital.

4. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case, however, I was definitely not the driver for the alleged contraventions dated November 9th, 2017 and October 28th, 2016. I cannot remember who was driving my vehicle on the dates of the other two contraventions, on the 20th and 26th April, 2016.

5. Upon contacting the hospital for copies of my medical records, which would have proved I was hospitalised for at least one of these contraventions, I have been informed that the turnaround time for producing these records means they will likely not arrive in time for the hearing.

6. Exhibit A is a signed declaration from my husband,XXXXXX, confirming that I was hospitalised when issued with the ticket on October 28th, 2016, proving that I could not have been the driver that day.

7. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the ‘POPLA’ (‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ independent service offered by the BPA) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015. I adduce as evidence Mr Greenslade’s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies. No adverse inference can be drawn from my choice not to respond to what appeared to be spam.


8. Exhibit B is a copy of my youngest daughter’s birth certificate- showing she was born on October 27th, 2016, in the afternoon. Due to complications, and pre-eclampsia, I was not discharged until 2 days later, on October 29th, further evidence I could not have been the driver on the date of the alleged contravention.

9. Two of the alleged contraventions occurred over 3 years ago- I would argue it is nigh on impossible to remember the events of a certain day that far back, unless relating to a certain event or events, therefore I cannot remember who was driving my vehicle that day.

10. I mentioned in my Defence, that I was confident that a faulty PDT (Pay and Display Ticket Machine) was the cause of at least one of the previous tickets, and I therefore initiated a ‘Subject Access Request’ (SAR) to the Claimant, of which the email exchange is illustrated as Exhibit C. The email exchange clearly shows that the Claimant failed to fully satisfy the SAR, meaning evidence could not be obtained.

11. Upon receipt of the partially completed SAR, I followed instructions to complain about the misuse of my personal data, and the failure of the Claimant to provide the details I requested, which would, I believe, have exonerated me from one, possibly two of the contraventions. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has upheld this complaint (Exhibit D) and is currently investigating further. This is one of multiple examples of where the Claimant has acted unlawfully, and unfairly.

12. The Claimant insists the outcome of the SAR is irrelevant, which I wholeheartedly dispute. The Claimant has deliberately withheld information, which would have likely formed part of my defence, very relevant on this occasion. It is another example of the Claimant misusing personal data, something they were suspended by the DVLA (Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency) for, just last year. Further evidence is documented in Exhibit K.

13. Exhibit E is a series of photographs taken from a driver’s view, from just outside of the hospital, and turning into the hospital. There are no signs regarding parking, until well inside the car park.

14. Exhibit F is a photograph taken from a driver’s view, inside the entrance of the hospital car park, where the picture clearly shows two conflicting signs- one saying, ‘Pay and Display’, one saying ‘Pay on Foot’. All other wording on the signs is impossible to read from a moving vehicle, causing confusion for many of the motorists using the hospital car park.

15. As with most hospitals, there are many different buildings and car parks, and it can be quite difficult to find the place you are looking for, and the necessary car park. The alleged contraventions all took place in the car park by the Maternity/Women’s Health Unit, which is very difficult to spot on the way through the main entrance. It is not until you are approximately 100 metres through the main entrance, that the first main sign is featured (Exhibit G). Only after you turn around at the top of the hospital, near the main entrance, can you really find where you are looking for.

16. Exhibit H is a series of photographs taken from a moving vehicle, towards the Maternity/Women’s Health Unit. In the first photograph, you can clearly see the sign for ‘Women’s Health Unit’ on the right, but there are no signs at all, regarding parking, again, until well inside the car park. The first sign on the left is easily missed whilst driving and is far too small to read. There is no possible way therefore, that a ‘contract’ can be formed, despite what the Claimant says.

17. Exhibit I is a copy of the site map of the hospital, which indicates where the different buildings and car parks are situated.

18. As mentioned in my Defence, 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. I dispute the Claimant’s assertion that their Particulars of Claim complies with the above-mentioned Civil Procedures. Exhibit J details Civil Procedure 16.4, and I fail to see how the Claimant has satisfied these criteria.

19. I concede that the Claimant has now produced evidence of their contract to operate Parking ‘Services’ at the aforementioned premises, but I would suggest this documentation should have been produced far earlier in this process.

20. The Claimant quotes the case of ‘ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis’ heard by the Supreme Court in 2015, but I 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, I contend 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'.

21. The Claimant has written in their Witness Statement that ‘The Defendant could also have a closer look at the signage to confirm the terms and condition’. I would argue that when you have arrived at the hospital with a seriously ill baby daughter (as has been the case when parking at this hospital in the past), then searching a car park to read the small font containing terms and conditions is the last thing on your mind.

22. The Claimant has provided various photographs in their Defence, and I question the validity of their photographs, and refer the court to Exhibit K, an extract from a National Newspaper, which proves that the Claimant has previously ‘doctored’ photo evidence in an attempt to illegally snare innocent motorists. A link for the full article can be found here- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

23. Furthermore, another example of their unlawful activity is highlighted in Exhibit L, an article in the Independent dated 27th April 2018, when the Claimant was suspended from activity by the DVLA. A link to the article can be found here- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-parking-control-dvla-suspension-misuse-of-data-a8325941.html

24. I would invite the Court to simply Google ‘UK Parking Control’, for an exhaustive list of many of their misdemeanours related to unlawful activity committed against innocent motorists over the years. They are notorious for the bullying, harassment and woefully unfair issuing of illegal parking ‘charges’ over the years and have featured on BBC Watchdog more than once.

25. Exhibit L is a letter on behalf of my husband I, written to our local MP, Sir Vincent Cable. Private Parking firms, such as the Claimant are regularly being discussed in Parliament, and I would like to highlight:

“Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year. I would strongly urge you to lend your weight to this proposal, and help to make such companies obsolete.”

and

“some of the terms and comments used by MPs regarding companies such as UKPC include ‘Cowboy companies, signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued, rogue parking companies, bloodsuckers, absolute disgrace, rogue operators, unfair charges and notices, wilfully misleading, signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead, unreasonable, designed to trap innocent drivers, a curse, harassing, operating in a disgusting way, appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing, loathed, outrageous scam, dodgy practice, outrageous abuse, unscrupulous practices’.”

26. The Court is invited to dismiss these Claims and award reasonable costs, of which I have detailed at the end of this document.

I believe that the facts contained in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed Date 7/5/19



Name

Mykep85

Ok, just submitted my Witness Statement (above).

Any comments gratefully received!

Coupon-mad

Very good narrative and I'm pleased to see all the exhibits, albeit the Judge will not sit there and Google ‘UK Parking Control’!

Have you got their WS and evidence yet? If it arrives late, make sure you point that out to the Judge. Take your husband as a witness if he can possibly attend, as his statement lends weight to this not being you driving and therefore the punitive charge being unconscionable.

If you are still in time, add into evidence the HS Car Parking Principles, highlighting the policy from the Government (that's been in place since 2013) that says patients should not be penalised, or whatever the wording says.

Did you email a copy of the WS & evidence to the Claimant? If you add the NHS Car Parking Principles, email that to them as 'supplementary evidence'.

And did you take a folder in person, with all pages numbered & organised, with a contents page, to the local court, with the hearing date and claim number on the top?

Just checking you haven't emailed it by mistake to the court.

Mykep85

Hi Coupon-Mad

I emailed the document across to the Court... should I deliver a hard copy too?

Mykep85

Hi CM,

In answer to your other questions, yes, I have a copy of their WS...lots of pages, but lacking in substance (in my opinion).

Yes, my husband will be attending Court as well.

Mykep85

Also added this in:

"29. I strongly challenge the Statement of Costs put forward by the Claimant (Exhibit O). The Statement details a cost of £195.00 for ‘Drafting Directions Questionnaires, Drafting Witness Statement, and Instructing an Advocate to attend the above hearing’, yet the Witness Statement begins ‘I, Kiran Ali of UK Parking Control Ltd’, which indicates a member of staff has been responsible for the drafting of this document. I would suggest this is a dishonest attempt at claiming costs which have not actually been incurred."

Coupon-mad

Quite right.

There are reasons in:

(a) the CPRs about proportionate costs, and
(b) the Beavis case about them not being able to recover damages over £85, and
(c) the POFA which specifically sets a recovery ceiling = the charge on the NTK


...which support why the PPC absolutely CANNOT recover ANY added costs (except court fees and maybe 2% interest if they are lucky).

To find that explained a bit more, search this forum for the keywords:

defence costs disingenuous disproportionate

Mykep85

Today is the day!

Sitting here waiting to go in. There is a rep from SCS Law here, who has tried to chat with us, and we’ve firmly told him not to speak to us.

Interestingly, he is going through the case with a young lad, whom he clearly knew, but hadn’t met before. When they realised who the other was, they scuttled downstairs, and are going through the case together.