Letter Before Claim - SCS Law & UKPC - Please Advise

nosferatu1001

No need to query, get teh IPC Code of practice and review it. Crtl-F is your friend there!
Yes, of course. If they took photos within 1 min of entering how can they possibly meet the requirements for a grace period? 

Coupon-mad

Photos taken within 1 or 2 minutes are more than contestable!  Objectionable in the extreme, how is that allowing the driver time to read terms and go fetch a permit, or unload something or collect something (not parking)?

CVKTA

IPC Code of Conduct refers to Grace Periods 3/4 times, each one seems to refer to overstaying after expired time limit.
Are residential car parks still protected by this??

"A Grace Period is a period of time, after the expiry of a parking time limit, for a motorist to exit a car park without incurring a parking charge. This is to cover situations like inadvertent overstays. Currently all motorists parking on private land are afforded 10 minutes after the expiry of their time limit. It is important that this safeguard is maintained."

CVKTA

Maybe ignore my last question. Ive inserted detail of Grace Period as well as taking on board all suggestion from C-m, nosferatu, Ukomaas, KeithP & Le_Kirk. Latest and hopefully(?) final version below with edits in bold: 

In the County Court at XX

BETWEEN:

UK PARKING CONTROL LTD

Claimant

V

XXXX

Defendant

Claim no: XXX

Witness statement of XXX, Defendant

I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents (CVKTA 1-82) to which I will refer.

In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

1. During the time of the alleged offences, my husband and I were owners of XXXXX; a 3rd floor residential property on the XXXX Estate.

2. The Claimant is stating that I, as a resident and owner at the time of the property above, was legally bound to display a valid parking permit in my own vehicle, parked in my own allocated space. The Claimant is pursing for 5 separate alleged offences of which some were received when the permit was on the dashboard but apparently not 'displayed correctly' to UKPC's liking which the I can only guess means on the windscreen itself (despite the fact that the permit was visible through the windscreen).

3. There are no terms within my Lease requiring residents to display parking permits or park in a marked bay, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant has averred and there is a large body of case law which establishes this. The Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalties on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right of way in the lease and parking terms cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of lease, which this parking firm is not a party to.

CVKTA 51-82.

3.1 In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

CVKTA 12-22.

3.2 In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

CVKTA 23-28.

4. The Claimant is pursuing  five PCNs which are tenuously based upon signage setting 'parking charges' at a level of £100 each, (5 x £100 = £500) yet the Claimant is trying to recover a claim totalling an eye watering £930. The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the CPRs, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 ('the CRA') 'terms that may be unfair'.

4.1 In Britannia Parking v Chris Crosby F0DP806M  [2019] it was found that the parking company, by inflating their charges by £60.00, were committing an abuse of process of court

CVKTA 29-35.

5. I pointed out to the claimant in numerous correspondences that they do not have the legal authority to add £60.00 to each claim.

I finally pointed this out to the claimant that they still hadn’t substantiated their claim in an email dated 21-May 2020 and offered them a truce on the claim and a 7 day window to respond.

This was ignored and I followed this up with an email on 03-June 2020

CVKTA 1-2.

5.1 It is claimed that these inflated costs are disproportionate and disingenuous 

5.2 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.

5.3 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) at 4(5) 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). The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 or £40 to each original £100 parking charge. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

5.4 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...''

CVKTA 39-40.

6. Studying the claimant’s evidence shows that on 1 alleged offence a ticket was issued at 20:43:36 and the 7 corresponding pictures are time stamped ranging from 20:43:59 - 20:44:24.

All 5 alleged offences follow suit, with there being between 60 and 90 seconds between the issuing of the ticket and the photograph evidence.

This does not follow the IPC Code of Conduct, whereby it states that a motorist is entitled to a Grace Period; 

‘A Grace Period is a period of time, after the expiry of a parking time limit, for a motorist to exit a car park without incurring a parking charge. This is to cover situations like inadvertent overstays. Currently all motorists parking on private land are afforded 10 minutes after the expiry of their time limit. It is important that this safeguard is maintained’

It could also be argued that it also does not allow or offer a ‘Consideration Period’ which is detailed in the following excerpt from the same IPC Code of Conduct; 

‘A Consideration Period is a non-contractually binding period of time given to a motorist to read the Terms and Conditions on car park signage to make an informed choice about whether to park or not. The exact duration of a Consideration Period will vary depending on the context, but it should be reasonable, while avoiding the possibility of abuse by motorists who fly park, drop off passengers on airport roads or ‘nip to the shops’.’

Accordingly it is denied that:

7.1 there was any agreement between the Driver and the Claimant.

7.2 the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

7.3 It is further denied that the signage is clearly displayed. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear, lit well, or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

CVKTA 11.

8. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature of Defendant:

Name:

Date:

Umkomaas

2. The Claimant is stating that I, as a resident and owner at the time of the property above, was legally bound to display a valid parking permit in my own vehicle, parked in my own allocated space.

I doubt they are saying you were legally bound, more likely contractually bound. You might want to review that. 

This might be better written:

The Claimant is stating that I, as a resident and owner at the time of the property above, was ....

Try 'The Claimant is stating that even as the owner and resident at the time, I was ....'

Each paragraph should be individually numbered right through the WS. No sub-numbering. Para 4 should be followed by para 5, not by 4.1 - as an example.

Le_Kirk

The Claimant is pursing for 5 separate alleged offences of which

Maybe: -

The Claimant is pursuing for 5 separate alleged offences of which

UKPC's liking which the I can only guess means on the windscreen 

Did you mean: -

UKPC's liking which, I can only guess, means on the windscreen 

5. I pointed out to the claimant in numerous correspondences

You need to lose the "S" on the end of correspondence, it is one of those words that is singular and plural.

Coupon-mad

Of course all private car parks have to allow grace periods, why would a residential location be any different?!

CVKTA

Thanks guys, edits have been made. This is due to be submitted by 4pm tomorrow and I am now happy with it unless anyone has anything further. Can someone just give the thumbs up on paragraph 6. ref: IPC code of conduct. Does it read correctly and also is it where it should be in the WS or should it be stated earlier? Many thanks

CVKTA

Also, I haven't used the IPC code of conduct in my evidence by refer to it in my WS. Is it wise to be armed with the IPC doc 'on the day' or will I not be allowed to refer to it?
Lastly - can I submit my costs at this point? If so, do I submit to courts and claimant or just the courts?

Fruitcake

I would print the relevant parts of the IPC CoP if you are going to have a face to face hearing and take it with you and/or supply at least a reference to the court, if not an electronic version. Unlike an Act of Parliament, the judge might not be interested in doing an internet search midway through the hearing.
If either party has referred to it at any point, whether in the claim/defence or on the NTK, then it is fair game.
In any case, the CRA allows the fairness of a claim/contract etcetera to be considered even if it hasn't been mentioned beforehand, so stating that the scammers are required to abide by it shouldn't be a big deal.

You should quote the full title and date of the relevant CoP, and the relevant section numbers and headings.

I think the Summary Costs Assessment goes in a day or two before the hearing. Send a copy to the scammers/scamlicitors as well as the court. Does the NEWBIES/guide to court/template defence thread not tell you this? Make sure you mention that you have submitted it at the hearing if you win, and have a copy to hand.