UKCPM - Vista Centre

shaks

Hello All,

Going to court next week to defend a parking ticket issued by UKCPM. Thought I'd ask for any last minute advice. Details on the case can be found here;

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122404&st=20

Only received their WS and bundle on the last date they had to submit it and also by email and not post.

Thanks
Shak

The_Deep

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

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, 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.

shaks

Thanks for this. I'll take a copy when I go to court this week.

Looks like much of GS argument is based on signage and that the car had been parked in the wrong bay. Hopefully I can use Beavis to highlight the poor signage.

Fruitcake

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122404&st=20

Fruitcake

In post 21 on your pepipoo thread, the driver has been identified. Was this deliberate?

If you want help from the MSE regulars, it would help to have some context here rather than have to flit between two different websites.

shaks

I used an example WS from the many other posts on MSE and Pepipoo. Wasn't sure if this was correct at the time and no one advised otherwise.

I suppose the feedback I am looking for is on;

1) Is this a standard defence from GS? - having ready some other posts, I assume it is fairly standard.
2) Are there any points I should defend in a particular way?

This is the defence from GS;

Preliminary matter

4. My Company is unable to reproduce an exact replica of the Parking Charge Notice (‘PCN’) which was placed onto the Defendant’s vehicle as the original was left on the windscreen on the date the charge was issued. Exhibited to this Witness Statement is a replica of the PCN; save for the fact that the PCN issued to the Defendant’s vehicle made no mention of the General Data Protection Regulations which came into effect as of 25 May 2018. My Company does confirm however that all the pertinent information regarding the PCN such as the PCN number and vehicle registration are the same as those detailed in the original PCN affixed to the Defendant’s vehicle windscreen at the time the PCN was issued. In addition, the relevant information pertaining to the notice being compliant with the criteria of Paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’) was satisfied in the PCN issued to the Defendant.

The Defence

Pay & Display ticket

5. My Company doesn’t dispute the Defendant may have paid for parking, however it is the Defendant’s obligation pursuant to the contract (the Sign) to ensure they are parked in the correct bays. As is evident from the photographs the Defendant parked in bay numbered 52 which is a private parking bay as stated on the signs and as such, parked otherwise than in accordance with the terms.

6. It is an integral part of the parking scheme that vehicles are parked in the correct bays as otherwise the scheme would be unmanageable. If my Company were to waive one charge on the basis put forward in the Defence it would open the floodgates to the waiver of many more charges, making the parking management process that has been put in place entirely redundant. Particulars of Claim

7. The Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of the Claim. In any event, I can confirm that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to; namely:-

i) The date of the charge;
ii) The vehicle registration number;
iii) The Parking Charge Notice number;
iv) The amount outstanding; v) That is relates to parking charges; and
vi) That it is debt.

8. I refer to paragraph 5.2A of Practice Direction 7E which states that “the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form”.

9. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with the Act and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the charge which is the subject of this claim.

Compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules


10. My Company considers the Letter Before Claim is compliant with the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct and Protocols. A Letter Before Claim was sent to the Defendant, which contained:-
i) The date of the charge;
ii) The Parking Charge Notice Number;
iii) The location of the charge;
iv) The amount outstanding;
v) The Claimant; and
vi) That the balance relates to unpaid parking charge.

11. Without concession, if there has been any minor deviation from the Civil Procedure Rules then it is (or would be) within the tolerances provided therein whereby the court is required to interpret any provision having regard to the ‘overriding objective’, namely to deal with matters in a just, proportionate and cost-effective way (rules .1.1 and 1.2)

Did not see the signs


12. The photographic evidence of the Defendant’s vehicle shows the Defendant is within a clear view of one of the many warning signs throughout the Relevant Land and all signage states the terms and conditions of parking within the Relevant Land. Upon reading the signage the Defendant contractually agreed to pay a parking charge fee if restrictions were breached. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure parking is permitted prior to leaving the vehicle unattended within the
restricted area.

13. My Company rejects any argument that the Defendant did not see the sign. It is evident from the site plan that there are sufficient signs. The signage at the site is clearly visible and the information on the signage informs the driver of the parking conditions at the location. Signage is prominent throughout the parking area. Signage location, size, content and font has been audited by the International Parking Community. It is the driver’s responsibility, to check for signage, check the legality and obtain any authorisation for parking before leaving their vehicle. The signage on site is the contractual document.

14. What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant did not see the signs I submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000; “Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property”

No authority to enforce charges

15. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the
Landowner.

16. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186;

(1) “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious flaw in this reasoning.

(2) The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace. If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the
land.

(3) Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking”

17. My Company’s signs are clear and unambiguous and state, “Visitors please obtain permit from Pay and Display machine. Visitor Parking = unmarked bays (red permit Private Parking = Bays 1 - 150 (blue permit)”. By parking in the manner in which the Defendant did i.e. jot displaying a valid permit for the bay in which he was parked, the charge was correctly incurred.

The Current Debt


18. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to the parking charge incurred.

19. My Company is an Accredited Operator of the International Parking Community (IPC) who prescribes a maximum charge of £100. The Code of Practice states:

"Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/ or other documentation.
Where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated."

20. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the initial 28 days allowed or the further 28 days allowed after the Notice to Keeper has been sent, the parking charge has become overdue and a reasonable sum of £60 has been added.

21. The Sign states the prescribed charge for failing to comply with the terms is £100, however it also specifies, “Failure to pay the charge within 28 days may result in the vehicle’s keeper details being obtained from the DVLA. Unpaid parking charges may be passed to our debt recovery agents which may incur additional costs”. Further, the Letter Before Claim also made it clear the debt may increase in respect of costs and interest if a claim had to be issued. Due to the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company's legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd, who were instructed to commence legal proceedings. The potential additional costs mentioned above are now sought.

22. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage. The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses. Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).


The one other point which I cannot see as being a point of law (if that makes sense), but certainly shows that they don't know what they are doing is that they took a picture of the car park permit relating to another car park which was displayed in the car. This relates to place of work at Heathrow and have said in a letter that the car should have been parked in bay X and not Y. - I'll be looking to stress this point next week.

Coupon-mad

You can Google, or search pepipoo and MSE forums, to see that the above is a template witness statement (stop calling it their 'defence' - YOU are the Defendant, not them!).

You need to attack this, as basically they are admitting that they can't prove what the alleged PCN even said, not a single word is actually evidenced and this is all hearsay by a witness signatory who will not turn up!

4. My Company is unable to reproduce an exact replica of the Parking Charge Notice (‘PCN’) which was placed onto the Defendant’s vehicle as the original was left on the windscreen on the date the charge was issued. Exhibited to this Witness Statement is a replica of the PCN; save for the fact that the PCN issued to the Defendant’s vehicle made no mention of the General Data Protection Regulations which came into effect as of 25 May 2018. My Company does confirm however that all the pertinent information regarding the PCN such as the PCN number and vehicle registration are the same as those detailed in the original PCN affixed to the Defendant’s vehicle windscreen at the time the PCN was issued. In addition, the relevant information pertaining to the notice being compliant with the criteria of Paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’) was satisfied in the PCN issued to the Defendant.

And as for this, woah, they are quoting out of context from Vine again!

14. What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant did not see the signs I submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000; “Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property”

Here is how to pull apart a stupid template parking WS that misquotes Vine:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75657555#Comment_75657555

shaks

Thank you for all your help.

Verdict is in and UKCPM lost!
Judge dismissed the claim within 30 seconds of proceedings starting.

1) Incomplete and poorly filed claim.
2) Inadequate signage

Coupon-mad

Yay, well done! ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Did you get your costs?

Did UKCPM send a rep, and what were they like?

Which court & Judge?

shaks

Court was Staines. Can't recall the Judges name will post it once I get the paperwork from the court. No one from UKCPM turned up. The judge was was fine, really understanding of the whole situation was pretty annoyed at UKCPM.

Coupon-mad

Glad to hear it, although I hope you claimed your costs before you skipped away!