PCN from UKCPM

Le_Kirk

1. Do NOT accept offers that may flood in my PM of paid help!
2. Only YOU can write YOUR witness statement.
3. If you search for "Abuse of Process" written by @beamerguy, this will give you words to use about the spurious £60 that has been added as "debt recovery" or "admin" or "contractual" costs.  This is not allowed.  Also in the NEWBIE sticky (second post) is a standard defence template written by @Coupon-mad.  I know it is a defence and you are writing a WS but the information on there about the additional £60 is pertinent to you and, whilst it might not cause your judge to strike out the whole case, you SHOULD get it down from £160 to £100 (plus the allowed fixed costs at small claims court.)

Matthays

I mentioned the additional £60 in my defence.  This was the full response in their WS: 

Particulars of Claim

16. The Defendant avers my Company’s Particulars of Claim are deficient, however despite

this my Company notes the Defendant has been able to produce a substantive Defence.

In this regard and without concession, my Company believes the Defendant has not

suffered any prejudice.

17. In any event, my Company would like to draw to the Court’s attention the Irish case of

Allied Irish Banks Plc v Pierce (2015) as a persuasive authority in that the Court found

that a deficiency in the Particulars of Claim would not bring the case to an end and the

Court would consider all of the correspondence exchanged in working out the nature of

the claim.

18. Notwithstanding the above, the Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre

(‘CCBC’) 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, my Company

confirms 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 charges;

ii. The amount outstanding;

iii. That is relates to parking charges; and

iv. That it is debt.

19. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance

with the Act and a Letter Before Claim which the Defendant responded to. As such, the

Defendant would have been aware of the charges which are the subject of this claim.

Notwithstanding the above, I rely upon paragraph 5.2A of Practice Direction 7E which

specifies a copy of contract is not required should proceedings be brought in the CCBC.

Unclear signage

20. The Defendant avers my Company’s signage to be unclear, however fails to elaborate on

this point. It is my Company’s position that the term “A valid UK CPM permit must be

clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times” is sufficiently clear for a motorist to

understand a permit was required, or else accept a parking charge of £100. As the

Vehicle parked in view of such a sign, my Company submits it is reasonable to assume

the Defendant was, or ought to have been aware on the balance of probabilities.

5

21. My Company exhibits to this Witness Statement, is a screenshot of the audit of the

signage present on the Relevant Land. The audit was completed on the 26th March 2018

and found that the signage was complaint with the IPC Code of Practice.

22. The Defendant refers to the fact the vehicle was parked at night however again my

Company relies on the photographic evidence in order to demonstrate that the Relevant

Land is well lit owing to the presence of a nearby lamppost found on the street adjacent

to the Relevant Land. As the sign is also reflective, it is reasonable to suggest that the

driver, on pulling up to park would have illuminated the sign itself with their headlights

and therefore either was, or ought to have been aware of the terms.

THE SUM CLAIMED

23. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the time period allowed the Parking

Charge became overdue my Company has added a reasonable sum of £60.00 in line

with the IPC Code of Practice which states:

“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."

24. Further, the Sign states the prescribed charge for failing to comply with the terms is £100,

however it also specifies “Non-payment will result in additional charges which will be

added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity

basis”. 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 GSL who were instructed to commence legal

proceedings. The potential additional costs mentioned above are now sought.

25. In addition, my Company seeks its legal costs incurred in issuing the Claim pursuant to

CPR 27 and CPR 45. CPR 27.14(2)(a)(i) and CPR 45.2 (1) (a) and (b) allow for the

appropriate fixed costs on commencement of a claim for the recovery of money or goods

in accordance with Table 1 to be sought. As £50 is identified as a recoverable sum within

Table 1 as a recoverable sum and therefore does not require substantiation; as it is

provided for in the CPR.

6

26. My Company’s Court fees in respect of this matter are £25 on issuance of the Claim and

£25 for the hearing fee. These costs are therefore recoverable pursuant to CPR

27.14(2)(c).

27. If I am able to attend the Small Claims Track Hearing I also seek my travel expenses

pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(d).

28. My Company is further able to seek recovery of interest of the Claim amount at a rate of

8% pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

Umkomaas

Same old template. 🥱 

nosferatu1001

Obviously thats the same template as others have seen.

Le_Kirk

23. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the time period allowed the Parking
Charge became overdue my Company has added a reasonable sum of £60.00 in line
with the IPC Code of Practice which states:
“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."

Cannot argue with their points about the particulars of claim but then your defence was probably a standard one that cites lack of detail.  However, the rest of it is just the same old tired worn-out template that they copied and pasted.  The IPC is a code of (mis)practice and is not law!  Let's see what a judge makes of that.

Matthays

So other than what I already put in my defence, I can't think of anything new to add to a WS ?? I'd just be repeating myself which the threads say not to do?

Le_Kirk

Have you found the Abuse of Process threads and have you searched for other WSs?

beamerguy

Matthays, I assume that letter is from UKCPM.   It is so poorly written  .... or was it from the incompetent Gladstones Solicitors. Who signed the letter

Matthays

Le_Kirk said:

Have you found the Abuse of Process threads and have you searched for other WSs?

Yes, my head hurts lol. 

beamerguy said:

Matthays, I assume that letter is from UKCPM.   It is so poorly written  .... or was it from the incompetent Gladstones Solicitors. Who signed the letter

It came by email from Gladstones....

beamerguy

Matthays said:

Le_Kirk said:

Have you found the Abuse of Process threads and have you searched for other WSs?

Yes, my head hurts lol. 

beamerguy said:

Matthays, I assume that letter is from UKCPM.   It is so poorly written  .... or was it from the incompetent Gladstones Solicitors. Who signed the letter

It came by email from Gladstones....

Gladstones, wow, if my solicitor sent out such rubbish they would be sacked. 
No need for your head to hurt, So what if they don't like your WS, it is a judge who decides not an incompetent legal.

Le_Kirk has correctly said about PM's but will you PM me and let's get this rocking and rolling
I do not charge. I do this offline as we don't want the "incompetent" reading it here