County Court Claim - Private PCN from UK CPM

Amis95

Redx wrote: »

well done , great report and underlines the points being made on here about poor signage and bay markings, false WS , keepers are not necessarily drivers , the £60 is not lawful etc

And the fact that UKCPM crossed out the name of the leasholder/landowner in the contract they provided, and when asked by Judge Shanti, 2-3 times who is the landowner and why Mr Jack hasn't mentioned the name in his WS, the rep admitted that this was a mistake from their side. Bay marking and picture of the back of the car dismissed my case but UKCPM didn't have an answer for any of the other issues. When we were sent out re Jack's signeture, all the rep came back to say it was an ambush, so she failed to address the point. The £60 point was a no brainer so there was no argument at all, but when they said they will not be persuing that and only seeking the £100, I didn't really know what to say. I wanted to say that makes the particular of the claim invalid but felt like the judge won't dismiss the case like other on abuse of process. Maybe because she had lots of other points on my case that she had picked up. I think we need to make others aware in what to do in a situation where everything else is going the PPC's way and they opt out from the £60 then what should the defendant do at that time.

Redx

The extra £60 doesn't make a defence , it just objects to the added charges , the case doesn't rest on it , especially when conceded as in this case

The judge was correct imho when she carried on after they conceded that point

The win was on legal points as it should be , so please do not obsess about the added costs , it's one aspect of a much larger picture

Again , well done

Amis95

Hi Guys,
So after my win, I posted on my Facebook regarding it to make others aware. A mate immediately contacted for help as he has a court hearing on this Tuesday (14th). UKCPM and Gladys at it again. He was depressed and was about to give up. So I went to his house last night and spent 3-4 hours looking at what he has done to date and where he made mistakes (many). He admitted he was the driver, why he parked etc and wrote up a long defence copying and pasting stuff from google.

He didn't do a witness statement either and offered £50 through mediation which they refused. so, I reviewed UKCPM WS and low and behold, Mr Jack and his fake signeture (SRA complaint sent). I also couldn't believe how incompetent they are as they made a schoolboy error and shot themselves with their own statement. They put that the signs went up, leasholder agreement signed and resident permits were handed out in Feb 19 but the PCN was from July 18. So their whole WS about breach of contract is dead in the water. I picked these points up and wrote him a decent Skeleton Argument.

However, as my mate admitted number of things like he was the driver, he parked, signs weren't good enough etc, what chance does he still have without a WS? (Basically, UKCPM had signs up illegally at the time and only went formal with an agreement in Feb 19, and they used to pay a resident £10 for each incident)

Can I ask, would I be able to turn up with him and speak on his behalf as he is very scared?

KeithP

Can you friend not write a Witness Statement this weekend?

Email it to the Claimant and hand deliver it to the court on Monday morning.

We have seen people supply a WS this late before.

1505grandad

"Can I ask, would I be able to turn up with him and speak on his behalf as he is very scared?"

yes you can act as Lay Representative - just mention to the usher when you both attend the Court.

Print out the following as back-up:-

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made

Redx

just as Coupon_mad did in the CEC16 thread, it wasnt HER case , the other person kept stum I believe (2 defendants)

Coupon-mad

would I be able to turn up with him and speak on his behalf as he is very scared?

Yep, please do!! Just go and sign in with him and take with you, a copy of the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order and correct the Usher if they say 'oh, so you are the Mackenzie friend?'

Nope - lay rep - the Defendant wishes you to speak for them. Hand over the Order of queried, At Soton I did that and the Usher scuttled off to ask the Judge in advance and I never got the Lay Reps Order back, but he didn't bat an eyelid at some random woman (me) speaking for the two Defendants!

File & serve the skeleton argument and a costs schedule for him on Monday morning first thing, so he can claim his costs, and tell him to take a copy of his wage slip with you both, on Tuesday, as well as all his copies of what he submitted, good or bad, and the printout of the exact same signatures of Jack Chapman and a printout proving that the SRA have been contacted (again).

It is FINE for him to admit to driving! A far more honest stance that the Judge will prefer.

Amis95

Hi Guys,
thank you all for the amazing and swift response. I will attend the court as a lay rep and do as you said. I will take a copy of the right of audience. I done a really robust skeleton argument with all the evidence including Jack's signature which he sent via email to both Gladys and Court. He has also printed 3 copies to take on the day with proof of emails. I have done cost schedule for him too. Will ask him to take payslip with him. I will do my best to take a longer lunch break and attend with him. The guy doesn't have a clue so I worry if the judge is not on his side he may get played by UKCPM. I will let you know result on Tuesday, fingers crossed.

Amis95

Hi guys,
Case won!!!!! and my mate was awarded the cost schedule, another UKCPM and Glady's case spanked out. It was simple one, the claimant! had failed by their own witness statement as they quoted signs and contact were enforced 6 months after the incident. It was a Judge sitting at Clarkenwell and Shorditch county court (can't remember his name).!Many thanks again.

mlees98

Great News on the win.

Would anyone be willing to help with the claim against my company that has now gone to mediation...
i submitted this defence and then both parties filed a directions questionnaire (N180) and now the claim against me has gone to mediation what do i do next. Any help much appreciated. The car is a lease company car that i was driving at the time.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The area named in the claim, Hartlepool Marina, is subject to the byelaws of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority and is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of complying with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, of which you are aware, and only the driver can be held liable for the alleged breach.

4. The vehicle has multiple drivers and VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES has failed to comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the Defendant in law. Given that the car is insured with more than one driver, the Claimant cannot assume nor tip the balance of probabilities, that the registered keeper was necessarily the driver. Thus, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action and liability against the Defendant

5. The Particulars of 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.

6. 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.

7. VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the 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. 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. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question. 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.
8. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

9. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
PR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

10. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
11. In this case the provision requiring payment of £185 is an unenforceable penalty clause and is not a genuine estimate of loss incurred to the claimant.

12.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case 2015 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.

13. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

14. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA 2014 a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

15. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) 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). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

16. 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 Gladstone’s' 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...''

17. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

18. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

19. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name