UKPPO Letter of Claim

toddis

Gist is....The drivers work permit fell from the windscreen and they got a pcn

The terms on the sign state that a valid permit is to be displayed (but doesn't say where in the car). However, the T&Cs from their employer state that a permit should be displayed on your windscreen...

The keeper appealed stating that the driver was displaying a permit, and sent a copy of the permit with the appeal.

They rejected the appeal...
Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on xx.xx.2018

Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

The vehicle was parked on private land that is well signed with bright yellow contractual notices stating that a valid permit must be on clear display at all times to park.

Photographic evidence does not show the permit you have submitted with your appeal displayed in the vehicle when the notice was issued. A requirement that a valid permit be displayed includes a requirement that any information confirming its validity be made visible. This can include dates, location, an expiry time, and any marks which show the permit is an original. The warden is under no duty to search inside the vehicle.

In Summation; It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms of the contract entered into when parking on private land. If they fail to do so they agree to pay the parking charge in accordance with the terms of the contract.

There have been various letters from solicitors and debt collectors previous to today's letter.

The keeper received this (is this a NTK?)


Today's letter


Where to go from here? Someone on another forum suggested I follow PAP, but I've no idea where to start if so.

Sorry for the long post and thanks in advance for your help and advice.

Coupon-mad

The terms on the sign state that a valid permit is to be displayed (but doesn't say where in the car).

Good - the sign sets the terms, and you will be saying you have the honest belief that the permit was displayed - as it always was - and the photos misleading.

However, the T&Cs from their employer state that a permit should be displayed on your windscreen...

Doesn't matter. They are not UKPPO's terms.

Boy, UKPPO are getting over-excited with meritless court claims this Summer!

Is this the place and is this within the Quay map subject to harbour byelaws? If so then you can argue that this is 'not relevant land' but only if the driver was never identified.

And yes that is a POFA worded NTK. But if it's byelaws land, the POFA doesn't apply which means a registered keeper cannot be held liable.

https://islandhomeskent.co.uk/

Can you get photos of the signs, exact pics, or are they available on UKPPO's website?

Also read Beamerguy's Abuse of Process (recent) thread about the fake £60 added 'cost'.

toddis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good - the sign sets the terms, and you will be saying you have the honest belief that the permit was displayed - as it always was - and the photos misleading.

That's a good start

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is this the place and is this within the Quay map subject to harbour byelaws?

Unfortunately not

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Can you get photos of the signs, exact pics, or are they available on UKPPO's website?

I haven't seen any of UKPPO's photo's, they're nowhere to be found

Coupon-mad

See what you mean - nothing about where to display the permit.

Also the sign attempts to charge £1.50 extra for card payments. Illegal by 2018:

https://www.choose.co.uk/news/2019/card-surcharges-still-being-made-despite-new-regulation/

And it fails to state any added charges (not that they are recoverable, if you learn how to argue against the fake costs by reading Beamerguy's thread I mentioned).

You can also see that the sign says NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING - i.e. it allows NO parking licence to what the PPC deem 'unauthorised' drivers.

It is what we would call a prohibitive or 'forbidding' sign, creating no contract at all.

Search the forum for PCM v Bull defence and read a few cases argued like that.

Redx

Email a SAR to the DPO at UKPPO asap with a scan of the V5C or N1 claim form and get all the docs, pictures and data on you and your vehicle

toddis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And it fails to state any added charges (not that they are recoverable, if you learn how to argue against the fake costs by reading Beamerguy's thread I mentioned).

Search the forum for PCM v Bull defence and read a few cases argued like that.

Thanks for the info, I read with interest about both

The_Deep

How high off the ground is that sigmn? Also, the £100 charge is in smaller print.

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.

toddis

The_Deep wrote: »

How high off the ground is that sigmn? Also, the £100 charge is in smaller print.

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

To be fair, these signs are some of the lowest I've seen.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll certainly send a complaint to my MP. I'm sick of these companies...

toddis

Update...

I complained to my MP
I sent an SAR
and I told BW they must wait while my SAR is processed



Is there anything I should be doing in the meantime?

Quentin

Reading up on defences (#2 in the FAQ covers defences with links to near templates to crib from), and starting on your draft defence whilst you have plenty of time before it will have to be submitted

toddis

Here's my first draft defence...


In The County Court

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between

UKPPO (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXXXXX at Chatham Maritime Estate, Pembroke. The vehicle has a work permit and it is common ground that this was displayed at all times.


3. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.


4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. It is denied that any parking charges are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.


5. The signs in the car park state “Permit holders only” which would suggest the signs are prohibited and is only making an offer to permit holders. If a driver is not authorised to park in the car park due to it being permit holders only then a non-permit holder cannot be offered a contract. The only claim would be for trespass which only the landholder can claim, and only for a nominal sum.


6. The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to vehicles displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to vehicles without a valid permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The Particulars are not clear and concise.


7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BW Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. This is an ABUSE OF PROCESS



8. The alleged debt as described in the claim is an unenforceable penalty, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.


9. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.


10. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.


11. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date