UKPPO Letter of Claim

Redx

the abuse of process paragraphs should be all the paragraphs posted by coupon mad in post 14 of the abuse of process thread by beamerguy, with everything renumbered accordingly


11 paragraphs doesnt cut it once they are added

toddis

My 2nd attempt...


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.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
7. CPR 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA 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.

12. 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.

13. 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...''

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.



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

Name
Signature
Date

KeithP

The vehicle has a work permit and it is common ground that this was displayed at all times.

Surely that cannot be 'common ground'.

It is the Claimant's case that the permit was not displayed at the time in question.

You tell us in your opening post:

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.

Where exactly was the permit displayed?

toddis

toddis wrote: »

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

On the passenger seat and it was face up

Coupon-mad

OK so you can say it is common ground that it was displayed in a manner that could be seen through the windscreen, and not in contravention of any terms on the signage.

toddis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK so you can say it is common ground that it was displayed in a manner that could be seen through the windscreen, and not in contravention of any terms on the signage.

Do I mention where it was or only say that it was on display and could be seen? How precise do I need to be?

Coupon-mad

Use my words; you can expand at WS stage.

toddis

toddis wrote: »

Update...

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

This was received by email this morning... Are the bits I highlighted in bold more hot air?

[FONT=&quot]Good Morning[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please note that we are acting on Our Client’s instructions to recover the above balance which remains due and owed by yourself to Our Client. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Information about the right to restrict processing is available on the Information Commissioner’s Office website www.ico.org.uk. The right to restrict processing only applies in certain limited circumstances. We are not of the view that the right to restrict processing is applicable in this case. Your data is processed for the lawful purposes set out in the Privacy Notice, a copy of which is attached and available on www.bwlegal.co.uk. Whilst we acknowledge you have made a request for information with Our Client it is important to note that this does not affect the validity of Our Client’s Claim meaning that Our Client has an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As such, your account will not be suspended from further collections activity unless we are instructed to do so by Our Client. Please contact us to reach a suitable resolution. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We trust this is satisfactory and clarifies our position. Should you be dissatisfied with our response you may raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Kind Regards, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]bw[/FONT][FONT=&quot]legal[/FONT]

Quentin

It's standard wording


They are saying they won't put your case on hold

beamerguy

As expected from this lot.

Onwards and upwards now for you to cite Abuse of Process by BWLegal

No point in contacting them as they are bullies and DO NOT phone them as they are well know phone bullies. If they contact you by phone / text ... BLOCK THEM.

Let a judge sort them out for abuse of process