Claim Form - County Court Business Centre - UKPC

PS87

Hello,

Let me start with saying a BIG THANK YOU as your guidance on NEWBIE thread has helped me a lot till this point.

Situation:
I was given several tickets to my replacement car [my car went for servicing] which was parked on my bay for the flat I own. Please note that I own the bay and flat.
UKPC handles, unfortunately, parking control for my apartment in Frazer Nash Close, Isleworth.

Recently, I received County Court Claim and I have acknowledged the service using below thread

I have also emailed them, the snippet below:
=====================================
Jun 26, 2019, 1:34 PM
to me

Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for your email which has been processed an Acknowledgment of Service.

You now have 28 days from the date of service of the claim to file a response.

Regards
Hilda Miller

Administrative Officer,
N9 and DQ Section, County Court Business Centre, St Katharine's House,
21-27 St. Katharine's Street, Northampton. NN1 2LH
Tel: 0300 1231056
==================================

I have got to provide my defense and need help, I have seen some defense referring your threads on residential property.

The law firm involved is SCS Law, DRP is the debt Recovery Company and UKPC is the parking control company.
The car parked was replacement car and not owned by me parked on my Bay designated to my flat. It didn't had the residential display ticket as I didn't had a spare one and I immediately requested the same from the apartment management company.

Appreciate the help.

Thanks,
PS

Redx

Read those defences again and pick one and adapt it, perhaps the one by Johnnersh or one of the ones by bargepole

What is the issue date on the claim form ?

Email a SAR to Ukpc for all the documents and pictures and data about you and your vehicle

PS87

Thanks for the reply RedX.
The issue date as of 5th June. Since I was traveling and didn't see the notice I requested the court by emailing them on ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk. Reply of which I posted in my initial request.

I have been told I have 28 days from 26th June.

Thanks
PS

KeithP

PS87 wrote: »

I have been told I have 28 days from 26th June.

No, you do not have 28 days from 26th June. That isn't what the emaill from the CCBC said.

That CCBC email said: "You now have 28 days from the date of service of the claim to file a response".

Date of Service is five days after the Date of Issue. You have told us that the Date of Issue of the Claim is 5th June.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th June, you had until Monday 24th June to do the Acknowledgement of Service, which you did.

Having done the AoS in a timely manner, you had until 4pm on Monday 8th July 2019 to file your Defence.

Sadly you have missed that deadline.

You would be wise to file a Defence sometime over this weekend, although you may already be too late to avoid a Default Judgment against you.

Perhaps you should check the claim history on MCOL to see if a Default Judgement has been issued.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

PS87

OOPs.
I just checked and have not received any default judgment.

I will send my defense this weekend.

Thanks,
PS

Redx

Now you know why we always ask for the issue date

Please note, there is no S in Defence

PS87

Thanks REDX,

I have prepared my defence as below:

Preliminary
1. The car registered was never parked on XX but was parked on the designated YY. This bay is owned by the Defendant and comes under the premise of Defendant’s owned flat in YY.
2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

3. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at the incident time the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured at the Defendant’s name for the given period.
4. There seems to be a confusion on where the car was parked – it is admitted that the car was parked at XX and not London Road YY.

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other torts; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of XX whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

=========================

Also, shall I do a counter CLaim..?

Redx

Have they added spurious costs to the claim ? Inflating it to over say £200 ?

If so, add all the paragraphs about abuse of process from the thread by beamerguy that coupon mad posted in post 14

To do a Counter claim you need POC of your own etc, plus you pay a fee, so on what basis do you have a valid and arguable counter claim ?

PS87

Hey,

1. The cost they have put for a ticket is £160 and have made 5 such claims in a single form.

2. Counterclaim on Mental Torture, waste of time..?

Thanks,
PS

Redx

1) you need to break down those costs because each pcn cannot have been more than £100 , so the rest is almost all spurious charges, see the beamerguy thread


2) a very high bar and the more you try for , the more it costs you to start with, so I doubt that you can counter claim for harassment etc , plus even if you could you need doctors certificates etc to prove it


if you dont understand what a counter claim is and how to achieve it, I doubt you can get it past a judge, but its your money (because I think you pay say 10% up front, check the MCOL website)

beamerguy

PS87 wrote: »

Hey,

1. The cost they have put for a ticket is £160 and have made 5 such claims in a single form.

2. Counterclaim on Mental Torture, waste of time..?

Thanks,
PS

So SCS Law on behalf of UKPC are attempting to scam you with fake amounts ...... ABUSE OF PROCESS
Forget about the numskulls DRP

5 X £60 FAKE ADD ON must be tantamount to A SCAM

There is a BIG HOLE in your defence and that is about ABUSE OF PROCESS

SO READ THIS ABOUT ABUSE OF PROCESS.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD

You add this in it's entirety to alert the court of ABUSE OF PROCESS PROCESS

What does SCS say the £60 per ticket is for ????