UK CPM PCN for parking visitor's space - County Court Claim

willber92

Thanks, I'll take your steer on it then as you know far more than me about this! Is this the point I should include instead?

"X. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation."

willber92

I've now submitted my defence, and (sheepishly!) decided against submitting a counterclaim at this point. I'm hoping that once they realise they have no chance of winning, they will just discontinue the case, and I'd rather just avoid court altogether seeing as this has sapped so much of my time and energy already!

I may come to regret that if I do have to attend court, but then if I did and won, I would consider filing a claim against them, knowing that I have won the case and I did ask them on 2 occasions to cease processing my personal data.

willber92

Hallelujah, just phoned the court and the case has been stayed as they didn't respond to my defence within 28 days! Seems like quite a ridiculous system though as UK CPM can pay £100 at any time to lift the stay in the future so it's somewhat in limbo, but I guess I should put it to the back of my mind and count it as a victory as it seems unlikely that they'd do that.

Thanks to everyone for their help and advice throughout the process, and I'm just really glad that it's looking hopeful that it won't even get to a hearing!

The_Deep

Seems like quite a ridiculous system though as UK CPM can pay £100 at any time to lift the stay in the future

But in your case, imo they would be very unwise to do so, the phrase "short and curlies" comes to mind.

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

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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

Have you complained to your MP?

willber92

I haven't contacted my MP, it's Michael Gove who I thoroughly detest, and there's a million and one other things I'd like to complain to him about so I'm not sure I'll be able to hold my tongue (plus he would just ignore it, as it doesn't benefit him in any way). Oh to have such a caring MP....

willber92

I guess I shouldn't have begun celebrating so soon, have just got a letter from Gladstones, saying 'they have notified the Court of the Claimant's intention to proceed with the Claim', and they've attached their half completed Directions Questionnaire. I never received one myself!

Bear in mind this letter is dated the 18th September, and I submitted my defence on the 16th August. Surely this won't be able to go anywhere seeing as they didn't respond within the 28 days and the claim has now been stayed, has anyone else been in this position and what would you advise?

KeithP

willber92 wrote: »

Bear in mind this letter is dated the 18th September, and I submitted my defence on the 16th August. Surely this won't be able to go anywhere seeing as they didn't respond within the 28 days and the claim has now been stayed, has anyone else been in this position and what would you advise?

They have to respond to the CCBC within 28 days of being served your Defence.

Do you know when the CCBC sent your Defence to the Claimant?
Add five days to that date for service.

Do you know when the Claimant notified the CCBC of their wish to continue?

Do you know of any workload issues in the CCBC that might have delayed their response to you?

In short, I think you will struggle with that tactic.

willber92

I'm not sure on the timelines between the CCBC and the Claimant, but all very valid questions and I'll have to wait to phone the court to ask these questions and call first thing on Thursday (currently a queue of 57 people on the phone).

Even if 5 days were added to the date of which I submitted my defence, 28 days would fall on the day that their letter is dated (18th September). I phoned the court on Friday the 20th September and that is when they informed me that they hadn't had any correspondence from the Claimant, and that the case was now stayed unless they paid £100 to lift the stay.

willber92

So the limbo recommences. Just spoken to the CCBC and they said that they currently have a back log and are going through things from 2nd September, if the Claimant actually did inform the CCBC by the date of that letter (18th September) then it would've fallen within the 33 days.

So I've gotta wait a couple of weeks before calling them back if I haven't heard anything. The saga continues!

willber92

My case has now been allocated to Guildford County Court as I requested in my DQ, it's unlikely anything will happen for months now, as I'm going travelling and so stated I wasn't available until the beginning of March.

I'd like to try and get everything prepped before I go away though, in the event of them giving me a hearing date shortly after coming back - I wouldn't want to be stressing about it while I'm travelling! So I've had a stab at my WS which I've posted below, would really appreciate some feedback on this so I can nip it in the bud, and then make a start on my Skeleton Defence.

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

Mr XXXXXX (Defendant)

______________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
______________________

1. I, XXXX XXXXX am the Defendant in this claim. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

2. I was the registered keeper for vehicle registration XXXX XXXXX on the 25th November 2017, the date of the alleged Parking contravention.

Details surrounding the alleged contravention

3. On the 25th November 2017 at the time of the alleged contravention, I parked in an unmarked bay at the side of a residential road in the dark, with no knowledge of any parking restrictions being in place, due to completely insufficient signage that did not communicate that any such restrictions did exist, and therefore no contract was formed.

4. I then received the Parking Charge Notice (Exhibit 16.jpeg) (Notice to Keeper) on the 11th December, 1 day later than is required by the The POFA, at Schedule 4, Section 9 (5) & (6) (Exhibit 6.jpg). The contents of the letter claimed ‘The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park’.

5. On the 19th December 2017, I rebutted the above claim and contacted the appeals department of UK Car Park Management Ltd. via post (Exhibit 12.pdf), and served them a Section 10 Data Subject Notice demanding them to cease and desist from processing my personal data. I also provided them with photographic evidence (Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10) to clearly show the lack of signage at the precise location of where my car was parked when the alleged parking contravention occurred. This failed to elicit any response from the Claimant.

6. This failed to elicit any response from the Claimant, and so I repeated my demand for them to cease and desist from processing my personal data via post on the 15th January 2018 (Exhibit 13.pdf).

7. I then began receiving demands for payment from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd on behalf of the Claimant, and so sent a further letter to the Claimant on the 21st February 2018, clearly stating my reasons for why I was not liable for the Parking Charge and again provided photographic evidence to the Claimant to show there was insufficient signage (Exhibit 14.pdf).

8. I then subsequently received 3 more letters of a similar nature from Debt Recovery Plus LTD, before receiving a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones Solicitors on the 21st September 2018 (Exhibit 17.jpeg). This letter also enclosed a previously dated Letter Before Claim of 10th August 2018, of which I never received. I responded to this in 2 forms; by using Gladstones Solicitors’ online Reply Form in which I rebutted the charge and provided my photographic evidence to show the lack of signage, and also via post to request that they provide me with a Letter Before Claim containing the relevant information to make it compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol (Exhibit 15.pdf).

9. I next received correspondence from Gladstones Solicitors on the 1st May 2019 (Exhibit 18.jpeg), with another Letter Before Claim which stated ‘We have enclosed all documents further to your correspondence of 03 October and apologise for the delay.’ Despite this statement, none of the documents I’d requested sight of- in order to make the letter compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol were enclosed and so this request remains unfulfilled.

Inadequate signage

10. No contract can be deemed to have been formed with the Driver, as the signage was inadequate and therefore not seen by the Driver. As the Claimant is a member of the IPC, they are bound by their terms but the signage at the location of the alleged contravention does not meet the requirements in the IPC Code of Practice.

11. Upon entering the Ryewood housing estate, there was no signage to make the Driver aware of any parking restrictions (Exhibit 5 .jpg). This does not conform with the IPC Code of Practice, (Part E, Schedule 1, P.23) whereby it states that ‘Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist.’ (Exhibit 19.pdf)

12. Furthermore upon revisiting the location of the alleged contravention, I’ve seen that the nearest signage to where my vehicle was parked was approximately 30m away (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4). The signs are also not forward facing towards the Driver, not making them obvious to any motorist.

13. When parked there in the dark as my vehicle was at the time of the alleged contravention, when looking in all directions there is no visible signage, or any roadside or kerbside markings (Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10). This does not follow the IPC Code of Practice which states on P.23 under the heading ‘Repeater Signs’ that the Claimant is ‘required to provide a sufficient number of signs on each site commensurate with its size and other characteristics to ensure that any parking conditions are adequately brought to the attention of the motorist.’ (Exhibit 19.pdf).

14. Regardless of the distance, I believe that any signs that do exist would not be sufficiently illuminated at night, due to the only lighting nearby being street lights placed behind the signs and serving only to backlight them (Exhibit 11 .jpg). IPC Code of Practice on P.23 under the heading ‘Contrast and Illumination’ states ‘If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting.’ (Exhibit 19.pdf).

15. The signage that does exist does not identify the Claimant as ‘the Creditor’, as is required in The IPC Code of Practice on P.24, under the sub-heading ‘Other Signs’ (Exhibits 20, 21).

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

Name

Signature

Date