UKPC/Scs law court hearing

Sweetpeas72 · 19 August 2019 at 7:50PM

Hi all,

Unfortunately I am unable to post this on my previous thread as the system is simply not allowing me to do so. I believe this is due to the amount of letters to the post; so I may need to do this in separate parts:

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. Save where otherwise admitted, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.

2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and 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.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.

Background

4. It is admitted that at all of the material times the Defendant was the owner and registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny whether they were the driver who parked the vehicle on each or every occasion, given the lack of evidence from the Claimant as the Claimant acknowledges and the fact the car may be driven by more than one relative. Where this was known for sure such as Parking Charge Notice PCNXXXXXXX, it was paid for but the cheque returned.
The Claimant avers that the Defendant did not provide the information of the driver but as the other driver states a payment was made in full predominantly since it was the only parking charge that fell within the contract period the claimant had with the landowner. It was therefore felt no further information was required.

Sweetpeas72 · 19 August 2019 at 7:52PM

The Claimant acknowledges that they are governed and operate by BPA guidelines.

“The Claimant notes that the BPA Code of Practice require written Authorisation”

Given the fact the BPA lay down explicit guidelines within section 2.2 where it provides the following guidelines for its members

It is important to be clear about such terms and conditions when setting up a parking management contract with a landlord. The general rule is that the principal and not the agent can take steps to enforce a contract. If the parking operator is merely acting on behalf of the landlord then normally the operator is acting as an agent. In these circumstances the parking operator has no rights to recover the debt and it is for the principal (ie the landlord) to do so. If you have been granted full parking management rights you should ensure that:
· !!!!!!!The property is clearly defined (preferably on a map)
And
· !!!!!!!The landlord with whom you are contracting has ‘possession’ of the land.
It is therefore clear that to be certain about for whom you are acting the Contract must be precise and accurate, in this case the Defendant believes it is anything but clear as to whom the Claimant is acting on behalf of.

5.1 The Defendant was made aware by Social Media that the Claimant did not have the correct authority from the Landowner to administer and issue Parking Charge Notices due to a gap within Contracts and asked consistently for this to be demonstrated by the Claimant. Such Authority is fundamental as laid down by the BPA Guide to Members and the BPA Code Of Practice, Recent case law has and Judgement have been found against Parking Management Companies where the lack of authorisation has existed.

The Defendant then pressed the issue to the Claimant on no fewer than 6 separate occasions initially as early as the 23rd October 2017, this in itself aroused suspicions on behalf of the Defendant as to why these contracts were so difficult to obtain.

The Defendant believes that there is clear ambiguity in fact it is clear from the two contracts that are in existence they are between two completely separate parties on behalf of the Landowner.

Contract executed 28/8/14 between the parties