UKCPS letter before claim

Cal123

Hi

Firstly I would like to say thanks for the very helpful advice contained in the newbies thread.

I am writing on behalf of my partner who is both the registered keeper and the driver.

The original charge occurred in when my partner parked in a patch of land that had been turned into a car park in central Manchester. As my partner had no change with him, he attempted to pay by card at the machine but unfortunately the payment would not clear. I am unsure whether this was due to a problem with his card or the machine. He was already running late to the event he was attending so left the car parked and came back in his break a couple of hours later to pay for the rest of the day. There was no notice left on the windscreen.

He then received a notice to keeper about a week later. There is a photo of the car and the reason for the invoice is that there was no ticket displayed.

Instead of dealing with it we decided to stick out heads in the sand until the debt collectors stage and didn’t appeal. Before reading your advice I admitted over the phone to DRP, pretending to be my partner , to being the driver. After reading your advice I decided to just ignore the debt collectors.

That was until we received a letter titled letter of claim from UKCPS just over a week ago giving 30 days notice of court proceedings being commenced. Following your advice I will be sending an SAR to UKCPS as well as an email requesting that the case be put on hold.

What I am concerned about is that when it goes to court my partner will have no defence, as UKCPS would argue that when the card machine did not work, he should have driven out of the carpark. It is likely that the problem was with his card and not the machine. Are there any options, other than paying the £130, that would avoid the court stage? Unfortunately we live quite a distance from the carpark so gathering evidence will be difficult but as he remembers there was clear signage.

Many thanks for any help you can give

Redx

non payment is going to be a hard one to beat, all depends on landowner authority , signage , pdt machines , POFA etc

the SAR will obtain the data about him and his vehicle , nothing more

their evidence will be submitted a few weeks before the hearing, including signage and pdt records etc

the choice is his if he wishes to fight or pay , perhaps try and negotiate a lower settlement figure in the next few weeks ?

judges dont like bilkers , for whatever reason , you are also correct that if he had no change or payment method he should have left the car park , same as he would leave tesco if he had no money to pay at the till for the bread and milk he picked up

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

You would be wise to edit your post to remove all clues to the identity of the driver. The keeper has more protection in law that the driver does.

For example, your longest paragraph would be better written as:

The original charge occurred when the driver parked in a patch of land that had been turned into a car park in central Manchester. As the driver had no change with him, he attempted to pay by card at the machine but unfortunately the payment would not clear. I am unsure whether this was due to a problem with his card or the machine. He was already running late to the event he was attending so left the car parked and came back in his break a couple of hours later to pay for the rest of the day. There was no notice left on the windscreen.

Subtle differences, but significant.

Adjust the rest of your post similarly.

beamerguy

You were right to ignore DRP, they are idiotic powerless timewasters

Surely the claim came via Gladstones ?

So the pay machine did not work but the ANPR did ?

Bet the signs did not say if the machine was faulty you must not park

*** take a photo of the sign ... that's the contract

These machines are famous for not working all around the country and one must wonder WHY NOT ?

You will be one of many for this car park

As this is a scam industry, you need to do some detective work and DO NOT EVEN THINK OF PAYING

Did the claim add £60 extra

bartos1976

beamerguy wrote: »

You were right to ignore DRP, they are idiotic powerless timewasters

Surely the claim came via Gladstones ?

So the pay machine did not work but the ANPR did ?

Bet the signs did not say if the machine was faulty you must not park

*** take a photo of the sign ... that's the contract

These machines are famous for not working all around the country and one must wonder WHY NOT ?

You will be one of many for this car park

As this is a scam industry, you need to do some detective work and DO NOT EVEN THINK OF PAYING

Did the claim add £60 extra

I'm at LoC stage with the same company and they've sent it themselves, maybe they're not using Gladstones now?

If it's a mirror image of my claim it will have added £60 extra. The £130 figure is £160 but with them agreeing to a £130 settlement.

On that basis I understand the keeper of the vehicle may be able to get the case struck out as an abuse of process

More information here for the OP

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Cal123

The claim came direct from Ukpcs. I think it was probably the card playing up as the machine seemed fully functional just didn’t accept the card. It seems a warden took the photo of the vehicle as the photo is of it parked up. The invoice was originally for £100 but they would accept 60 within 14 days of notice. They’ve since added another 60 but they will accept £130

Cal123

Thank you all for taking the time to give your advice. I have sent them an email refusing to pay the full amount and offering to pay a reduced amount. The keeper is very unwilling for the claim to progress to court as he understands the defence will be difficult and is unwilling to go to the emotional effort required but hopefully the email will get us somewhere.

Coupon-mad

hopefully the email will get us somewhere.

It won't, and I read what you are saying, but the case should be defended.