UKPC - CCJ for £3k+

waamo

rennes99 wrote: »

One thing I am concerned about as part of my defence, is the nature of my AST agreement - it is "silent" on the matter of parking it says neither parking is given nor not. I was told verbally by tehe state agent at the time that parking is available for residents. The charges I have are due to not displaying a permit in a permit area (of a residential location.)

Does this still constitute terms that vary the lease have been imposed unilaterally and without my consent?

Where in your lease does it say you need a permit? As before they cannot just impose conditions on you that are to your detriment.

The_Deep

Have you read this?

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

These also may be of interest

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/324523-ukpc-liable-for-trespass-success/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.

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.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

rennes99 wrote: »

One thing I am concerned about as part of my defence, is the nature of my AST agreement - it is "silent" on the matter of parking it says neither parking is given nor not. I was told verbally by tehe state agent at the time that parking is available for residents. The charges I have are due to not displaying a permit in a permit area (of a residential location.)

Does this still constitute terms that vary the lease have been imposed unilaterally and without my consent?

Well as a tenant you are not the leaseholder. Is it a private landlord?

You can get a copy of the Head Lease from the Land Reg (or ask your Londlord) but the first thing to do is the set aside. Follow Henrik777's advice.

rennes99

Thank you all for your very kind advice so far.

To Coupon-Mad, we are a private residential tenant, and I don't believe the landlord at the time (this was 2 years ago) owns the property anymore.

I cant post a link due to being new - however is there anything glaringly obviously wrong with the UKPC signage? It is as follows:

NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING
TERSM OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES
This land is private property and managed by ukpc
Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 parking charge (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicle's driver.

PARK ONLY WITH MARKED BAYS - NO ROADWAY PARKING
A VALID PARKING PERMIT MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES.

In the event that charge remains unpaid, UKPC may contact DVLA for RK's details

Unpaid Parkign Charges will be passed to our DRA at which point an additional fee of £60 will apply.


Many thanks

waamo

Why are they adding £60 on? Sounds naughty to me.

rennes99

Hi waamo - I really don't know, however is sounds as though they cannot and I can bring this up in front of a judge and, as long as I highlight the relevant POFA2012 clauses and case studies, they will see that this is an Abuse of Process, correct?

waamo

rennes99 wrote: »

Hi waamo - I really don't know, however is sounds as though they cannot and I can bring this up in front of a judge and, as long as I highlight the relevant POFA2012 clauses and case studies, they will see that this is an Abuse of Process, correct?

It fails at POFA and Beavis. That sign is appalling.

nosferatu1001

Abuse of process is not just pofa, it's also the cra etc
Read the big thread on it.

But that's defending the claim and isn't the set aside , which you need to focus on. Part of your defence will be that you were authorised to park as the letting agent - and agent of the landlord - told you and didn't say it was contingent on a permit.

rennes99

thanks waamo - while I concentrate on the set aside, what points are necessary to consider in my defence when demonstrating that it fails POFA and Beavis, and is as you say appealing?

rennes99

Thank you nosferatu- I will immerse myself in the CRA thread now