County Court Business Centre - UKPPO

Le_Kirk

You don't submit the defence on-line, certainly not by using the MCOL system. You print your defence, sign it and scan it as a pdf, you then send that by e-mail as per the instructions kindly provided by KeithP in post # 7 on this, your very own thread.

If you have a look at the NEWBIE sticky post #2 you will find some useful information there about what happens after you file your defence. Filing a counterclaim costs you a fee, however, submitting a costs schedule at witness statement time enables you to request your costs when you win.

Coupon-mad

if I will be heard in court I have to travel there and lose my whole day for it. Is that possible to do so?

It will be at your local court.

Koq1985

Ok, Thank you.
I have just received Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track, Directions Questionnaire.

Im not sure how I should fill this up to be honest. From the info on this forum I don't want Mediation right? I should fill this up just like: I wish to be heard in court, im the only witness, no expert written evidence permission. Is that right?

Do I have to send copy of this to second party?

Thanks.

DoaM

See the NEWBIES sticky thread ... post #2.

KeithP

Koq1985 wrote: »

Ok, Thank you.
I have just received Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track, Directions Questionnaire.

Im not sure how I should fill this up to be honest. From the info on this forum I don't want Mediation right? I should fill this up just like: I wish to be heard in court, im the only witness, no expert written evidence permission. Is that right?

Didn't item 8 on the list in post #7 answer that?

Koq1985 wrote: »

Do I have to send copy of this to second party?

Return your completed DQ to the CCBC in the same manner and to the same email address that you sent your Defence. Refresh your memory on that by re-reading post #7 above.

Send a copy to the Claimant - address on your Claim Form.

Koq1985

Hi. I have filled up the form, send to CCBC and after some time they sent me a letter with the date of hearing in court close to my place. They suggested the mediation but i have ignored. Few days ago I get info that due to current situation with the virus the hearing is postponed and court will let me know. 
Today I have received email following from the parkingpatroloffice 
"Dear sir, 

Attached is the witness statement and the information we will be relying on in court.

Kind Regards

Karen 

UKPPO" 

Than Attached documentation doc file: 

  PAGE 1

County court at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch

Claim Number ......

UK Parking Patrol Office Limited

Claimant

and

                                                                      Mr L..... K....                                                   Defendant

                                                               Witness Statement

1. I, Karen Thorpe, an employee of the company and I am duly authorised to make this statement.

1. Included with the witness statement is the following documents we wish to rely on.

A.         Schedule details of the parking charges.

               B.        The agreement authorising UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd. To manage vehicle     

                           restrictions on the relevant land namely Lakeside Way Wembley.                                                 

              C.         The signs (i.e the contract).

D.         Site plan and photographs of the site.

               E.         Notices 

               F.         Photographs of the incidents.

               G.        Appeal and correspondence between UK Parking Patrol Office LTD and Mr Koziarski              

1. The defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the entering of a vehicle on the relevant land in a manner  to incur the same pursuant to the contract. (i.e the sign). Set out in the schedule below are details of the parking charge.

                                                                       PAGE 2

                                                                            

PCN NUMBERS	DATE OF CHARGE	LOCATION	REASON
422561	07.07.2019	Lakeside Way Wembley	Exceeding the Maximum Stay Period

 

1. The protection of Freedoms Act 2012 shed 4 (para 2) states that; the “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. 

1. The signs on Lakeside Way Wembley clearly states, 

               PARKING IN THIS AREA IS ONLY ALLOWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOADING AND UNLOADING                      

                                          

               20 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY. NO RETURN WITHIN 1 HOUR. (NO GRACE PERIOD APPLIES)

                                           

                THIS AREA IS MONITORED BY ANPR CAMERAS AND REGULAR PATROLS

  BREACH OF ANY TERM OR CONDITION WILL RESULT IN THE DRIVER BEING LIABLE FOR A    

  PARKING CHARGE OF £100. 

By entering or remaining on the land you agree to abide by all of the Terms and Conditions.  

schedule C (1)

1. UKPPO relies on the case of Parking Eye V Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out by the signs and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein.

1. The signs on the land are clear and unambiguous. By entering and staying in the area, in a manner in which they did the charge was properly incurred.

1. As the contract is between UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd and Wembley Park Ltd. UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd does have the authority to enforce parking charges. It is our responsibility to ensure all ANPR cameras and signs are erected, which from the site photographs included shows clearly the intention of ourselves and Wembley Park Ltd to commence the parking restrictions and for all drivers to be clear of the restrictions on Lakeside Way .

Mr Koziarski defence 

1. The defendant denies the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, and the defendant denies entering into any contractual agreement with the claimant. 

                                                                        PAGE 3

Mr Koziarski entered a well signed area which clearly states “20 minutes maximum stay. No return within 1 hour. (No grace period)”

By entering or remaining on the land you agree to abide by all of the terms and conditions. 

1. The defendant admits to being the keeper of the vehicle and the driver at the time of the incident, was not trespassing and did not stop/wait in any reserved space for more than 20 minutes

Wembley Park is privately owned land, and as such it is the discretion of the landowner as to the restrictions placed on the land. The landowner as placed a restriction of 20 minutes maximum stay, with on return within 1 hour. Which is in place along Lakeside Way. 

1. The defendant visits the site on a regular basis and believes the terms have changed and no provisions made to allow taxi drivers to locate customers. 

UK Parking Patrol Office limited as been issuing Parking Charge notices on Lakeside Way since 2014. The ANPR system was erected and became “on-line” June 2019. If as the defendant states visits the site on a regular basis, he would have known this. We follow the IPC code of practice which states,

1. where Anpr technology is used, this must be clearly stated using appropriated signage. 

(photographic evidence shows this is the case. Schedule D 1 and 2)

1.   Defendant states this is a large busy space with restaurants shops a designer outlet and the       

SSE arena.

      The area is busy, but I will assume the driver had the passengers contact number and as                                                           

       the driver was aware (as a regular visitor) of the time restrictions, surely the best way to   

       locate a person is by telephone. Evidence supplied with his appeal, shows the defendant  

       had the passenger details (though redacted) 

        Though the designer outlet is within walking it does have parking facilities, and I believe 

         A good percentage of people will drive directly to this area.  

                                                                                        

1. The defendant states 20 minutes free parking unexpectedly introduced without prominent consumer notices or transparent terms, and the signage failed the IPC code of practice.

       A 20-minute time restriction for loading and unloading as always been the case on    

       Lakeside Way, the only difference as been the introduction of the ANPR cameras. As

        Shown with our photographic evidence, we have clearly informed drivers of the use of 

        ANPR

                                                                           PAGE 4

1. The defendant states “No arguable legitimate interest for the site owners in deterring taxi drivers from visiting Wembley Business Park. 

                                                                    

        Wembley Park is a vast successful enterprise, and all decision on how the area will work 

       are taken with great thought, including, parking restriction imposed. Car parking    

        facilities, (The outlet stores do include parking). The fact that  Lakeside Way as a total

        length of approximately 250 metres with a multi story car park shows Wembley Park as 

        made every effort to accommodate people’s needs. Business have procedures in place    

         to allow successful day to day running of their businesses. Again, photographic  

         evidence shows Lakeside Way is a well signed area, which as been audited and passed

         by our governing body the International Parking Community.

         

1. The defendants states “They may be signs at the boundaries, but not all areas are well signed, and the driver here was certainly not “bound to” have seen the terms nor could be considered to have “agreed” to the parking contract. 

          The site map shows the area is well signed, as the defendant states he may not have    

          been able to read the signage whilst driving, but once the vehicle was parked the 

          defendant had ample opportunity to read the signage, and then make an informed 

          choice to remain over the 20 minutes. 

1. Defendant states “It is denied that the claimants signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner.  The terms on the claimant’s signage are displayed in a font which is too small to read from a passing vehicle. Further where restrictions have change at a location, a regular driver would have no reason or obligation to seek out signs on every visit.”

          As shown within our documents we are relying on (schedule c) I believe our signage is 

                  clear and ambiguous, it clearly explains the parking restrictions. As a driver I believe it 

                   is important, that you are always aware of your surrounding and possible dangers that

                   could be around you, no matter how many times you drive along the same road. This

                   I believe to be true to changes in parking restrictions. Again, photographic evidence 

                   Clearly shows the restrictions in place along Lakeside Way. 

                   

1. The defendant states “even in cases where the driver is admitted, the leading appeals adjudicators POPLA (a service not offered by the claimant since they left the BPA’s approved operators’ scheme). “and Schedule 4 of POFA defines ‘adequate notice’ as follows.

‘for the purpose of sub-paragraph (2) adequate notice means notice given by: (b) the display of one or more notices: which (i) specify the sums as charged for unauthorised parking; (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of the drivers who park their vehicles on the relevant land.”

                                                                      PAGE 5

       The defendant did appeal the parking charge which was unsuccessful. The rejection 

      e-mail states “You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and 

       have a number of options.

       Point 2, If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the 

       Independent Appeals Service (IAS). 

       This was also mentioned to the defendant in the e-mail correspondence after the appeal 

        Rejection.

       Again, as to answer the point of one or more notices which specify the sums charged I 

       believe Lakeside Way is well signed and clearly informs drivers of the restrictions and 

        consequences of their actions. 

1. The defendant State “A reasonable and workable grace period was not allowed, and the timings are not correct. Nor is there any evidence of the taxi being parked. 

Signage makes it clear 20 minutes maximum stay. No return within 1 hour (No grace period)

 

1. The defendant states “UKPPO are relying on unsynchronised, separate IN/OUT cameras, entering passed unidentified part of the business part.” 

We use 1 camera to photograph vehicles entering and leaving Lakeside Way. Photograph evidence clearly shows the signs indicating you are entering an ANPR monitor area. You will notice the images capturing the defendant’s vehicle, on entering the area the photograph is of the front of the vehicle and on leaving the photograph is of the rear.  Photograph schedule D 1 and 2 shows the road narrows slightly in the area the photographs are taken with signage explaining the restrictions. Please note the ANPR camera is visible affixed to the lamppost. 

1. The defendant states “he believed the Letter before Claim to be a scam.” 

E-mail from the defendant to the appeals department, made it clear he wished the matter to be dealt with in court. Once a Letter Before Claim as been sent, had the defendant requested information, I.E site plans, evidence of signage, this would have been provided. The only information we do not realise until absolutely necessary is the contract between ourselves and client. This is to allow us to comply with GDPR.

1. The defendant states “he drives for a living and is not an unobservant person.”

                                                                                 PAGE 6

On entering Lakeside Way as an observant person, he will of notice the sign which states “Private Land Parking only allowed whilst loading and unloading. Terms and conditions apply 20-minute maximum stay. Please see notices for further details”

A few metres forward, where the road narrows slightly and the ANPR camera takes the photograph is a sign which states

“Private Land Terms and conditions” this sign explains the restriction in place along Lakeside Way. Photographic evidence shows these 2 signs as the drivers enter the area. They are in clear view for even an unobservant person to notice. 

1. The defendants mention exemption to local cabbies, as they do their own vehicles, delivery drivers, and some site staff.

           Lakeside Way does have in place the ability to exempt vehicles where needed. As the     

          defendant states cabbies are in and out of this area every day, and few exceed the stay    

           period of 20 minutes. 

1. The defendant demands a unredacted copy of the contract, site map as well as any communications with the business in on Lakeside Way. 

Please note we will be providing a redacted copy of the contract, photographic evidence of the signage used, site map which includes indications of where signage is placed, and the signage used. 

1. The defendant mentions the case JOPSON v HOME and states” Whilst that case was about a residential car park and unloading. The judge took time to define “parking” as leaving a vehicle for a period of time, as opposed to passing and re-passing. 

    As the defendant notes this case was about a residential car park, rather than a road on private land and the signage on that road states Parking in this area is only allowed for the purpose of loading and unloading. 

Statement of Truth

Claimant

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name: Karen Thorpe

Position: Litigation Manager 

Signed:

Date: 30th April 2020

"

Also few files was attached, all corespondence I sent to them, the photographs of my car, all tickets they sent to me and this: 

https://xxx.dropbox.com/sh/z0p9tgymq51tqmk/AADBSNF4aFta6WUnSWkzjM_Da?dl=0

Im concerned about the fact that they hired a lawyer for that. Can I do the same? How I should Inform them about my costs? For example my time I spent on this case? Is this what I will be able to get after winning? What are the chances I can win this at this stage?? 

Thank you for any help. 

LK

Le_Kirk

It is quite normal for you to receive the claimants witness statement (you will need to send your witness statement to them) and it is also normal for them to employ legal people.  You do not need to employ a solicitor (it will cost you more than you will save and those costs are not recoverable in small claims.)  When you send your witness statement to the court (file) and to the claimant (serve) you include a Summary Costs Assessment.  Search the forum using those words and see what others have done.

Umkomaas

Im concerned about the fact that they hired a lawyer for that. 

What lawyer?

nosferatu1001

OP - its concerning youve not been here in months
Have you followed the crystal clear directions to provide witness statement and other evidence?

KeithP

Is that your full name visible in the first file in that dropbox folder?

That aside, you no longer need to break links, so reinstate the www in your dropbox link.