UKPC SCS Law County Court Claim Form Received

jagldn

BrownTrout wrote: »

Luckily under 10k then
Simply because if your in the right location then due to the size of the claim you may benefit from a "lay rep"
As a very wise sage involved In the parking industry reminded me the other day "the usual defences wont work for ticket numbers like this"

Croydon would be my local, cautious about revealing too much identifiable information.

Are you saying there may be a better defence route to take if my number was £10k+, although they are not seeking it on the claim form I reckon if they had looked properly for everything against my name I would not be surprised if it passes that mark.

Therefore I am also worried that if I manage to beat this case, another claim will be raised against me for the rest at a future date. We do not even own the car anymore, if possible I would like to deal with all claims (and potential future ones) against me at once, however at the same time worried about exposing myself to higher risk that may never reach a court.

I have requested a SAR which should inform the full extent of tickets against us I hope.

Umkomaas

cautious about revealing too much identifiable information.

They won't have many claims of that magnitude. It won't take Sherlock Holmes to identify you.

Are you saying there may be a better defence route to take if my number was £10k+, although they are not seeking it on the claim form I reckon if they had looked properly for everything against my name I would not be surprised if it passes that mark.

£10k would take it to the Fast Track, where different rules apply and (AFAIAA) cost awards are potentially much higher. Greater risk, and typical defences here wouldn't have similar weight.

Therefore I am also worried that if I manage to beat this case, another claim will be raised against me for the rest at a future date.

If you win, check out the legal term 'Res Judicata'.

jagldn

Umkomaas wrote: »

If you win, check out the legal term 'Res Judicata'.

Just looked it up, to clarify, if I am taken to court for a 'PCN' in 2017/18 and win. Then I won't be taken to court for a similar PCN in the same location by the same company for the same 'offence' which occured in 2019?

As mentioned, we no longer have the car so no new tickets are being issued. However there is a possibility of more tickets in the pipeline not at this stage.

Redx

they can certainly issue more court claims for the outstanding tickets

we have seen cases on here where its like a merry go round, one after another


this thread may help you through this


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6003576/going-to-court-for-parking-in-my-own-spot

jagldn

*old defence deleted*

Le_Kirk

1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017)

That tells me straight away you have found an old defence.  Look in the NEWBIE sticky second post and read all the links (16) to defences written by Bargepole, Coupon-mad and others.  Also, search for the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy and the comment in that discussion by Coupon-mad at 14th post.  You could also read threads by CEC16, basher52 & jellybelly23.

jagldn

Le_Kirk said:

1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017)

That tells me straight away you have found an old defence.  Look in the NEWBIE sticky second post and read all the links (16) to defences written by Bargepole, Coupon-mad and others.  Also, search for the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy and the comment in that discussion by Coupon-mad at 14th post.  You could also read threads by CEC16, basher52 & jellybelly23.

Thanks for the constructive feedback, will be back this afternoon!

jagldn

Whilst I update my overall defence can anyone help with this question?

I am seeing previous defences and examples using the following:
'The Defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of the 'Protection of Freedoms Act 2012' to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charge'

Which is in direct contradiction to the Particulars of Claim which states:

'The defendant has admitted that they were the driver of the vehicle(s) for the contraventions listed below and/or, in the event that the Claimant has been unable to identify the driver of the vehicle(s), the Claimant has complied with the provisions of paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 and has the right to bring this claim against the registered keeper under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 of the same Act, being the Defendant.'

Which is these is valid? Many defences point out not to highlight who is/was driving, I genuinely cannot recall but can they simply just pin the charge on the keeper?

Le_Kirk

That is the standard POC they all seem to use; notice the "and/or".  Have you admitted being the driver?  If they want to hold the keeper liable, they have to pass POFA, i.e. comply with the provisions of the POFA as they state.  Your job is to look at your Notice to Keeper/PCN/Notice to Driver and compare it to the POFA to see if it complies.  The POFA can be found by asking Auntie Google.

beamerguy

With the total claim, how much is fact and how much is fake ........ not including the court fees etc