Court Report - Brentford (Telephone) - UKPC Roasted

bargepole

Claim No. G5HW006Q – UK Parking Control v Mr V, before DDJ Pearce.

Claimant represented by Miss Knight (SCS Law).

This was a residential case, in which Mr V’s wife was the leaseholder of the flat, and the lease specified an allocated parking space for exclusive use by the lessee. They had paid £20,000 for the space when they bought the property in 2016.

There were 4 PCNs issued for failing to display a permit. The photos in the Claimant’s bundle clearly showed that the Defendant’s vehicle had been parked in the same numbered space as shown on the lease.

I had made primacy of contract the main argument in the Defence and WS, with the secondary points that the Defendant had not been driving, and the NTKs could not transfer liability under POFA because no period of parking had been specified, just the date; and also that the £60 add-on was unrecoverable (even though the figure was stated on the signage), because it was barred by s4(5) of POFA, and was an attempt to go behind the Beavis judgment.

The Claimant’s main argument, inexpertly put by Miss Knight, was that the contract between UKPC and the landowner, granted UKPC the right to manage parking. I argued that the D was not a party to that contract, and in any event it did not constitute a deed of variation to the lease. Therefore, the Claimant’s signage had no legal effect.

The DDJ completely agreed, and said he didn’t need to hear any further submissions, he was dismissing the claim for that reason alone.

I tried to argue for unreasonable behaviour costs, based on the fact that SCS Law had filed a Costs Schedule in the sum of £450, none of which they would have been entitled to even if the claim succeeded, and the document was clearly in terrorem, designed to intimidate the Defendant into abandoning his defence. The DDJ wouldn’t go with that, and said the proper course of action should be a complaint to the SRA.

 

Redx

Well done Mr C !!  Yet another residential case where parking bullies try to intimidate helpless victims who live there and lose on several counts , including primacy of contract by the defendant , plus technicalities in law that they constantly fail on. 😜😄👍

Umkomaas

The Claimant’s main argument, inexpertly put by Miss Knight, 

Nice one. A picture paints a thousand words, or, in this case, a couple of words paint a thousand pictures!  Thanks for the report @bargepole, and well done on the win. 

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

bargepole

Umkomaas said:

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

I don't really know, this claim was issued in early 2020, and was originally listed for July, but then adjourned due to a lack of available Judges to hear it, and the fact that Brentford was one of those courts closed during the first lockdown.

I haven't seen much from UKPC recently, they seem to be struggling for income more than most PPCs.

blackdog2220

bargepole said:

Umkomaas said:

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

I haven't seen much from UKPC recently, they seem to be struggling for income more than most PPCs.

so nice to read that , thank you 

Snakes_Belly

"I argued that the D was not a party to that contract, and in any event it did not constitute a deed of variation to the lease. Therefore, the Claimant’s signage had no legal effect."

Well done and very succinctly put. 

Thank you for the report.

IMO these are some of the worst cases. They often included multiple PCN's. The leaseholder does not have a choice they have to park there. At least if you receive a PCN from a random car park you don't have to use that car park again. 

BrownTrout

Umkomaas said:

The Claimant’s main argument, inexpertly put by Miss Knight, 

Nice one. A picture paints a thousand words, or, in this case, a couple of words paint a thousand pictures!  Thanks for the report @bargepole, and well done on the win. 

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

UKPC and Smart Parking do NOT use CST for litigation.
The LBC's are only part of the debt collection process, 

beamerguy

BrownTrout said:

Umkomaas said:

The Claimant’s main argument, inexpertly put by Miss Knight, 

Nice one. A picture paints a thousand words, or, in this case, a couple of words paint a thousand pictures!  Thanks for the report @bargepole, and well done on the win. 

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

UKPC and Smart Parking do NOT use CST for litigation.
The LBC's are only part of the debt collection process, 

A good result ...... SCS Law dropped in the rubbish bin again
Wonder when CST will wake up to the fact that UKPC are only using them as a public convenience

Maybe UKPC will be the first to go bust 

Umkomaas

BrownTrout said:

Umkomaas said:

The Claimant’s main argument, inexpertly put by Miss Knight, 

Nice one. A picture paints a thousand words, or, in this case, a couple of words paint a thousand pictures!  Thanks for the report @bargepole, and well done on the win. 

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

UKPC and Smart Parking do NOT use CST for litigation.
The LBC's are only part of the debt collection process, 

I recognise that, I was more interested in whether UKPC/Smart had actually instructed CST or whether it was yet another DRP letterhead stunt. If the latter, I guess the PPCs won't be too bothered as they might well pick up some 'free' scratchings from DRP's efforts to fill their own coffers. 

BrownTrout

Umkomaas said:

BrownTrout said:

Umkomaas said:

The Claimant’s main argument, inexpertly put by Miss Knight, 

Nice one. A picture paints a thousand words, or, in this case, a couple of words paint a thousand pictures!  Thanks for the report @bargepole, and well done on the win. 

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

UKPC and Smart Parking do NOT use CST for litigation.
The LBC's are only part of the debt collection process, 

I recognise that, I was more interested in whether UKPC/Smart had actually instructed CST or whether it was yet another DRP letterhead stunt. If the latter, I guess the PPCs won't be too bothered as they might well pick up some 'free' scratchings from DRP's efforts to fill their own coffers. 

Umkomaas said:

BrownTrout said:

Umkomaas said:

The Claimant’s main argument, inexpertly put by Miss Knight, 

Nice one. A picture paints a thousand words, or, in this case, a couple of words paint a thousand pictures!  Thanks for the report @bargepole, and well done on the win. 

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

UKPC and Smart Parking do NOT use CST for litigation.
The LBC's are only part of the debt collection process, 

I recognise that, I was more interested in whether UKPC/Smart had actually instructed CST or whether it was yet another DRP letterhead stunt. If the latter, I guess the PPCs won't be too bothered as they might well pick up some 'free' scratchings from DRP's efforts to fill their own coffers. 

yes letters generated by DRP.

beamerguy

BrownTrout said:

Umkomaas said:

BrownTrout said:

Umkomaas said:

The Claimant’s main argument, inexpertly put by Miss Knight, 

Nice one. A picture paints a thousand words, or, in this case, a couple of words paint a thousand pictures!  Thanks for the report @bargepole, and well done on the win. 

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

UKPC and Smart Parking do NOT use CST for litigation.
The LBC's are only part of the debt collection process, 

I recognise that, I was more interested in whether UKPC/Smart had actually instructed CST or whether it was yet another DRP letterhead stunt. If the latter, I guess the PPCs won't be too bothered as they might well pick up some 'free' scratchings from DRP's efforts to fill their own coffers. 

Umkomaas said:

BrownTrout said:

Umkomaas said:

The Claimant’s main argument, inexpertly put by Miss Knight, 

Nice one. A picture paints a thousand words, or, in this case, a couple of words paint a thousand pictures!  Thanks for the report @bargepole, and well done on the win. 

If you're still reading this, and given that UKPC's go-to solicitor still seems to be SCS, what do you make of CST's issuing of 'LBC' letters on behalf of UKPC? 

Is it more DRP 'letterhead' shenanigans, as they are showing as the organisation to which payments should be made?  Or have UKPC jumped ship from SCS to CST?

UKPC and Smart Parking do NOT use CST for litigation.
The LBC's are only part of the debt collection process, 

I recognise that, I was more interested in whether UKPC/Smart had actually instructed CST or whether it was yet another DRP letterhead stunt. If the latter, I guess the PPCs won't be too bothered as they might well pick up some 'free' scratchings from DRP's efforts to fill their own coffers. 

yes letters generated by DRP.

Yes, the kissing cousins from the low life brigade.
I still maintain that anyone who receives letters from them, to be very very careful, they may be covid infected