UKPC CCJ - URGENT HELP NEEDED FOR RESIDENTIAL CAR PARK - FINAL DEFENCE NEEDS PROOF READING PLEASE

Redx

Castle said:

There are two PCN's for each of 10/03/2016, 19/03/2016 and 01/04/2016.

So 16 PCN s at £100 a pop equals £1600 , plus 3 spurious charges ( ( above ) , making 19 PCN s claimed , equals £1900 , plus legal and court fees , nowhere near the over £4000 total being claimed ( cannot see the total )

Plus they have no idea if the defendant was driving or not , so as UKPC probably failed to comply with POFA 2012 ( the law ) then that may be another Defence point

Your paragraph 2 should contain either

Keeper and driver

Or

Keeper but not the driver ( if true )

Or

Keeper but the driver is not known after all this time , the defendant cannot recollect who was driving in 2016 , 5 years ago

Think about your wording carefully

Albie234

Redx said:

Castle said:

There are two PCN's for each of 10/03/2016, 19/03/2016 and 01/04/2016.

So 16 PCN s at £100 a pop equals £1600 , plus 3 spurious charges ( ( above ) , making 19 PCN s claimed , equals £1900 , plus legal and court fees , nowhere near the over £4000 total being claimed ( cannot see the total )

Plus they have no idea if the defendant was driving or not , so as UKPC probably failed to comply with POFA 2012 ( the law ) then that may be another Defence point

Before I keep this on here - is this too much personal info? none of it is specific.

Rounding the number down.. £3000 being (claimed) total of PCN and damages, then interest at 8% and 0.40p daily rate (at the bottom of the particulars) 

total claimed £3800 + court fees + legal rep costs = (rounding down) £4000

Redx

No problem there , it's good enough

Seems that they added £60 or £70 to each PCN , plus added 3 as well , adding almost £500 on to the total

Much of those extras will be disputed in the defence and also in the witness statement next year 🤔🤔👍👍

Talk about creative accounting !!

Albie234

Hey!

I am aware that I have until - 12th Tuesday to file this - I have been away with work for the last 4 days with no internet, I have immediately started on this today and would really appreciate feedback ASAP as would like to get this filed today or tomorrow.
-----------------------

Background/explanation - The space used to park was not an allocated space to anyone (from my knowledge) as there was never anyone parked there. This space is now used for business’ in buildings underneath the flats which being a new build (and one of the first in buyers in) the business’ were not even there yet, also the occasional building maintenance van was parked in 1 of the 2 spaces. When our space was occupied by the other resident I would collect (from their property) and help my disabled family member to the lift and to the flat, I needed to park close enough to get them into the building and in the lift, due to this being a difficult task, as there is very little parking around (as its next to a commuting station up to london) Id park in the unmarked space (not blocking or obstructing anyone or any resident - leaving a note with my number on incase anyone needed me to move) and sometimes come down to a ticket which I believed to be unlawful (and having too many personal issues ignored) 

^^^^^^^^^

Is there anything about this I should write about in my defence?

This is the copied and pasted parts I believe to be relevant - I also do not have a copy of anything legal to do with parking from the sale of the flat ( as I am no longer there)

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. The Claimant does not know whether the defendant was driving or not, so the claimant has therefore failed to comply with POFA 2012. The defendant cannot recollect who was driving on these particular dates in 2016, 5 years ago.

3 The particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3 The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 19 a total of dates, however, 3 dates ‘10/03/2016, 19/03/2016 and 01/04/2016’ are duplicated. 

3  As a leaseholder with title, the Defendant claims primacy of contract and right to park in accordance with the lease that cannot be overridden by the Claimant’s cardboard sign. It is also averred that there was no clear signage to form a contract between the claimant and the defendant.   The sole sign displayed on the entrance was not sufficient for a carpark of some thirty-five plus spaces and the terms and conditions of the parking offered by the claimant were intelligible and were not in bold and clear type, being significantly smaller in size than the majority of the signage.  It cannot be said that a clear offer was made by the claimant in this instance.

3 The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

3 The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3 The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

3 The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

3 The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

3 Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

3 In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to cease wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

Thanks!!!!!

D_P_Dance

Last para, cease not case

Albie234

D_P_Dance said:

Last para, cease not case

Thanks, it's been amended, do you think the rest is all relevant? any other advice?

1505grandad

Redx posted 1st October to include:-

"Keeper but the driver is not known after all this time , the defendant cannot recollect who was driving in 2016 , 5 years ago

Think about your wording carefully"

Para 2 states:-

"The Claimant does not know whether the defendant was driving or not, ...."

But one of the paras 3 states:-

"The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease."  -  therefore  contradicting para 2.

Albie234

1505grandad said:

Redx posted 1st October to include:-

"Keeper but the driver is not known after all this time , the defendant cannot recollect who was driving in 2016 , 5 years ago

Think about your wording carefully"

Para 2 states:-

"The Claimant does not know whether the defendant was driving or not, ...."

But one of the paras 3 states:-

"The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease."  -  therefore  contradicting para 2.

Should I either add in - the defendant cannot recollect who was driving in 2016, 5 years ago for every date specified in the particulars?

or just take (the below) it out all together

"The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease."  -  therefore  contradicting para 2.

Le_Kirk

Your defence does not line up with the background/explanation that you posted.  Was the car in an underground car parking space or was it outside the door to the flats?  Wherever it was, the driver was loading/unloading or assisting a disabled passenger to alight.  I am sure you noticed you have multiple paragraphs numbered (3) which you will sort out.  Your paragraphs are sometimes repetitive.  Your second last paragraph uses a word (contumelious) that, whilst it is English and has a meaning, is not in common usage (scornful and insulting) and does constitute a legal defence.  You seem to be stating that because something is insulting, the whole claim must be struck out.  Your paragraph about the additional £60, is already included in the defence template.  Have you seen the standard defence template?  Could you use that and add your points into it? 

Albie234

Le_Kirk said:

Your defence does not line up with the background/explanation that you posted.  Was the car in an underground car parking space or was it outside the door to the flats?  Wherever it was, the driver was loading/unloading or assisting a disabled passenger to alight.  I am sure you noticed you have multiple paragraphs numbered (3) which you will sort out.  Your paragraphs are sometimes repetitive.  Your second last paragraph uses a word (contumelious) that, whilst it is English and has a meaning, is not in common usage (scornful and insulting) and does constitute a legal defence.  You seem to be stating that because something is insulting, the whole claim must be struck out.  Your paragraph about the additional £60, is already included in the defence template.  Have you seen the standard defence template?  Could you use that and add your points into it? 

Hey,

Thanks for all the feedback, I really am struggling to do this as I do not quite understand a lot of the language so I'm probably doubling up points and putting things in that should not be there. (as stated before I am dyslexic and this is super hard for me to get my head around so please do bare with me)

The car was in the outside car park not in the underground car park (as there are two sections) but having a fob to the carpark to me is symbolic of having legal rights to use the land to park on. 

The defence up top is to give everyone an idea of what was going on and I'm not sure if I should write that bit up or copy any paste what other people have done.

I do realise they were all numbered 3 and would be sorted before I send it
______________

I have seen the template where you add para 2/3 into it yourself - is this the one you are talking about too ? Should I just be adding the 'defence in my own words section' (at the top of my post) to this template?

Thanks