UKPC BACK AGAIN

CVKTA

Hi all, not sure if anyone remembers my thread from last year ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5946644/letter-before-claim-scs-law-ukpc-please-advise )

With the guidance of the resident Coupon-Mad and the rest of you fantastic folk, I successfully represented my wife and has the judge dismiss the case essentially on the grounds that UKPC couldn’t not over rule my already existing right to park, as per my property deeds/contract.

Well, as mentioned, I was representing my wife. I’ve now received a Claim Form against me personally for £539.40.
I didn’t think they would come for me but here we are!

Obviously I have my defence as per the last claim but wondering if you guys think it’s a good idea reaching out at this point to the legal firm (a different one to the case against my wife) and basically showing them the last outcome? Or do I keep my cards close and just include it in my defence?

thanks as always!!

CVKTA

Umkomaas

Obviously I have my defence as per the last claim but wondering if you guys think it’s a good idea reaching out at this point to the legal firm (a different one to the case against my wife) and basically showing them the last outcome? Or do I keep my cards close and just include it in my defence?

If it's one of the low-rent boys, they will probably ignore it. It is a quite different case insofar as a different Defendant, there will be no direct read-across to your wife's case. 

Get on with defending the case, your wife's case can be cross-referenced in your Witness Statement, but it will carry no precedent across to yours v

D_P_Dance

They  appear to be interfering in your right to quiet  enjoyment under Section 38 of the Landlord and Tenants Acts to quiet enjoyment of your property.  Have you considered a counter-claim?

Read this and complain to your MP.

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1053920-private-parking-companies

Fruitcake

Is it the same type of alleged breach of Ts and Cs at the same location? I'm no legal expert but I see no harm in responding to the claimant and their solicitor that a judge has already established your family's rights as residents to quiet enjoyment and an existing unfettered right to park in your demised space.

I doubt that UKPC will have bothered to check this so you should make them aware at the earliest opportunity, and that this is vexatious and that you will be seeking costs for unreasonable behaviour.

If it's at a different location then this won't apply. I agree that a counter-claim is in order for this and every own space case.

How did you get on with complaints to the landowner and MA after last time? If they employed the PPC then you have every right to join them in the counter claim.

D_P_Dance

The question is, do you want to get rid of the NTK, orremove UKPC from your car park?  Tipping them off may achieve the latter, ambushing them in court possibly the latter.  Personally I would prefer the latter.  

Does anyone knoow if, apart from Roger Davey, anyone has given a PPC a bloody nose?

Fruitcake

D_P_Dance said:

The question is, do you want to get rid of the NTK, orremove UKPC from your car park?  Tipping them off may achieve the latter, ambushing them in court possibly the latter.  Personally I would prefer the latter.  

Does anyone knoow if, apart from Roger Davey, anyone has given a PPC a bloody nose?

I understand what you are saying, but I believe to pass the high bar of unreasonable behaviour, the defendant needs to warn the claimant about their previous case at the earliest opportunity.

D_P_Dance

But surely the claimant is aware, or should be, of their previous case.  I cannot see a judge siding with the PPC here.  

Fruitcake

D_P_Dance said:

But surely the claimant is aware, or should be, of their previous case.  I cannot see a judge siding with the PPC here.  

The previous case was from nearly three years ago against a different defendant. The claimant may be aware, but it would be difficult to prove they knew or should have known the two people were related.
In any case, we don't yet know if this was at the same location.

patient_dream

Umkomaas said:

Obviously I have my defence as per the last claim but wondering if you guys think it’s a good idea reaching out at this point to the legal firm (a different one to the case against my wife) and basically showing them the last outcome? Or do I keep my cards close and just include it in my defence?

If it's one of the low-rent boys, they will probably ignore it. It is a quite different case insofar as a different Defendant, there will be no direct read-across to your wife's case. 

Get on with defending the case, your wife's case can be cross-referenced in your Witness Statement, but it will carry no precedent across to yours v

LOW RENT BOYS ?  HA, MUST BE DCBL ?

Of course you don't owe £539.40, you are being scammed by DCBL 

Can we assume that the OP can claim ... "UKPC could not over rule my already existing right to park"

And whilst the previous judge does not set a precendent, if the circumstances are the same, this should be the highlight of the defence about his wife's case.

I would be looking at a counterclaim.  DCBL recently had the famous car crash that cost VCS £1000.
A similar figure could be against UKPC

D_P_Dance

Of course you don't owe £539.40, you are being scammed by DCBL 

Indeed, they have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

CVKTA

Hi all, just reading through everyones input but to update; It is indeed DCB Legal and the claim is for the exact same location - our former residents car park in our flat. (We moved 3.5 years ago now)....