County court business centre claim form from Uk parking control limited

Fruitcake

That does not affect any of my advice.

Parking companies tell lies. UKPC were caught doing so when they doctored time stamps on their photo' evidence to make it look like people were staying longer than they really had.

Coupon-mad

You don't just believe what they say.  You put them to strict proof of it in court by adding it to your defence anyway.

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad said:

You don't just believe what they say.  You put them to strict proof of it in court by adding it to your defence anyway.

Especially as,
1 They are an unregulated parking company
2 They are UKPC and have lied before
3 They haven't provided any proof they had a contract with the landowner at the time of the alleged event.

Redx

As above , they are correct at this time , but not at the exhibits stage in several months time when it needs producing by the legal team , not the DPO , so perfectly understandable at this time. Hence why your Defence puts them to strict proof , or should do

ox141jf

would you be willing to give me a rough idea of how to structure that request?

patient_dream

I would suggest that given the info you have read, and the help in the Newbies thread, you now start to compose your WS and post it here for comments.

UKPC refusing to provide a contract is just children behaving badly. This is passed on to the legal who then cloud dreams onwards.

1: UKPC are refusing to prove they have authority to issue tickets and so they must provide this in court.   And that contract will depend on what they are actually allowed to do.  I doubt the contract says they are allowed to harass you or for a legal to add fake charges

2: UKPC are known fraudsters, that is proven. it was in the media all over the UK.   Nobody can believe anything UKPC says with one exception and that is their legal ... DCBL ?    

Please, don't get scammed by UKPC or their legals 

Le_Kirk

patient_dream said:

I would suggest that given the info you have read, and the help in the Newbies thread, you now start to compose your WS and post it here for comments.

@patient_dream, I believe that the OP is still at the defence stage.  Unless I am mistake, they were still composing defence on 16th December.  OR, are you suggesting they start to compose a WS now?

patient_dream

Le_Kirk said:

patient_dream said:

I would suggest that given the info you have read, and the help in the Newbies thread, you now start to compose your WS and post it here for comments.

@patient_dream, I believe that the OP is still at the defence stage.  Unless I am mistake, they were still composing defence on 16th December.  OR, are you suggesting they start to compose a WS now?

More so getting ready as there is a lot to do

Fruitcake

ox141jf said:

would you be willing to give me a rough idea of how to structure that request?

As long as you aver that the site had been sold for development, and that the claimant did not have a contract with the landowner at the time of the alleged event, then you will (should) get to see the alleged contract at the WS/exhibits stage.


Just crack on and include all the points I advised yo to add to the template defence. As C-m said, don't squeeze it all in to your paragraph 3, but split it out into two or more relevant paragraphs. Don't forget to renumber all the paragraphs that follow.
Do also note that other parts of the template refer back to specific paragraph numbers. If you add extra paragraphs you will need to adjust any references so they point to the new paragraph number.

ox141jf

Thank you all for your help.
This is where I am so far:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3. At the 23/01/2017 when the defendant parked at Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious parking restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not park. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking was not allowed, they would have parked at the nearby park and ride. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming to park as it was facing their back and located above eye level.

3.1.  Precedence set by the successful JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J Appeal court case on the 29th June 2016 Set forward that loading and unloading is not parking, the most relevant paragraphs of the transcript from this case being 19, 20 and 21.

3.2.  The signs are forbidding in nature therefore there can be no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be no acceptance, and therefore there can be no contract formed.

3.3. The property has been boarded up, closed and derelict since prior to 2012, UKPC has declined to provide proof that they had authority or charge to manage the parking area of the abandoned property.

3.4.   The Defendant denies accepting any contract with the Claimant. The Claimant has no right to harass the Defendant with demands for payment and threats of legal action.

3.5.   The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate.

3.6.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

3.6.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Accredited Operators Scheme, an organization to which the Claimant was a signatory.

3.6.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

3.7.The Defendant avers that the abandoned site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context.

3.8.Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant. The Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the Landowner themselves.  Meaning at most, the driver is guilty of trespass which is strictly only actionable only by the Landowner, not this Claimant.