Repost of: Multiple PCNs for parking in flat car park

Jams91 · 4 January 2022 at 9:47AM

Thread on Pepipoo http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=142688&pid=1685594&mode=threaded&start=0#entry1685594

Situation:

In 2017 I was the registered keeper of a car that parked in a resident's bay without a permit. UKPC took me to court in 2018 and lost when the judge ruled a permit was not required as it was not mentioned in the lease. Additionally I was awarded £500 of damages on my CounterClaim.

In 2017 I was the registered keeper of car #2 that parked in a resident's bay without a permit. In late 2021 UKPC have followed up on this and I have a Money Claim issued against me.

On 4/1/21 I have contacted my local MP and the Managing Agents

Help needed:

I have acknowledged service and have until 10th Jan to submit a defence (which I built from a template on here) and my counterclaim. Requesting feedback on these 2 pieces, posted separately below

Thanks

Jams91 · 4 January 2022 at 9:48AM

Here's the defense below. Note this is just the changes I made not the full template

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3 The location in question is a residential car park where the Defendant lives as a leasehold owner.

4. The lease Particulars contain an Allocated Parking Space- “The parking space shown on the Plan 1 being part of the Parking Spaces”

5. The lease requires the Defendant to “Not to use the Allocated Parking Space for any purpose other than for the purpose of parking a private motor vehicle”.

6. The vehicle in question was indeed a private motor vehicle

7. Cause of action estoppel applies here; UKPC have already brought a case against the Defendant to court in the same residential car park. District Judge Devlin adjudged that UKPC’s claim be dismissed. Additionally the Defendant was successful in counter claiming £500 from UKPC for “damages for breach of s13 of the Data Protection Act 1998”.

8. The Claimant is estopped from bringing further claims after 16/03/2018 when the prior judgement ordered that “The Claimant’s claim be and is hereby dismissed”.

9. Despite this judgement, the Claimant is continuing to pursue the Defendant for £815.12

Jams91 · 4 January 2022 at 9:49AM

Counter Claim draft

CounterClaim

I XYZ of ABC am Counter Claiming in this case and will say as follows

1. The Defendant raising this counter-claim against the Claimant, is the registered keeper of the vehicle with the registration number XXX

2. My lease does not require a permit to be displayed in a private motor vehicle in the car park

3. UKPC issued the vehicle with multiple PCNs, despite myself having the right to park

4. Cause of action estoppel applies here; UKPC have already brought a case against the Defendant to court in the same residential car park. District Judge Devlin adjudged that UKPC’s claim be dismissed. Additionally the Defendant was successful in counterclaiming £500 from UKPC for “damages for breach of s13 of the Data Protection Act 1998”. UKPC is estopped from bringing further claims after 16/03/2018 when the prior judgement ordered that “The Claimant’s claim be and is hereby dismissed”. By continuing to harass myself for money, despite the earlier adjudgment, UKPC has acted in a venal and vexatious manner.

5. The Managing Agents have caused a nuisance by appointing UKPC whom have then targeted me; an individual that they already know has the right to park there. UKPC has a very poor reputation as a basic online search shows. The Managing Agent should have realized that UKPC are not a suitable firm to bring onto a residential development. The evidence here shows how the firm have faked tickets in 2015 to fine drivers. 2011http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html (See HH/10 Telegraph Article)

6. The above evidence shows that there was never a “a 'reasonable change', to introduce this notorious ex-clamper firm whose business model meant they could profit from withholding or not issuing permits to some residents, then fining them for not displaying a permit they never had or knew about.

7. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (See HH/11 Consumer Rights Act 2015) states “A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer”. Given that there was a significant imbalance to my detriment, the Managing Agent has breached the consumer rights act

8. I am claiming for the sum of £500 due to the Claimant breaching the Data Protection Act and also for a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act.

9. The Data Protection Act 1998 (See HH/12 Page 29, Data Protection Act 1998) states that “An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if-

a) The individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or

b) The contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes

10. I have suffered distress from the repeated use of my personal data being used to demand money from myself.

11. I refer to Parking Eye V Beavis 2015 (See HH/13 Parking Eye V Beavis) were it was stated that “And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced”

“Code of Practice” refers to the IPC Code of Practice (See HH/14 IPC Code of Practice)

The Claimant has misused my personal data that they acquired from the DVLA and had no reasonable cause to obtain it in the first place

12. The relevant language of the Protection from Harassment Act reads as follows:

Prohibition of harassment.

1(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

Offence of harassment.

2(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

Civil remedy.

3(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.

(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.

13. It is claimed that the Claimant has harassed the Defendant with repeated demands for money over from Nov 2016 until the present day.

14. I refer to Ferguson Vs British Gas 2009 (See HH/15 Ferguson V British Gas) whereby British Gas were ordered to pay £10,575 for breaching the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

15. I refer to Chartered Trust plc V Davies 1997 (See HH/16 Chartered Trust V Davies) whereby it was concluded that "If one man agrees to confer particular benefit on another, he must not do anything which substantially deprives the other of the enjoyment of that benefit: because that would be to take away with one hand what is given with the other."

''...And the real issue is whether the landlords were liable for that conduct. An important subsidiary issue that emerged on the case law cited before us was whether the landlords were under any legal obligation to intervene to put a stop to any nuisance caused...''

''What is clear is that the landlords could have acted to stop the {nuisance conduct}... Instead, the landlords prevaricated and did nothing. They could have acted effectively, and they should have done so. Instead they chose to do nothing, and thereby made the premises materially less fit for the purpose for which they were let. In failing to act to stop the nuisance, in my judgment the landlords continued the nuisance and derogated from their grant.

The trial judge found this to be a repudiation of the lease - a substantial interference with the tenant's business driving her to bankruptcy. That was a judgment he was entitled to come to on the evidence he heard.

Accordingly, I agree with the judge's conclusion, albeit that I have reached it by a different route. I would dismiss this appeal.''

The Judge found that the landlord had failed to interfere with a nuisance that made the premises materially less fir for the purpose for which they were let and had therefore continued the nuisance and derogated from their grant. This is a similar situation to the one that I find myself in since the introduction of a permit scheme patrolled by UKPC.

16. I refer to Vidal-Hall V Google Inc 2015 (See HH/17 Vidall-Hall V Google). . In Vidal-Hall, it was held by the Court of Appeal that compensation was payable upon the fact of breach, misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary.

17. I also refer to Halliday V Creation Consumer Finance 2013 (See HH/18 Halliday V Creation) which provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750

“However, having borne all those points in mind, in my judgment the sum to be awarded should be of a relatively modest nature since it is not the intention of the legislation to produce some kind of substantial award. It is intended to be compensation, and thus I would consider it sufficient to render an award in the sum of £750. It seems to me that that sum is appropriate and sufficient.”

18. In conclusion, this notoriously aggressive claimant company should have never pursued me for an offense that wasn’t committed and had absolutely no business to obtain my personal data, causing myself undue stress and loss of peace of mind and should be made liable to pay for my distress.

STATEMENT of TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for con-tempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

Jams91 · 4 January 2022 at 9:52AM

I lifted this verbiage from the 2018 court case with UKPC... I don't know if they switched from IPC to BPA AoS since then.

If they are no longer an IPC member does this mean that I can't reference Parking Eye vs Beavis?

1505grandad said:
I advised:-

"UKPC are BPA AoS members."

You stated afterwards:-

"EDIT: New Counter Claim draft"

Yet the following seemingly stand alone statement still appears:-

“Code of Practice” refers to the IPC Code of Practice (See HH/14 IPC Code of Practice)