Defence for a Private Parking Ticket

SeanKar

Hello all,

I’ve received a Claim Form from the County Court relating to a claim by UKCPM. AOS done and now looking for advice on what could be best said as a defence in point 3 of the template kindly provided by Coupon-mad.

Essentially I’ve received a ticket in a residential car park whilst visiting a friend back in 2020. No visitor permit displayed, just a blue badge, naively thinking it would be fine to park. Returned to the car and no ticket was on the windscreen but found debt recovery letters coming to my address in 2021. There were also another 2 tickets issued apparently earlier in 2020, again with nothing left on the windscreen, just the letters received in 2021. I haven’t received any Claim Forms for these earlier two.

I saw the admin fees they were asking for on top of the £100 fine which I’m assuming I would’ve had a period to pay at a discounted rate had I received earlier notices, and I thought sod them and I didn’t bother looking into it, thinking they wouldn’t chase anything up and it was pretty much ignored.

Now as far as I understand from the newbie guide and the various threads on here, there’s perhaps grounds for striking out the claim for Abuse of Process as they are demanding these “contractual costs”. This is all that’s stopped me from making the full payment at this stage. Not sure if this is of any relevance but the admin fee in the previous debt collection letters was lower than what they’ve requested in the Claim Form not including the added interest.

So I’m not sure in terms of what I could possibly say as a best defence for this. Do I go down the route of just saying I wasn’t aware of the fine until a much later stage when the discounted rate wasn’t available to me anymore plus the added cost of the admin fee?

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Many thanks.

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

You can't get the whole claim struck out for abuse of process. You can hopefully get the fake add on fees dismissed as already detailed in the template.

You need to get hold of a copy of the resident's lease/AST/property rental agreement to see what it says about parking, permits, visitor parking, PPCs, paying PCNs, and court claims. This will have primacy of contract over anything an unregulated private parking company who was not a party to the lease etcetera.
What it doesn't say is just as important.
In addition, get a statement from the resident being visited stating that the driver had permission to park in accordance with the resident's rights.

Also, get pics of the site and signage.

SeanKar

Thanks for the reply and your advice Fruitcake.

Fruitcake said:

You can't get the whole claim struck out for abuse of process. You can hopefully get the fake add on fees dismissed as already detailed in the template.

I'm anticipating as much, although I think some threads have suggested there is precedent for some cases to be struck out because the judge didn't want to encourage these sort of charges. I'll wait and see..

Unfortunately I'm not able to get hold of the AST as suggested to see what it says, friend has moved and doesn't have copies anymore. Can get pics however.

Any ideas on how I should word my defence for point 3?

Coupon-mad

I'm anticipating as much, although I think some threads have suggested there is precedent for some cases to be struck out because the judge didn't want to encourage these sort of charges.

Used to happen until last Autumn, when HHJ Saffman thought he'd put a stop to it in VCS v Percy, where costs were awarded despite VCS supplying no evidence of having incurred any costs whatsoever, less still proof of having sent any debt chaser letters.  IMHO the judgment was wrong and was based on a presumption of costs and a misunderstanding of the complete lack of work involved in passing a case to a no-win-no-fee DRA.  The costs were also not quantified in the contract on the sign (prominently, or at all). 

The Judge also took into account the Government's proposals in 2021 on the added £70 costs, where they were going wrong and luckily delayed for a second Public Consultation (thanks to PPC World, we think...according to the BPA in Parking News, anyway. In 2021, they were partially taking credit for forcing a second public consultation IIRC).  

But all that has changed!

Happily, this month, the UK Government (DLUHC) effectively put HHJ Saffman - and PPC World - right on the legality and aim of the added false costs (and the new statutory draft Code should be a lesson and mandatory reading for the handful of remaining Judges - such as HHJ Simpkiss - who also the same presumptions and let legal reps talk them into what we see as wrong/unfair judgments). 

HHJ Jackson from Bradford area was right all along - good on her!  

Read this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79013061#Comment_79013061

So, it (a strike out) might happen again soon at a court near you!

Added wording there in that link above, re the false 'costs'.  Use it to replace some of the wordiest rambles in the Template Defence that I need to edit!

The Template Defence tells people what to put in point 3.  The facts about the car park, etc.