Default judgement entered for UKPC PCN

Ale88WL

Taiko said:

Just out of interest, would the initials of the person who signed their WS happen to be JL? 

Yup, that's correct.

Mouse007 said:

I'm a bit confused, do you or do you not have the Claimant's Witness Statement?

If you do you tear it to pieces in your WS, line by line, like I did in the example linked in my last post.

I didn't have when I wrote the fiurst post. And then it came via post the morning after.

I have done it so far thanks, quoting verbatim many things they said and pounding them with counter-evidence. Let's hope the Judge will see the merit.

Taiko

Ale88WL said:

Taiko said:

Just out of interest, would the initials of the person who signed their WS happen to be JL? 

Yup, that's correct.

Mouse007 said:

I'm a bit confused, do you or do you not have the Claimant's Witness Statement?

If you do you tear it to pieces in your WS, line by line, like I did in the example linked in my last post.

I didn't have when I wrote the fiurst post. And then it came via post the morning after.

I have done it so far thanks, quoting verbatim many things they said and pounding them with counter-evidence. Let's hope the Judge will see the merit.

Thanks. I imagine there are numerous errors and assumptions within his WS, perhaps more so given that, according to UKPC's own site, he didn't join them until Dec 2020. How much of his statement about what happened is actually from his own knowledge, I wonder?

https://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/newses/meet-joel/

As others have mentioned, might be worthwhile posting up a redacted version of his statement, removing personal information if you want the gang here to assist in picking some holes in it. If you want to search my post history as well, you'll find a recent court report where he had provided the WS, which might have been put together just as sloppily. 

Ale88WL

Taiko said:

Thanks. I imagine there are numerous errors and assumptions within his WS, perhaps more so given that, according to UKPC's own site, he didn't join them until Dec 2020. How much of his statement about what happened is actually from his own knowledge, I wonder?

https://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/newses/meet-joel/

As others have mentioned, might be worthwhile posting up a redacted version of his statement, removing personal information if you want the gang here to assist in picking some holes in it. If you want to search my post history as well, you'll find a recent court report where he had provided the WS, which might have been put together just as sloppily. 

Thank. Yes, I Googled the name and found that too. In his WS he refers mostly to the usual arguments about landowner contract, adequate signage, correctness in the debt recovery procedures etc.

Can share his redacted WS (and mine) here tomorrow perhaps. Will just take me some time as they only sent the print version, so have to scan the pages.

Ale88WL

Actually took me less then expected to scan.

Here is the redacted Claimant's WS (signed by JL): 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dudopklq46yr4o0/Claimant's WS redacted.pdf?dl=0 

Claim is for two PCNs: one for not display car park permit and another one for loading/unloading in "restricted hours" (even if there was no sign saying what those hours were).

Will finish my WS and upload that too tomorrow.

All comments/help welcome. 

Coupon-mad

Observations:

- interesting that the landowner authority is dated from 2011 by 'Stewart Devlin' of UKPC (I understand that he is one and the same as the notorious 'Stewart (different surname)' of Debt Recovery Plus, so says an independent online source I read a while back),

- more relevant to your case:

(a) the landowner authority only allows UKPC to issue tickets for £90.  Therefore the signage and the NTKs demanding £100 are (going by this evidence) unauthorised by the managing agents and thus, void;

(b) the landowner authority requires that UKPC adhere to the BPA Code of practice at all times during the contract. They didn't, in fact they came very close to being expelled and were actually banned from accessing the DVLA keeper database from 18 September to 4 November 2015 (UKPC admitted falsifying evidence photos) and were investigated by the BPA a second time in 2016:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35253759.amp

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/dvla-stamps-on-parking-company-that-cheated/

and then they were banned again in March 2018 as part of a DVLA and BPA investigation about data misuse (purportedly and allegedly for misleading recipients about UKPC's ability to obtain DVLA data during the 2015 ban):
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-courier-advertiser-angus-and-the-mearns-edition/20180501/282621738334297

In view of (a) and (b) and in view of the likelihood that the Managing agents who signed in 2011 were no longer running the site by 2017 anyway(??) the 'evidence' of the old 2011 agreement allowing £90 PCNs cannot be the only landowner agreement.  Where is the updated one after UKPC had been banned, or a signed addendum or formal landowner agreement update, showing when they (supposedly) became authorised to charge £100 instead of £90? There must have been a gap while they were banned (because BPA CoP breaches invalidated this landowner agreement) and there must have been a new agreement if £100 was ever authorised. So, where is the new one and when was it dated...and were they actually authorised by any managing agent in 2017 (specifically between the DVLA ban periods and during the BPA's 2016/17 long Code breach investigation that finally appears to have led to the 2018 ban)?

(c) all the photos of the signs in 2017 are illegible. It is impossible to make out any terms. One of the signs has three pictograms and one has four, so there is already ambiguity: did 3 terms apply, or 4, and what did they say in 2017? No idea.  But the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says at  S.69. (1) “If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.” This is an objective statement. It doesn’t require interpretation of an unclear or ambiguous term to decide what it really says. Instead, it focusses on difference. If the trader who drafted terms reasonably think a term means A, but a consumer sees two conflicting messages and/or has a reasonable belief that it means B, there is no longer a need to decide which of A and B is the intended or the more probable meaning.  The mere presence of different understandings reasonably held allows the consumer to prevail – without further discussion.

(d) The 'stock' image of a UKPC sign template is no evidence at all; it is undated, unconfirmed as relating to that car park and states they can charge £100, which contradicts the landowner authority. There is no stock image if the sign with just 3 pictograms/terms so the court and Defendant has to guess what the contractual terms said, do they?  One pictogram is an image of double yellow lines but the car is not seen on double yellow lines nor even on a 'roadway'.  It looks like a bay outside the building; there is even something on the cobbled surface that looks like a metal disc 'parking bay divider' delineation marker.  There is certainly a 'reasonable belief' that this is a bay (there are no yellow lines or hatchings excluding parking and no sign prohibiting it) and UKPC themselves seem to want the court to accept that it is indeed a bay (a loading bay) therefore the consumer's interpretation must prevail. 

(e) the landowner authority only sets out 3 terms and none of those allow a £90 (or is it £100?) penalty for "being in a loading area in restricted hours without loading" (and there was no sign saying what those 'restricted hours' were).  There is no evidence that the driver was not loading items into the building, which would inevitably mean the car would be briefly unattended. Further, where is the evidence that this was even a 'loading area', since there are no visible surface markings nor even a sign depicting it as one?

(f) the photos are taken mere minutes apart, which is in itself a breach of the BPA CoP in 2017 which required a minimum grace period of ten minutes - or even longer depending on circumstances, such as the minutes taken to fetch a resident's permit from inside a flat and bring it to the car to display.

(g) Where is the evidence the driver wasn't just doing that, or unloading, which was held in the persuasive appeal case of Jopson v HomeGuard B9GF0A9E, as allowable for residents and absolutely distinct from 'parking':
https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf

HHJ Harris QC, sitting at Oxford heard this case on appeal in 2016 and held at paragraph 21:

"Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice."

(h) the Claimant's witness statement is full of repetition and assumption, even fully repeating some template paragraphs in full in the middle section.  Seems to be the usual DCBLegal template WS with the signature page tacked on the end.  And he/she won't show up to the hearing and cannot be cross-examined on any of the above (and didn't work for UKPC in 2017) immediately giving this witness statement far less weight than that of the Defendant, a true witness.

Ale88WL

Thanks @Coupon-mad, helpful, accurate, and sharp as always

Should probably finish my WS today, so will upload it here in case someone has advice to avoid mistakes/nonsense, especially when citing previous cases. 

Ale88WL

Here is my WS. Appreciate any comments and suggestions anyone here can have. 

TIA

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s5mgbijx097eesg/Redacted Witness Statement and Exhibits Case XXXX.pdf?dl=0 

1505grandad

Some observations:-

Para 24  -  (typo) "....valid and (bounding) contract."

Para 26  -  " I have included a copy of this sign (“EXHIBIT 8”) for comparison.

On the actual exhibit it is (typo) shown as (9).

Para 57  -  is this correct (or c & p)  -  "....as there were no Claimant signs clearly and prominently displayed on the approach road to my workplace car park, upon which my vehicle was parked. The very words “clearly and prominently displayed” are actually taken from the Claimants PCN details in relation to the Claimants signs (as to how they should be). It is denied that signage exists on this road; therefore it is denied I am in breach of terms and conditions."

Typo in the Index  -  there is no middle "e" in Judgment  -  see Transcript.

Coupon-mad

If you want the court to accept this bundle by email, get it under 50 pages.  Otherwise we find courts say 'we can't print this for the hearing'.

I'd remove paras 45. 46 and 51 which all say the added fake admin fee is banned (it isn't, yet).  Nothing is list in meaning by deleting those and re-numbering the lower section.

And if you compress then merge (using a free PDF tool) some of your photos into one 'merged PDF' string of photos, and have just one divider page introducing those photo exhibits, I think you might get it under 50 pages.

A very good WS!

Was the MA in  2017 the same as the firm who signed in 2011?

Ale88WL

Thanks both @1505grandad and @Coupon-mad for the comments. Really appreciated!

I corrected the typos and will look for more. Thanks also for the tip to reduce it to 50 pages or less. Didn't know the Court would not print. Will remove those paragraphs and compress pictures so that I go below 50 pages.

Coupon-mad said:

Was the MA in  2017 the same as the firm who signed in 2011?

Yes, in 2017 it was the same company managfing the flats (and UKPC the car park).