Default judgement entered for UKPC PCN

Ale88WL

Le_Kirk said:

Ale88WL said:

In terms of documents: We are bringing hard copies of Right of Audience of Lay rep, DefenCe, WS (mine and the Claimant), Pace v. Mr N. judgement, some pages of the BPA code of practice (on land ownership, grace periods, and photos), and a file from the land registry showing that the freehold was sold to another company in 2015 (their agreement was with a company in 2011 and the PCNs are 2017) - even if this was not included in the WS, I thought it may be worth to show the judge.

We are also bringing the original Tenancy Agreement (attached to the WS) and i printed the article from the news about UKPC being disciplined by BPA.

Presumably you have previously supplied all this with your witness statement and evidence.  Edited to say I've just read that it was not supplied with the original WS.  It is unlikely that the judge will allow it as the claimant could/will accuse you of ambush!

@Le_Kirk To clarify the only think not supplied with the WS was the land registry document - as I found out later. The rest is either mentioned or referenced in the WS

IloveElephants

Ale88WL said:

Court hearing tomorrow morning. Any tips or do/don'ts? A bit nervous, but determined  

My husband will try to be the lay rep.

In terms of documents: We are bringing hard copies of Right of Audience of Lay rep, Defense, WS (mine and the Claimant), Pace v. Mr N. judgement, some pages of the BPA code of practice (on land ownership, grace periods, and photos), and a file from the land registry showing that the freehold was sold to another company in 2015 (their agreement was with a company in 2011 and the PCNs are 2017) - even if this was not included in the WS, I thought it may be worth to show the judge.

We are also bringing the original Tenancy Agreement (attached to the WS) and i printed the article from the news about UKPC being disciplined by BPA.

TIA

 i printed the article from the news about UKPC being disciplined by BPA. 


Please send me that article so I can bring to my court case next month, thank you 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34402322

I'm guessing you are referring to this? Thank you

Ale88WL

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

I printed these ones suggested by @Coupon-Mad.

Ale88WL

Update: the hearing was adjourned because DCB Legal (and weirdly the Judge) did not receive our WS bundle.
While I showed the Judge copies of the email we sent to both the court and DCBL, he said he understands but he cannot make justice and not let the Claimant instructed solicitor not to respond to our WS. Below a diary of the day (sorry if too long):

We arrived in court (Leeds combined Court) at 9:30 and it was already quite busy. We checked in and my husband asked to assist as a lay rep. The usher went to ask the judge for confirmation and he (DDJ Rafferty) said he had no problem with that. Hearing was set at 10AM While we waited, we were approached by Mr G. (the solicitor instructed by DCBL). To be fair he was a very nice guy, and he did not try at all to propose a settlement and the usual things you read (while we saw other solicitors being much more aggressively trying in the same room).

Around 10, we entered Judge Rafferty's chamber, we went through the usual introduction of who is who. Then, to my surprise, the Judge said he had received the claim and WS from the Claimant but only the defence (and no further evidence) from the defendant. At this point the lay rep showed the judge the receipt of the mail sent to court. Judge Rafferty asked a few minutes to look over our WS bundle. He complimented its level of detail and organisation, which I was pleased about. He asked Mr G. if he had received my WS bundle from the legal representative. Mr G. said he did not, to which Judge Rafferty added "it seems not to be an uncommon thing we see in cases like this".

Then, he asked Mr G. to proceed, noting that the Claimant's witness was not present. Mr G. started by acknowledging the fact that I had (back in the day) the right to park my car on the premises. However, he immediately continued with the usual failure to display the permit, contract very clear from the adequate signs etc. He pointed out the exhibit of their WS showing the landowner agreement that preceded by 6 years my tenancy agreement.

Mr G. wanted to move to the next point (the other PCN we had in the case), but the Judge asked him whether it was not too much for the Claimant to have issued the PCN, despite the fact they have been told I had the right to park there (which the Claimant acknowledged). Mr G. replied that it is part of the contract to display the permit, as the parking warden cannot go knocking door by door asking about whose car it is. Mr G. then tried to resume, but the Judge turned towards the lay rep asking if he wanted to say something on this point.

The lay rep started with a preamble that the issue of the parking warden could have been easily resolved with a whitelist of the car plates allowed there. Then, he pointed out to the Judge that according to the tenancy agreement, there was no reference whatsoever regarding the right to park on condition to display the permit. He cited Pace v. Mr N. (2016) in this regard, to which the Judge nodded. Next, the lay rep drew attention to the fact that, according to one part of the contract, the Claimant should have adhered to the BPA code at all times, but they did not, as they were disciplined  for doctoring photos.

On this point, Mr G. shouted that "the lay rep cannot give evidence without supplying the claimant with that" and the Judge interrupted the lay rep saying that he did not want this type of discussion and "mud throwing" at the claimant. The lay rep apologised saying there was no intention to throw mud at the Claimant, yet this was a fact confirmed by BPA and of public domain. Mr G. continued with his comments on the evidence that are not there, but the Judge cut him off by saying that "by being in court he would trust what the lay rep brought in front of him as he would do in case Mr G. had done the same.
Mr G. then asked a question to the Judge saying "if the defendant had a permit and they did not have to display it, why they would have it?". To this point, the lay rep replied that as the permit indicated the allocated parking bay, the defendant could have used it as a reminder for themselves or to signal to other motorists that that bay was occupied not to create confusion. In any case, the lay rep continued, there was no obligation to display the permit in the defendant's tenancy agreement. To this last point, Mr G. said that 1) he did not see this tenancy agreement; 2) the Claimant had another contract with the landowner that preceded the tenancy asking to issue tickets to any vehicle without a valid permit.

At this point. Judge Rafferty said that is evident that we are facing "a conflict between two contracts" that could not be discussed further without the Claimant representative having seen the tenancy agreement. The Judge suggested adjourning the hearing, but the lay rep objected that already lots of time had been invested in this (including taking unpaid leave for the hearing) and delaying any further would not be beneficial for anyone. Judge Rafferty then suggested a recess for Mr G. to read the WS bundle and contact DCBL to see how to proceed. We then went out for around 20 minutes, while Mr G. phoned DCBL trying to see whether they received the WS bundle and did not send it to him. When he came back, he said they did not receive anything and that they do not accept any documents via mail, but that everything has to be posted to the address provided on the Claim Form. Hence, they instructed him to ask for an adjournment of the hearing.

When we went back in, Mr G. explained to the Judge the situation and asked to adjourn. The Judge then asked the lay rep his opinion, to which he repeated that it is frustrating to have that further delayed and he would not like the hearing to be postponed. The Judge said he understood the frustration, but he was in no position to make justice in a case that he defined as "not so straightforward". He also turned to Mr G. by saying that it would beneficial for the Claimant's reps to read my WS as it contains important evidence and is built around previous cases and legislation (thanks a lot to you guys ). 

So, the Judge instructed us to send a hard copy of the WS to the claimant via post to the address they indicate and also re-send (or bring) a hard copy to the court within 7 days. In terms of costs for the day, the Judge instructed to add them for the next hearing, despite us raising a point that we lost a day of work for the hearing. 

In a nutshell: frustrating experience as we did not get a sense of closure. Nevertheless, the game is still afoot and we did not lose  

Coupon-mad

Ok, so you carry on.  Sounds like he 'reserved' costs which will be decided at the next hearing (unless DCBLegal/UKPC discontinue).

By the way, DCBLegal are ALWAYS happy to send & receive WS by email and IMHO, on the balance of probabilities they did receive your WS and had it all along.

Ale88WL

By the way, DCBLegal are ALWAYS happy to send & receive WS by email and IMHO, on the balance of probabilities they did receive your WS and had it all along.

So do you reckon they were pretending not to have received it betting that the judge will side with the Claimant? 

I am also wondering whether it is the case to reshape the WS and squeeze in the land registry evidence or if should I stick to the original one (which is already relatively long and already shows the contradictions in their landowner agreement).

Also, would they be entitled to respond (perhaps by sending a new version of the contract - if it exist - to shut me down?).

Boat_to_Bolivia

I'm no expert, but when I read your summary of the day, I was enraged that the legal said they didn't accept WS by email. Every case I've read on here for months have submitted their Defence and WS by email.

Perhaps a new tactic by the pond life, but don't back down and keep fighting. Don't let the shisters win.

Coupon-mad

Ale88WL said:

By the way, DCBLegal are ALWAYS happy to send & receive WS by email and IMHO, on the balance of probabilities they did receive your WS and had it all along.

So do you reckon they were pretending not to have received it betting that the judge will side with the Claimant? 

Quite possibly. We've seen that trick a lot from legal reps.

Nothing to stop you bunging in a Supplementary WS now and including the extra evidence.  

You have to send your WS to the C anyway and they 'apparently' haven't even seen your evidence yet...so they can hardly object!

Ale88WL

Coupon-mad said:

You have to send your WS to the C anyway and they 'apparently' haven't even seen your evidence yet...so they can hardly object!

I added these bits in the WS (any comments welcome)

22. A search in the HM Land Registry revealed that the land where the car park resides has 

changed ownership on the 30th of July 2015 (so approximately two years before the incidents in this case; EXHIBIT XX). 

23. Specifically, as point 2 on p. XXX, the HM Land Registry entry shows a transfer of property between XYZ (the “Client” of the landowner agreement supplied by the Claimant in Exhibit 1 of their Witness Statement) and another company, WXD.

24. Based on these points, in 2017 XYZ was not the legal owner of the land where the car park resides, voiding the Landowner agreement signed by the Claimant in 2011.

25. In view of the changes in land ownership, the 'evidence' of the old 2011 agreement allowing £90 PCNs cannot be the only landowner agreement.  Where is the updated landowner agreement after WXD became the landowner? Where is a signed addendum or formal landowner agreement update, showing when they (supposedly) became authorised to charge £100 instead of £90? 

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Ale88WL said:

By the way, DCBLegal are ALWAYS happy to send & receive WS by email and IMHO, on the balance of probabilities they did receive your WS and had it all along.

So do you reckon they were pretending not to have received it betting that the judge will side with the Claimant? 

Quite possibly. We've seen that trick a lot from legal reps.

Nothing to stop you bunging in a Supplementary WS now and including the extra evidence.  

You have to send your WS to the C anyway and they 'apparently' haven't even seen your evidence yet...so they can hardly object!

My thoughts exactly, I would love to be a fly on the wall when you use that WS and the claimant objects and tells the judge it is different to the one they received ........... Oh!