Another one

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

C-m, the OP is (should be) following the guide to court, but I suggested that they get on record asap that the defendant cannot be held liable and the claim is vexatious because the driver's details have previously been given to the claimant before the claim was issued.

Sounds like a good move. Doesn't hurt, as long as they have also defended the claim and don't miss that deadline.

But it is really confusing to read because the draft email is just paragraphs out of the blue. It starts with no introduction about the claim or what the email is about. And there's no ending urging them to discontinue the claim, nor saying it's been robustly defended.

TheBiscuit123

Dear Sirs

Claim number : xxxxxx

I have already named the driver, whom ukpc have failed to contact, I have already transferred liability to the driver and cannot therefore be held liable, therefore the claim is vexatious and I will be claiming costs for unreasonable behaviour.

The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the "keeper liability" requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the  PoFA 2012, to make a valid claim against the keeper, the Claimant must comply with paras 4 (1) and (2) (a) and (b), and para 5 (1) (a) and (b).

Ukpc have failed para 5 (1) (b) because they do know the identity of the driver and address for service.

The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant did not name the driver and transfer liability. I urge you to cease and desist with this vexatious claim.

Fruitcake

I would suggest you begin with something like, "As per my previous correspondence with you ..."

If you know the date you gave the driver's details, then include that as well.

Make a similar complaint to the BPA.

TheBiscuit123

Ok thanks . Will send it today .

TheBiscuit123

OK so I sent it all off yesterday, now for my defense.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question on this day.

3.1  The first The Defendant heard about the parking charge was when the letters started coming to the Defendants house months later. The Defendant wrote to them telling UKPC that the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time but got no response from them. UKPC kept bombarding the Defendant with letters of debt recovery and the Defendant felt harassed by the whole situation.  The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, because UKPC never responded to the Defendants letter to transfer liability to the driver The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the "keeper liability" requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the  POFA 2012, to make a valid claim against the keeper, the Claimant must comply with paras 4 (1) and (2) (a) and (b), and para 5 (1) (a) and (b).
UKPC have failed para 5 (1) (b) because they do know the identity of the driver and address for service because I gave it to them.

3.2 The driver of the vehicle at the time told the defendant that he parked the car outside his place of work on company property at 3:50am and never saw any signs as it was dark outside. If the driver of the vehicle even saw the sign he would not of been able to read it as the writing is so small. The Claimant’s small signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and are considered incapable of binding a driver.  Consequently, it remains the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen or agreed.

3.3 The Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, from February 2018 to date, where MPs universally condemned the entire industry as operating 'an outrageous scam' typically relying upon hidden, punitive terms that purposely rely on drivers not seeing an unexpected obligation. Both the British Parking Association ('BPA') Trade Body and indeed, UKPC themselves were specifically named and shamed more than once in Parliament and the Bill was introduced purely because the industry is out of control, self-regulation has failed, and in many cases any 'appeal' is futile.

thanks in advance for advise , God knows i need it.

Coupon-mad

You don't need 3.3 because the rest of the template already covers that (and I don't recall UKPC being named - plenty were, but not UKPC that I remember).

And change any 'I' to 'the Defendant'; e.g:

 because I gave it to them.

TheBiscuit123

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question on this day.

3.1  The first The Defendant heard about the parking charge was when the letters started coming to the Defendants house months later. The Defendant wrote to them telling UKPC that the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time but got no response from them. UKPC kept bombarding the Defendant with letters of debt recovery and the Defendant felt harassed by the whole situation.  The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, because UKPC never responded to the Defendants letter to transfer liability to the driver The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the "keeper liability" requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the  POFA 2012, to make a valid claim against the keeper, the Claimant must comply with paras 4 (1) and (2) (a) and (b), and para 5 (1) (a) and (b).
UKPC have failed para 5 (1) (b) because they do know the identity of the driver and address for service because the Defendant gave it to them.

3.2 The driver of the vehicle at the time told the defendant that he parked the car outside his place of work on company property at 3:50am and never saw any signs as it was dark outside. If the driver of the vehicle even saw the sign he would not of been able to read it as the writing is so small. The Claimant’s small signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and are considered incapable of binding a driver.  Consequently, it remains the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen or agreed.

Fruitcake

Defendant's, not Defendants, in para 3.1

This needs a full stop after the word driver.

"... to the driver The Defendant as the registered keeper ..."

Perhaps amend this sentence to emphasise the fact that the claimant were aware that liability was transferred before proceedings were commenced. I would underline the word knew.

"UKPC have failed to comply with para 5 (1) (b) because they do know the claimant knew the identity of the driver and address for service because as the Defendant gave it to them before a claim was issued."

If you know the date, then say so. How did you write to them. Was it by post, in which case do you have the proof of posting, or by email, in which case do you have a copy in your sent box?
If you have proof of sending, then say so.

You should also add that this failure to transfer liability is a breach of the BPA's CoP. Look at the version in place at the time of the alleged event and quote the relevant parts.


I would renumber 3.1 as just 3, and 3.2 as para 4, and renumber all the following paragraphs.

TheBiscuit123

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question on this day.

3.  The first The Defendant heard about the parking charge was when the letters started coming to the Defendants house months later. The Defendant wrote to them telling UKPC that the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time but got no response from them. UKPC kept bombarding the Defendant with letters of debt recovery and the Defendant felt harassed by the whole situation.  The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, because UKPC never responded to the Defendants letter to transfer liability to the driver. The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the "keeper liability" requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the  POFA 2012, to make a valid claim against the keeper, the Claimant must comply with paras 4 (1) and (2) (a) and (b), and para 5 (1) (a) and (b).
UKPC have failed para 5 (1) (b) because the claimant knew the identity of the driver and address for service as the Defendant gave it to them before the claim was issued.

4. The driver of the vehicle at the time told the defendant that he parked the car outside his place of work on company property at 3:50am and never saw any signs as it was dark outside. If the driver of the vehicle even saw the sign he would not have been able to read it as the writing is so small. The Claimant’s small signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and are considered incapable of binding a driver.  Consequently, it remains the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen or agreed.

TheBiscuit123

is that better now?

anything else ?