UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED COURT PAPERS

patient_dream

STRUCK OFF

ANOTHER UKPC/DCBL DUST BITER

DCBL went into all this UKPC rubbish with their eyes wide open ?
Many would say more blinkered

Umkomaas

patient_dream said:

STRUCK OFF

ANOTHER UKPC/DCBL DUST BITER

DCBL went into all this UKPC rubbish with their eyes wide open ?
Many would say more blinkered

Haven't reached the 6th February yet. Steady there fella!

https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/n0/8e4zecc0eusm.jpg

patient_dream

Umkomaas said:

patient_dream said:

STRUCK OFF

ANOTHER UKPC/DCBL DUST BITER

DCBL went into all this UKPC rubbish with their eyes wide open ?
Many would say more blinkered

Haven't reached the 6th February yet. Steady there fella!

https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/n0/8e4zecc0eusm.jpg

whoops, read it as january ...  don't know why

edutu

 I dont know what added paragraphs are but this is the defence :

• 
  
  
  _________________________________
  DEFENCE
  _________________________________
  • I am the Defendant for this matter, the Defendant’s name is .....the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark....
  • The facts as known to the Defendant: the Defendant arrived at the site in the morning for
  an important meeting (it was at the time when the new £1 coins came into circulation and
  the machines were not updated); the machine stated that coins were available from the
  cafe but it was closed; the Defendant proceded to town to obtain coins, upon his return
  the Defendat purchased a ticket and sent it to the Claimant with the appeal, explaining all
  the above.
  • The keeper denies any breach of any alleged terms.
  • The claim is from 5years ago,. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show they fully
  complied with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 to hold myself (the registered keeper)
  liable for this charge.
  • A subject access request has been sent to the claimant to obtain all historical paperwork
  as after all this time nothing is retained.
  • The operator is put to strict proof to show their signage on the material date confirmed to
  the Supreme Court ruling 2015 Parking Eye v Beavis and Lord Denning’s “red hand
  rule”.
  • The defendant will state the following caselaw to back this up. PCM v Bull
  (B4GF26K6), UKPC v Masterson (B6QZ4H3R), Horizon Parking v Mr J (C5GF17X2).
  All these cases found the case was one of trespass, the parking company did not have
  standing to bring a claim.
  • The Defendant denies that the Claimant has standing to bring this claim. The proper
  Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of authorileading from the landowner to the Claimant, and that the Claimant has the locus standi to
• bring this matter to court.
  
• • The Claimant is put to Strict proof to prove any contract they intend to rely on is in their
  own name.
  • The Claimant has added substantial additional costs to this charge with no explanation as
  to why a charge that started out at £60 ended up at £317.92. The Defendant believes these
  additional costs are disproportionate, have not been incurred, are in breach of CPR44.3
  (2) which states only amounts that are reasonable and proportionate will be allowed,
  amount to double recovery, are nothing more than a blatant attempt to bypass the limits
  put of these charges by both Sch 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Supreme
  Court ParkingEye vs Beavis rulings and are an abuse of process.
  • The claimant is claiming a global sum of £160 in relation to this parking charge. It is an
  abuse of process for the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a sum which it is
  not entitled to recover. This matter was recently determined by Her Honour Judge
  Jackson, sitting at Bradford County Court on 1
  st
  July 2020, in Excel Parking Services v
  Wilkinson (case no: G4QZ46V).
  • In her judgement, HHJ Jackson makes it clear that, whilst the core £100 parking
  charge may have been recoverable by the claimant, the additional £60 taints the claim
  in that it is either an attempt at double recovery, or an attempt to go behind the costs
  rules in CPR 27.14. In either case, the entire claim should be struck out, as an
  expression of the courts disapproval of such conduct by the claimant. The court is
  therefore, invited to strike out the claim ab initio as an abuse of process, using its case
  management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
  • ) On the 4th September 2019 case number F2QZ4W28 concerning Vehicle Control
  Services Ltd -v- Mr Jonathon Davies, was before District Judge Jones-Evans at
  Caernarfon County Court. It was ordered that the claim was struck out as an abuse of
  process. Reasonings for this was :-
  “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant
  period of time warned advocates appearing on behalf of the claimants in many cases of
• 

  this nature before this court that their claim for £60.00 is unenforceable in law and is an

  abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the

  Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum

  claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre estimate of loss and

  therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a

  claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby Ordered

  and Declared a) This is a claim for the global sum of £160 b) It is a penalty and

  unenforceable in law c) It is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision

  of the Supreme Court in Beavis d) The claim is struck out and declared to be wholly

  without merit and an abuse of process.”

  • This echoed earlier judgements with similarly inflated costs such as in November 2018

  case number E8GF1V7V concerning Manchester UKCPM v Esplanade Limited, at

  Newport County Court IOW. It was ordered that the claim was struck out as the claim

  contained a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the

  Defendant contracted to pay. The additional charge was not recoverable under the

  Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Par4.5 nor with reference to the judgment in

  ParkingEye v Beavis. It was ruled an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a

  knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

  • In two more recent claims F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at

  the County Court at Southampton, and on the 13

  th

  June 2019 case number F6GF424Z

  concerning UKCPM v Mr Craig Longhurt before Judge Grand also at Southampton

  County Court, both claims were struck out as an abuse of process, echoing the reasoning

  of the earlier ruling of Nov 2018 in both cases.

  • The claimant has issued this claim with that same inflated amount that they cannot legally

  recover and the Defendant invites the court to exercise its powers to similarly strike out

  this claim for the above reasonings.

  Statement of Truth
• 

  I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt

  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.

  
  

Mouse007

Oh dear, you have rather muddled your Registered Keeper, Defendant, Driver position there.

Drop the POFA bit going forward, the admission to being the driver stuffs that defence position.

Red hand rule is good to see along with some other good points about signs and land owner authority.

I think the abuse of process is now a problem point following more recent judgments.

I suspect your Claimant will come back and kill off your POFA and Abuse of Process points quite strongly.

If this moves to Witness Statement stage you will need to focus on the other winning points - the instruction to go and find new £1 coins (lack of grace peroid to do so), the signs (clear prominent and bound to be seen T&Cs) and land owner authority.

Coupon-mad

Whilst you didn't use our template defence, you've covered all the important  bases.

edutu

Received reply to defence by email...

edutu

Update: received notice of trial date for summer, the very next day had a missed call that went to mail box, guess what it was  lucy from dcbl asking me to call back, same the next day and the one after so i have 3 voice messages on my box now; i am tempted, very tempted to take the call and annoy them by asking to confirm date of birth, address and postcode (for security of course) and then ask to put their offer in writing and ignore it all the same..

Coupon-mad

You appear to have put in a counterclaim? How was that pleaded, what wording please?

They have a section headed 'defence'.

Surely you didn't plead and pay for a counterclaim ...that fee is likely down the drain if so.  You do not counterclaim for your costs, and I doubt you have a cause of action or any chance of winning whatever counterclaim went in, but let's see your wording to be sure.

They have also admitted it is non-Pofa, which would only help if you were not the driver, but you already stated in the defence that you were.  So that's neither here nor there.

If they are calling you, agree to drop the wasted counterclaim if they drop the claim.  That's it.

edutu

no @Coupon-mad i did not put any counter claim just followed the due process also for the heads up the "Notice of Trial Date" does not include deadline for witness statement anymore but when i called the court (regarding CEL) the clerk said "we recommend 14 days..)