We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
UKPC - Allocation to small claims track (Hearing)
Comments
-
1. I am ****** ******* of ************. I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.
2. On the *********I was the registered keeper of a vehicle with the registration number ********.
3. I am no longer the registered keeper of the above vehicle.
4. UK Parking Control Ltd did not have a Contract in place at the relevant times with the landowner, agent or occupier. The British Parking Controls’ Code of Practice, (exhibit 13: clauses 7.1-7.3) states that they must have the written permission of the landowner for any enforcement.
5. In my defence statement exhibit 1, dated ********, I have requested an unredacted copy of any claim they say they have that allows them to take action in their own name. To date I have not received a response from the claimant.
6. UK Parking Control Ltd do not have signs within the site that are capable of being read and/or form a contract. In my defence statement exhibit 1, ******** I requested details of the installation and maintenance regime for the signs at the location. To date I have not received a response from the claimant.
7. UK Parking Control Ltd did not issue a PCN. In my defence statement exhibit 1, dated ******* I have requested a copy of any PCN issued on the ********** as well as clear legitimate time stamped photos of the above. To date I have not received a response from the claimant.
8. After submitting a SAR request, UK Parking Control Ltd have provided a frontal photo of a car with registration number ********** exhibit 2 followed by a photo of a car’s windscreen with a PCN attached exhibit 3. There is no evidence however, that the windscreen in exhibit 3 belongs to a car with registration number *********.
9. UK Parking Control Ltd also provided a photo of the rear view of a car with registration number ******* exhibit 4 as well as a similar photo but taken further away exhibit 5. I have since visited the site and confirm that the small sign seen above the green bin in exhibit 5 is in fact a UK Parking Control Ltd sign exhibit 6. The position and size of parking sign exhibit 6 is neither prominent, visible or readable from its position. Nor is the sign illuminated in any way whatsoever so that it can be read at night.*Need to check recommended size.
10. I also observed that there are no visible entry signs present (exhibit 7). The Claimant has not produced any evidence to show they have complied with the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice (Exhibit 13: clause 18.2) by providing clear and prominent entrance signs. The BPA state that ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area’.
11. I received a letter of claim dated the ********** from DCB Legal (Exhibit 8) relating to PCN number ***********.
12. At the time I did not respond to any of the above because the Claimant had previously been disciplined by the British Parking Association (BPA) and investigated by the DVLA for alleged fraud and certain breaches of the BPA Code of Practice in altering times on photos to make profits from drivers who had not contravened at all. I therefore considered the demand baseless and from a non-legitimate 'rogue' parking operator which issues doctored tickets with false timings found to be endemic at more than one site. (Exhibits 9, 10, 11).
13. UK Parking Control Ltd did not issue a Notice to Keeper. In my defence statement exhibit 1, dated ***********, I have requested a copy of the Notice to Keeper. To date I have not received a response from the claimant.
14. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite indisputably knowing that this is now banned. It seems they have also calculated 8% interest on that false sum. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. (exhibit 12)
15. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.
16. 18. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') (exhibit 14) the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation'). If seeking keeper/hirer liability - unclear from the POC - the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance.
17. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (exhibit 15)introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.
18. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. In the case of a 'PCN', this must have been served to the driver whilst the vehicle was stationary or, at sites remotely monitored by ANPR/CCTV, served to the keeper so that the motorist learns about it quickly. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. The Defendant avers that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair dealing and good faith.
19. DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an independently signed landowner agreement (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to a defined enforcement boundary, hours of operation, any extended grace period or exemptions (whatever these definitions were) nor that this Claimant has authority from the landowner to issue charges at this place or for the reason given. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of this, and that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents for a principal, as some parking firms do. We require contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.
Statement of truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.
Signature: **********
Date: ************
0 -
You don't need to append statute law such as the CRA 2015 (and was it really Exhibit 15? The rest of your WS doesn't se to refer to 14 other exhibits).
Para 3 is not relevant so remove that...
...but boy oh boy, those first few paragraphs are where you should be strangling this case, by referring to your 2018 hearing in claim xxxxxxx and the judgment by DJ (whoever your Judge was).
Talk about res judicata, cause of action estoppel and Henderson v Henderson (search the forum and copy from other threads).
The first case kills the second if the basic rationale and facts (signs, location, same parties, same accusations) of this claim are a duplicate of that other case, in all but PCN date! You don't have to defend claim after claim about the same thing if you already won the first one.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
Hopefully the judge has enough sense to strike this out.1
-
Thank you Coupon-mad
I have amended my WS to the following. Most changes were made from paragraph 3 - 9:1. I am ***********of *****************. I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.
2. On the *********I was the registered keeper of a vehicle with the registration number *********.
Res Judicata applies to this claim in that:
3. On the ***********, the claimant has brought a very similar claim against me, as the registered keeper of another vehicle, claim number **********.
4. It is worth noting that this claim was adjourned twice prior to this, firstly because the claimant failed to respond to any of my requests for evidence e.g. The contract in place with the landowner and then on a second occasion because the claimant still refused to supply the contact in advance of the hearing and instead brought to court on the morning of the hearing.
5. The claim was eventually heard by District Judge ********, sitting at the County Court at ****************. District Judge ****** ordered that the claim was dismissed and for the claimant to pay the defendant’s witness expenses £111 by 4pm *************. The order dated 1st March 2017 is listed as (exhibit 16).
6. The Claimant ignored District Judge ********'s orders and never paid the witness expenses.
7. The circumstances in this claim mirror the same issues that District Judge ****** raised in his summary for the previous claim:
a) No locus standi – The contract presented in the previous case was between the managing agent and the UK Parking Control Ltd time was with the managing agent as opposed to the landowner. The contract did not give permission to UKPC to bring a clam in their own name. The contract was signed by the managing agent stating that they were the landowner. The title register still lists ************* as the registered owners (exhibit 17). This disposes the PCN in this claim.
b) Signage not sufficient/prominent
The location, size and views of the signs were inadequate. There were no entrance signs which is not obvious enough for drivers to assume it was not a public road.c) The charge is disproportionate
d) The claimant has ignored all requests for documents to prove contravention. Please see Paragraphs 10 – 16 as well as paragraph 19.
Cause of Action estoppel
8. Being legally represented, the Claimant knows, or should know, that Cause of action estoppel arises where the cause of action in the later proceedings is identical to that in the earlier proceedings, the later having been between the same parties and having involved the same subject matter.
By detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debts and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.
In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”
In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.9. I will attend the first hearing and will seek my full costs from the Claimant.
The similarities between the first claim, ******** and the current claim are (and not limited to) the following:
10. UK Parking Control Ltd did not have a Contract in place at the relevant times with the landowner, agent or occupier. The British Parking Controls’ Code of Practice, (exhibit 13: clauses 7.1-7.3) states that they must have the written permission of the landowner for any enforcement.
11. In my defence statement exhibit 1, dated ***********, I have requested an unredacted copy of any claim they say they have that allows them to take action in their own name. To date I have not received a response from the claimant.
12. UK Parking Control Ltd do not have signs within the site that are capable of being read and/or form a contract. In my defence statement exhibit 1, dated *********** I requested details of the installation and maintenance regime for the signs at the location. To date I have not received a response from the claimant.
13. UK Parking Control Ltd did not issue a PCN. In my defence statement exhibit 1, dated *********, I have requested a copy of any PCN issued on the ************ as well as clear legitimate time stamped photos of the above. To date I have not received a response from the claimant.
14. After submitting a SAR request, UK Parking Control Ltd have provided a frontal photo of a car with registration number ********** exhibit 2 followed by a photo of a car’s windscreen with a PCN attached exhibit 3. There is no evidence however, that the windscreen in exhibit 3 belongs to a car with ********.
15. UK Parking Control Ltd also provided a photo of the rear view of a car with registration number *********exhibit 4 as well as a similar photo but taken further away exhibit 5. I have since visited the site and confirm that the small sign seen above the green bin in exhibit 5 is in fact a UK Parking Control Ltd sign exhibit 6. The position and size of parking sign exhibit 6 is neither prominent, visible or readable from its position. Nor is the sign illuminated in any way whatsoever so that it can be read at night.*Check recommended size.
16. I also observed that there are also no entry signs present (exhibit 7). The Claimant has not produced any evidence to show they have complied with the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice (Exhibit 13: clause 18.2)by providing clear and prominent entrance signs. The BPA state that ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area’.
17. I received a letter of claim dated the ********** from DCB Legal (Exhibit 8) relating to PCN number ************.
18. At the time I did not respond to any of the above because the Claimant had previously been disciplined by the British Parking Association (BPA) and investigated by the DVLA for alleged fraud and certain breaches of the BPA Code of Practice in altering times on photos to make profits from drivers who had not contravened at all. I therefore considered the demand baseless and from a non-legitimate 'rogue' parking operator which issues doctored tickets with false timings found to be endemic at more than one site. (Exhibits 9, 10, 11).
19. UK Parking Control Ltd did not issue a Notice to Keeper. In my defence statement exhibit 1, dated *********, I have requested a copy of the Notice to Keeper. To date I have not received a response from the claimant.
20. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite indisputably knowing that this is now banned. It seems they have also calculated 8% interest on that false sum. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. (exhibit 12)
21. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.
22. 18. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') (exhibit 14) the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation'). If seeking keeper/hirer liability - unclear from the POC - the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance.
23. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (exhibit 15)introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.
24. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. In the case of a 'PCN', this must have been served to the driver whilst the vehicle was stationary or, at sites remotely monitored by ANPR/CCTV, served to the keeper so that the motorist learns about it quickly. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. The Defendant avers that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair dealing and good faith.
25. DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an independently signed landowner agreement (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to a defined enforcement boundary, hours of operation, any extended grace period or exemptions (whatever these definitions were) nor that this Claimant has authority from the landowner to issue charges at this place or for the reason given. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of this, and that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents for a principal, as some parking firms do. We require contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.
Statement of truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.
Does this sound ok?0 -
If DCB Legal are involved, the Judge won't get the chance, the claim will be discontinued. But the OP must continue to complete all the necessary court procedure phases until such time as a notice of discontinuation is received.Ed2022 said:Hopefully the judge has enough sense to strike this out.
Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street4 -
Flipping heck I remember your case now, I used to use your statements as a good example at the time!
And flipping heck: they never paid your costs?!
Bung that sum (plus interest at 8% APR since the Order...calculate it) on your costs assessment for this new claim!
Put it in NOW with this bundle and state in the costs schedule that you will require a costs hearing to settle the outstanding costs from both claims at once, even if the Claimant discontinues.
Do you also have the final Judgment or Order from the last case? Add it as an exhibit because the new Judge can't look it up - EDIT: I SEE YOU HAVE.
I think you need to remove 'has' from para 3 because that's the present tense. Doesn't read right.
I'd also remove the fact it was about a different car. To all intents and purposes the claim turns on exactly the same facts as last time. Never mind the car.
And here, don't put 'this claim' because that means 'this' current one:It is worth noting that this claim was adjournedPRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD2 -
Para 10 - "The British Parking Controls’ Code of Practice, ....." - should be:-British Parking Association5
-
As Umkomaas says above, if it's DCBL trying to take another RUBBISH UKPC claim to court ? This is your game to play .... NOT DCBL
In their quest to scam money in the past, UKPC used another legal called CST LAW trading as Credit Style .... such a disaster ... it went to the SRA
There are only a few legals who get involved with the parking scammers, at the moment one of them is DCBL, doubtful that any other legal would touch UKPC with their rubbish claims.
That is probably why DCBL discontinue UKPC claims rather than get spanked in court.
There is good reason for the SRA to investigate DCBL FOR THEIR TIMEWASTING via MCOL and to the courts
And for the MoJ to be informed
Ask your MP to bring this to the attention of the SRA, ESPECIALLY THIS THREAD >>>>DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1
1 -
Thanks - will dopatient_dream said:As Umkomaas says above, if it's DCBL trying to take another RUBBISH UKPC claim to court ? This is your game to play .... NOT DCBL
In their quest to scam money in the past, UKPC used another legal called CST LAW trading as Credit Style .... such a disaster ... it went to the SRA
There are only a few legals who get involved with the parking scammers, at the moment one of them is DCBL, doubtful that any other legal would touch UKPC with their rubbish claims.
That is probably why DCBL discontinue UKPC claims rather than get spanked in court.
There is good reason for the SRA to investigate DCBL FOR THEIR TIMEWASTING via MCOL and to the courts
And for the MoJ to be informed
Ask your MP to bring this to the attention of the SRA, ESPECIALLY THIS THREAD >>>>DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p10 -
Coupon-mad said:Flipping heck I remember your case now, I used to use your statements as a good example at the time!
And flipping heck: they never paid your costs?!
Bung that sum (plus interest at 8% APR since the Order...calculate it) on your costs assessment for this new claim!
Put it in NOW with this bundle and state in the costs schedule that you will require a costs hearing to settle the outstanding costs from both claims at once, even if the Claimant discontinues.
Do you also have the final Judgment or Order from the last case? Add it as an exhibit because the new Judge can't look it up - EDIT: I SEE YOU HAVE.
I think you need to remove 'has' from para 3 because that's the present tense. Doesn't read right.
I'd also remove the fact it was about a different car. To all intents and purposes the claim turns on exactly the same facts as last time. Never mind the car.
And here, don't put 'this claim' because that means 'this' current one:It is worth noting that this claim was adjourned
Thanks guys - I've made all amendments now1505grandad said:Para 10 - "The British Parking Controls’ Code of Practice, ....." - should be:-British Parking Association
Just need to do the costs assessment..1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards