5 years and 3 months after the alleged PCN - recieved a claim form

Coupon-mad

None of it matters but that is terrible parking!   UKPC will discontinue regardless of facts/photos.

nanana13

hi all just to add i have read the thread but not much on this tbh. i wil look again. its worth a mention that  photos of the PCN stock to  front window does not show the plate number.

nanana13

Hi all

Please let me know if this defence is ok or do i need to provide more????

1)     Contract with landowner - no locus standi: UKPC do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such it is not believed that  UKPC has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with the registered owner of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. UKPCS have been unwilling to supply forthwith a copy of the relevant sections of the contract that they are stating that (a) the contract is, in fact, with the landowner and (b) the limit of UKPC authority to levy charges as some landowner contracts do not, in fact, grant that authority or the limit the landowner sets for such things. As  a register keeper I  require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner not just a slip of paper saying that it exists.) This renders the register owner’s capacity for a full and informed defence.

 

 

2)      The signage informing motorists of the terms and conditions at Leyton Mills Retail Park car park does not meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. The driver did not observe any signage on entering the car park or from the position where the car was parked or during walking from the car to the shops and the photograph provided to the register owner is unacceptable as the rei s no way to read anything on the signage, the blurred photograph is out of focus and does not meet the necessary evidence to be counted as null and void.

So it is concluded that UKPC signs are not clear and no contract was formed with the driver or registered keeper.

3) The charge is punitive and unenforceable. The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable under contract law. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. I require UKPC to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular so called ‘contravention’. UKPC cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible but were no breaches to occur in Leyton Mills car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.

According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land can not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. For the record, the alleged contravention occurred in an otherwise empty car park. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''

UKPC cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss, especially given the empty car park. The parking charge shall be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge, and without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all. There is no genuine loss being pursued.

This challenge is based on the assertion that UKPC parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to UKPC or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal. Given that no paperwork was ever received by the registered keeper till the claim form, no appeals were made to POPLA by registered keeper/driver. I must inform the Court that as a register keeper I claim my expenses from UKPC and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc.

 

Coupon-mad

That's not based on the Template Defence you were signposted to use.

nanana13

Dear Coupon-Mad  I know yuo have helped a lot of people and everyone is eternally grateful as am I,

I have gone through 243 pages of thread which is then ogne to other threads and more.

i Found this

3b). The claimant has not stipulated what the breach of contract was, nor provided any images or timings during which the aforementioned contravention is alleged to have taken place.

3c). The Defendant has not owned the aforementioned vehicle since 2018 and has since moved to a new address. The Defendant first heard of the alleged contravention upon receiving the first of a series of harassing 'debt recovery' letters to the Defendant's new address in January 2021, threatening to make a television spectacle of the Defendant. This was nearly 5 years after the alleged contravention. The letters appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored this threatening “Debt Collection” type letter believing it could be part of a scam.

3d).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 the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4. In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that notice to keeper must be delivered within the relevant period. Where the relevant period is defined as the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

3e). The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

3f). Following on from [3d] and [3e], where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have issued a compliant notice to keeper.

3g).The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request.

which is based on my prsumption of the old law as i have been reading the

freedom act of 2012..

Perhaps i am on the wrong ???? there is so much information.

You provided this

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

I did.. unless I am being real thick I couldnt find a template as such that

KeithP

nanana13 said:

You provided this

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

I did.. unless I am being real thick I couldnt find a template as such that

I wrote that and I was expecting you to read the second post of the NEWBIES thread and find this...

nanana13

I just found 2 other things

One is the NTK was send over 28 days after the issue of the ticket.. is it suppose to be 28-30 days or 56 days?

also the picture evidence proivded on the NTK does not show the alleged offence.

nanana13

Thank you Keith P ..just found it .. i been at it for 6 hours. I will start adding my claim number and stuff tommrow.

And send it off as you instructed.  thank u all so so much for your help.

Coupon-mad

Yes but you do need to show us your additional points you plan to add, which are not about the POFA or not owning the vehicle nor any of the other wordy stuff you found.  You need to add your facts (and not call it an 'offence').

nanana13

hi all

my ex has just go tback to me and is telling me he will call them to say he was the driver. how do i proceed?