compiling defence for unfair parking ticket, county court business centre stage

Ysekots

Oh sorry I forgot to mention, I redacted all names, addresses (except Ukpc and dcb legal’s work address’), number plates and case/ PCN references.

Ysekots

Annoyingly they don’t keep a record of won appeals. I didn’t receive their initial letters because they were going to my previous address which I had already vacated. I got five pcns in total, one of them I appealed when I finally got one of the letters and I requested it be used as a blanket appeal for the others. I won that appeal but they said I needed to appeal the others individually. At which point those others had already been passed on to debt collectors and thus I was no longer allowed to appeal them. 

Ysekots

this screenshot is the only proof I have that I won the appeal mentioned above 

Fruitcake

I'll have a look at their WS later, but do not fret.

1) UKPC signs are always inadequate because the wording is in tiny font, and the charge for breach of Ts and Cs is tiny.
2) You have primacy of contract on your side
3) UKPC will very probably you an offer of a reduced payment once they have seen your WS, then discontinue shortly after.

There is a thread started by @Umkomaas listing all the cases we know about that have been discontinued just before the hearing date. It numbers somewhere in the region of 300 dropped cases since the thread was started.

Coupon-mad

Ysekots said:

this screenshot is the only proof I have that I won the appeal mentioned above 

I wouldn't bother with that anyway.

Exemplar WS are in the NEWBIES thread.

Ysekots

Also I’ve seen that the below section should be added to a witness statement in cases against Ukpc/dcb legal. But I’m unsure if this applies to my situation as I don’t fully understand what it means. Is it referring to the unspecific wording on the signage, or their regurgitated arguments when pursuing the defendant through the courts? If the latter, I’d say their witness statement seems to be quite detailed and specific and addresses every point of my defence so therefore wouldn’t apply to my case.

Fruitcake

It's referring to the particulars of claim on the actual claim form that often say nothing more that the driver breached the parking terms displayed on signs at the site, but without stating which terms were actually breached.
It could have been an overstay, or failing to pay, or not displaying a ticket/permit, or parked in a gimmick bay (parent and child), or not parked within bay markings, or leaving site, or failing to stand on one leg and sing the national anthem.
How is the defendant supposed to know, and how can they possibly defend the claim if they don't know which parking term was allegedly breached.

Fruitcake

Have you complained to the Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association? I note it is registered with Companies House as a Mutual, and is covered by the rules of the FCA.

A mutual is owned by, and run for the benefit of, its members. Mutuals exist for the members to benefit from the services they provide.

In your case, you have received no benefit. Indeed, you have received quite the opposite.

There is nothing offered to you that you do not already have. You have a right to park, and presumably a right to quiet enjoyment. Being given demands for payment by an unregulated private parking company that was caught doctoring time stamps on its photo' evidence is a breach of your quiet enjoyment, and since it is offering nothing, you cannot have agreed, therefore there can have been no contract formed, therefore no breach.

Fruitcake

Points to note on their WS.

Did you keep proof of sending a copy of your lease to UKPC. In para v they state you never sent a copy of your lease. You should rebut this anyway, but if you have proof then even better.

With regards to the contract, did UKPC redact the names/signatories? If so, this is unreasonable as determined in the case of Hancock v Promontoria. This was an appeal case and is therefore persuasive on the lower courts.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 details who can sign a contract with another party to make it legally binding. Signatories must have the authority to form a contract. It's very short, so worth reading.

43 Company contracts

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a contract may be made—

(a) by a company, by writing under its common seal, or

(b) on behalf of a company, by a person acting under its authority, express or implied.

(2) Any formalities required by law in the case of a contract made by an individual also apply, unless a contrary intention appears, to a contract made by or on behalf of a company.

By redacting the names of the signatories, there is no proof either person had the authority to form a contract.

Don't be surprised if the judge dismisses this point, but it won't hurt to include it. If the claimant, or even the judge says it is inadmissible because it wasn't in your defence, cite Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This states that determining the fairness of contract terns must be considered in court even if they have previously been brought up by either side. The judge in the above case redactions are inappropriate, meaning it's not fair.


Now for the signs.

There is not one single photo' of a sign at the material site. All the signs included in the claimant's WS are stock images held on a computer. The clarity and lack of screw-holes is a giveaway. There is not a single shred of evidence that any of the signs shown in the WS are actually at the site in question, nor at the location shown on the site maps which are nothing more than satellite images with lines and blobs drawn on them.
If they were, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that images of signs actually in situe would have been included in the WS. The fact they are not implies that on the balance of probabilities, they do not exist, nor are they illuminated.

There are no images of the car parked, let alone parked near a sign. The only images provided by UKPC are of the vehicle in motion on each occasion.
The claimant is put to strict proof that there were signs at the material location, at the material time, near where the vehicle stopped whilst loading and unloading took place that were so prominent the driver could not have failed to see them. Refer to Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule here.

In addition, there are no images of illuminated signs, which is important because at least one of the alleged events occurred at night. 

Even the stock images of signs provided by the claimant breach the British Parking Association's Code of Practice because the amount payable for breaching the terms is unreadable and in tiny font such that any sign would be unreadable and incapable of forming a contract with a motorist.

The stock images do not define the term, Registered User, nor do they state how a motorist can become one. This is an unfair contract term because without the required information, it would be impossible for any driver to become a registered user. 
This contract term is therefore void for impossibility as well as being unfair.

In addition, it is a forbidding sign. It is not offering anything to any motorist who is not a registered user. Without an offer, there can be no consideration. Without an offer and with consideration, there can be no agreement, and without agreement, there can be no breach of contract.

Ysekots

Thank you for all of your help. The initial claim form states exactly that so I can use it 🥳

also with regards to my HA, I haven’t made a complaint to them but I can definitely do so, once I have completed and submitted my WS and evidence. 

Also regarding the info you have given on the HA being a mutual. Can I use that in my WS if I haven’t mentioned anything about it in my defence?