UKCPS and Moorside court claim.

Coupon-mad

Mir-kat said:

Just to give an update on my case. Had the mediation call. 

I explained to the mediator about why the keeper is not liable in this case and that Moorside should abandon this claim. Moorside told the mediator that they are entitled to claim from the keeper.

notice to keeper



Right at the top of the letter it says "NON POFA" does that mean that there is no keeper liability? And so the PCN is not enforceable since my hubby never told UKCPS who was driving.

So it seems that Moorside lied to the Mediator. What bottom-feeders they are.

Either way, I hope you are both planning on lending your weight to the consumer responses to the new Public Consultation.

Mir-kat

I've recieved a leter from moorside legal with witness statements. 

The hearing is scheduled for 14th October so I need to get my witness statements and exhibits sorted out today. 

I'm in a bit of a tizzy as I realise I must have missed a letter or email somewhere from the courts. 

I'm drafting a witness  statements now and checking the forum for help with that. I'll be emailing it to the court and the claimant today.

Here is the copy of the witness statement sent to me from moorside. I know its really a lot to ask at short notice and I hold my hands up I should have been more on the ball with this. 

Coupon-mad

Your deadline was in your Hearing Order.

Recent WS are by:

@Char27 (who won in court this week)

and @Feyla

Mir-kat

Hi this is what ive got for my witness statement so far.

Reading through the claimants WS ive picked apart the inconsistencies. Ive provided the pictures in refer to in my WS

 

Witness, Statement of <Defendant >

I, (NAME), of (ADDRESS), will say as follows:

I make this statement in support of my Defence dated 02/05/2025. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Introduction 

1. In October 2023, I am unsure of the exact date, I recieved a letter from UKCPS informing me I was liable for a parking charge for the car with registration <reg no>. I am the registered keeper of this vehicle. 

2. Defendant is not the driver

2.1 The letter informed me the parking event occured on 12/10/2023 at 14:53. I was working at that date and time. I therefore could not be the driver. Exhibit ZA1 is provided to support this. It shows my timesheet for 12/10/2023 showing I was working all day including the time of the alleged contravention.

2.2 The only pictures provided in the letter were very low quality images of the car in question and did not show the driver. I therefore was unable to identify the driver using the information provided to me by UKCPS.

2.3 Since the letter stated at the top "NON POFA" I believed UKCPS were not invoking Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act and therefore as the Keeper, I was not liable.

3. Examination of Claimant's evidence - signage

3.1 In paragraph 11 of the Claimant's Witness Statement, the Claimant states that the signs are "large" and "highly visible" 

3.2 In the SG2 exhibit the Claimant provides pictures of the signs in-situ and in all of these pictures the signs cannot be read. 

4. Examination of Claimant's evidence - pictures of driver

4.1 I note that in paragraph 17 of the Claimant's Witness Statement, the Claimant states the driver "was observed leaving the land" and presents exhibit SG4 to support this. 

4.2 The exhibit SG4 consists of 3 pictures, 2 of which show only the car in question; the third has a picture of a person in it but the head is pixelated so I cannot identify them. 

4.3 Furthermore, the pictured individual is standing by a different car so it is not by any means certain that this is a picture of the driver.

4.4 I would respectfully submit that the reason the individual's head is pixilated is because the Claimant is aware that this individual pictured is unrelated to this claim and their identity is obscured to comply with data protection. So for the Claimant to then state in their Witness statement that this is a picture of the driver leaving the site is rather incongruous.

5. Internet Templates

5.1 In paragraph 28 of the Claimant's Witness Statement the Claimant states that the Defence was copied from an Internet forum. I drafted my Defence myself by adapting a Defence provided on an Internet forum however I took the time to understand the issues and legislation involved and how it related to my case specifically. Other users of the forum did help guide me in this process. 

5.2 The very existence of templates to help lay people defend against private parking companies on these Internet forums simply highlights that private parking companies are all trying the same underhanded tactics against law-abiding motorists. 

5.3 Since the Claimant is aware of these forums I would respectfully direct the Claimant to all the posts detailing cases that private parking companies discontinue before a hearing. Private parking companies waste a lot of courts' time with spurious claims that are cancelled at a late stage.

5.4 In paragraph 29 the claimant quotes case law referencing Stamp & Ors v Capital Home Loans Ltd and the provided quote seems like a clumsy attempt to characterise my Defence as poorly written with no knowledge of the legal issues involved.

5.5 I respectfully ask that the Claimant clarify what part of my Defence was "nonsensical" or contained "home-made legal labels and maxims"

6 Summary

6.1 In the mediation, my representative made very clear to the Claimant that the Defendant was not the driver and therefore he was not the one liable for the parking charge.

6.2 The claimant acknowledges they are making a claim against the driver and I have provided evidence that I am not the driver. 

6.3 The Claimant has not provided me with sufficient information for me to identify the driver so to subsequently use my inability to then name the driver as proof of myself being the driver is an extraordinarily ridiculous argument.

6.4 For the reasons outlined in my Defence and further elaborated in this Witness Statement and in light of the inconsistencies I highlighted in the Claimant's purported evidence I respectfully submit that the claim has no merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

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.

Coupon-mad

Yep - a good start - but you haven't included any of the usual exhibits the NEWBIES thread tells everyone to include. Please read post 2 about WS and evidence stage.

And I didn't see you go into any detail to tell the judge why the PCN is clearly not capable of keeper liability, on wording and/or dates.

Mir-kat

Coupon-mad said:

Yep - a good start - but you haven't included any of the usual exhibits the NEWBIES thread tells everyone to include. Please read post 2 about WS and evidence stage.

And I didn't see you go into any detail to tell the judge why the PCN is clearly not capable of keeper liability, on wording and/or dates.

Do I need to still explain about the keeper liability if the claimant says explicitly in their Witness statement that they are pursuing the Defendant as the driver?

Paragraph 32 of the witness statement  reads "The Claimant submits that they are entitled to seek repayment of the debt owed to it via legal proceedings. The Claimant confirms the Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle"

Also would it be really petty of me to point out that their Witness statement has a repeated paragraph and 2 paragraphs numbered 27?

I am working on revising my witness statement to cover the points you mentioned but I just wanted to check

Coupon-mad

Ah OK, I think it's OK not to have to go into detail about lack of keeper liability, if they are openly saying they are only pursuing driver liability.  It is clearly not pleaded as keeper liability, then!

And do briefly call out their mess of a WS. 

Mir-kat

I've got my latest draft of the Ws.

I added in Excel v Smith and VCS v Edward as they address the point that a keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver which is what Moorside are trying to claim.

I didn't  add in Chan and Akande to my WS although I did mention them in my defence. I'm just not sure how to incorporate it coherently into my WS as I feel the Claimants WS did address that point.

Will that count against me?

Witness, Statement of <Defendant >

I, (NAME), of (ADDRESS), will say as follows:

I make this statement in support of my Defence dated 02/05/2025. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Introduction 

1.1 In October 2023, I am unsure of the exact date, I recieved a letter from UKCPS informing me I was liable for a parking charge for the car with registration <reg no>. I am the registered keeper of this vehicle. 

1.2 The letter informed me the parking event occured on 12/10/2023 at 14:53. I was working at that date and time. I therefore could not be the driver. Exhibit ZA1 is provided to support this. It shows my timesheet for the month of October 2023. It shows I was working all day on 12/10/2023 including the time of the alleged contravention.

2.3 The only pictures provided in the letter were very low quality images of the car in question and did not show the driver. I therefore was unable to identify the driver using the information provided to me by the Claimant.

2.4 Since the letter stated at the top "NON POFA" I believed UKCPS were not invoking Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act (Exhibit ZA2) and therefore as the Keeper, I was not liable.

3. Examination of Claimant's evidence - signage

3.1 In paragraph 11 of the Claimant's Witness Statement, the Claimant states that the signs are "large" and "highly visible" 

3.2 In the SG2 exhibit the Claimant provides pictures of the signs in-situ and in all of these pictures the signs cannot be read. 

4. Examination of Claimant's evidence - pictures of driver

4.1 I note that in paragraph 17 of the Claimant's Witness Statement, the Claimant states the driver "was observed leaving the land" and presents exhibit SG4 to support this. No details are provided as to who this witness was that allegedly observed the driver leaving the site.

4.2 The exhibit SG4 consists of 3 pictures, 2 of which show only the car in question; the third has a picture of a person in it but the head is pixelated so I cannot identify them. 

4.3 Furthermore, the pictured individual is standing by a different car so it is not by any means certain that this is a picture of the driver.

4.4 I would respectfully submit that the reason the individual's head is pixelated is because the Claimant is aware that this individual pictured is unrelated to this claim and their identity is obscured to comply with data protection. So for the Claimant to then state in their Witness statement that this is a picture of the driver leaving the site is rather incongruous.

5. Internet Templates

5.1 In paragraph 28 of the Claimant's Witness Statement the Claimant states that the Defence was copied from an Internet forum. I drafted my Defence myself by adapting a Defence provided on an Internet forum, however I took the time to understand the issues and legislation involved and how it related to my case specifically. Other users of the forum did help guide me in this process. 

5.2 The very existence of templates to help lay people defend against private parking companies on these Internet forums simply highlights that private parking companies are all trying the same underhanded tactics against law-abiding motorists.

5.3 Since the Claimant is aware of these forums I would respectfully direct the Claimant to all the posts detailing cases that private parking companies discontinue before a hearing. Private parking companies waste a lot of courts' time with spurious claims that are cancelled at a late stage.

5.4 In paragraph 29 of the Claimant's Witness Statement the Claimant quotes case law referencing Stamp & Ors v Capital Home Loans Ltd and the provided quote seems like a clumsy attempt to characterise my Defence as poorly written with no knowledge of the legal issues involved.

5.5 I respectfully ask that the Claimant clarify what part of my Defence was "nonsensical" or contained "home-made legal labels and maxims"

5.6 I would also like to point out that on page 4 of the Claimant's Witness Statement there are two paragraphs labelled 27 and paragraph 25 and the first instance of paragraph 27 are identical in wording. This begs the question how can the rest of the Claimant's Witness Statement be taken seriously if there are such basic errors in it?

6 The Defendant is not the driver.

6.1 In the mediation, my representative made very clear to the Claimant that the Defendant was not the driver and therefore was not the one liable for the parking charge.

6.2 The Claimant acknowledges in paragraph 32 of their Witness Statement that they are making a claim against the driver and I have provided evidence that I am not the driver. 

6.3 The Claimant has not provided me with sufficient information for me to identify the driver so to subsequently use my inability to then name the driver as proof of myself being the driver is an extraordinarily ridiculous argument.

6.4 In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outside the POFA. Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all). HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed and Excel's claim was dismissed.

 Exhibit ZA3- Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith

6.5 Furthermore, in April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation. HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed

Exhibit ZA4 -Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward

6.6 For the reasons outlined in my Defence and further elaborated in this Witness Statement and in light of the inconsistencies I highlighted in the Claimant's purported evidence I respectfully submit that the claim has no merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

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.

Exhibits

ZA1 - October 2023 timesheet

ZA2 - Link to schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

ZA3 Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith

ZA4 Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward

Coupon-mad

@Kpmp54 is a recent poster who had Chan & Akande and also Smith, Edward & Wilkinson.

You do need Chan and Akande. They can't rescue a vague POC with later WS words.

Mir-kat

I've added in the criticism of their POC with references to Chan and Akande as section 2 of my WS so it comes after the introduction and before I start picking apart their evidence in section 3.

I need to start putting this all together in a file but I can't find the transcripts for Excel and VCS cases as I've listed them as exhibits.


2 Defective Particulars of Claim
2.1 The Particulars of Claim (“POC”) are sparse and fail to plead adequate detail of the alleged conduct, the terms breached, or how the contract was formed.

2.2. Two recent persuasive appeal authorities are directly on point.
In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (15 August 2023, HHJ Murch, Ref. E7GM9W44) (Exhibit ZA3) the court held that “the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract.”

2.3 In Car Park Management Services v Akande (10 May 2024, HHJ Evans, Ref. K0DP5J30)
(Exhibit ZA4) the court held that typical private parking claim particulars fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD16, because they do not set out the basic facts needed to prove the claim.

2.4 The POC in this case suffer from the same defects. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 or, in the alternative, to give it little weight.