UKPA - Moorside legal - Money claim online

krisboats

Oh this is awful. I work away from home mon-fri and have checked with my partner, 100% no post received regarding the date or a response.

Do i need to counter their points in their witness statement or simply my own? Theyve submitted a pdf with a lot more detail in it regarding dates and details. Does this inclusion of details counter our request to strike out based on the poor POC or is that still the main goal? Theres a basic generated drawing of a birds eye view of the land with an outline and a copy of the contract between ukpa and the landowner thats heavily redacted.

They seem to be arguing this on 4hours free customer parking, of which i wasn't a customer but a contractor working within a building site on their grounds.

Do i submit the images of the building site as it was?

I also have the emails of template rejection letter repsonses from my appeals, which they're saying i never filed.

Are conversations asking me to work there and emails i've sent to helixproperties allowed to be submitted as well to show i've tried to remedy this across multiple avenues?

Also lastly, am i submitting a witness statement both to moorside and to the same court address that i submitted the defence to? Do i need to do anything else, file for an extension or anything based off the late submittal?

krisboats

Dates and pcn numbers are included in their WS (with my reg omitted in this pic)

Full pdf with redacted details listed here.

Coupon-mad

"Dates and pcn numbers are included in their WS"

Yes I know. Too late for them. Re-read my point.

And believe me you have somehow overlooked a court letter in April. It was sent. You CANNOT get an extension.

Are conversations asking me to work there and emails i've sent to helix properties allowed to be submitted as well to show i've tried to remedy this across multiple avenues?

Yes. But use JackR1's case as your base because you need some of that case law too.

am i submitting a witness statement both to moorside and to the same court address that i submitted the defence to?

Yes the local court. This is not unexpected - this is a normal stage. The NEWBIES thread tells everyone about this WS stage and recommended exhibits.

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82018165#Comment_82018165

isnt the hozah, ukpa thing covered here?

Coupon-mad

That's worse for UKPA: their role is only as a PCN processor! Not managing the car park and not even named. A mere agent of an agent!

Get your WS done this afternoon. Now!

When's the hearing?

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82018659#Comment_82018659

I'm currently writing it up, editing the parts from jack R1 and adding my own details and adding images and appeals details. This kind of talk is hard to get my head around so progress is regrettably slow. The court hearing is set for 10am june 5th.

I've also added a section regarding the construction site itself. I've cited the CDM 2015 regulations as during a construction phase the management, security and access to a land is legally in control of the principle contractor. In this case that would be UCBuild the building company. Given that cdm regs outline the restriction of access and the details of entry the claimant hasn't provided a parking/land management contract with UCbuild for the area that was legally under their control to manage. Dunno if its a help but it would seem to supercede the parking management as even the landowner isn't legally entitled to entry until construction is finished and officially handed back to the owner.

krisboats

The quality of their submitted signage plan

krisboats

Is it still worth mentioning the hozzah contract? It seems to specify that the landowner lets hozzah use ukpa to send tickets and make claims

krisboats

1.  I, XXX, am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2.  In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. For the Court’s convenience, I have also included direct links where possible to the full text of any legal judgments mentioned.

3.  I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Defective Particulars of Claim

4.  The Claimant’s case is vague, lacking the detail required under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, which require a claimant to set out all facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action. The Particulars of Claim (POC) simply allege that “The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on C’s signs (the contract), thus incurring the PCN’s”. However, the Claimant provides in section 19 of their witness statement “The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions because the signs stated the following:

“4 hours free customer parking.””

The rule alleged to be broken within the alleged contract very clearly applies to retail customers at the site, of which I was not a customer and was in fact working on the construction of the new Puregym facility, parked within the separate and secured confines of the construction site which had its own dedicated parking area. Photographic evidence exhibited to this statement at (“CJ1”) shows the construction site and its denial of access to retail customers. Registration details were recorded on a daily register by the site operators to be supplied to the landowner to whitelist workers and ensure no PCN’s were incorrectly sent out whilst driving through the ANPR cameras on the entrance/exit of the shared access route. This administrative process, seemingly, has not been followed despite the registration being submitted.

5.  I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are numerous recent and persuasive Appeal Judgments to support dismissing or striking out this claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The POC seen here in my case are far worse than the ones seen on the below Appeals).

6. The first persuasive Appeal Judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (click for link) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held in paragraph 11 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”. 

7.  The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd. v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. A copy of the transcript of HHJ Evans’ judgement is included in Exhibit OW-04.

8.  The particulars of claim state the parking contraventions were incurred on the 29/07/24 and 30/07/24. The PCN’s for 31/07/24 and 01/08/24 are not included in the POC.

9. The POC fails to state where the contravention took place. It simply states “at one or more locations” and “on land managed by C”.

10. The interest for late payment (normally 30 days from the issue date of the PCN) starts from 28/07/24, a day before the contravention is alleged to have taken place.

The Claimants Authority to Issue Parking Charges

11.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue. Under the DVLA KADOE agreement and the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 9 - February 2024 (Clause 7), the right to manage this site and access my data is strictly contingent upon valid, written landowner authority. The claimant has supplied a contract between Hozah Parking limited and the landowner. UKPA are mentioned under the basis of an order form, however the order form does not appear to be included or referenced. The Claimant has failed to disclose a verified site boundary map. Unreadable signage pictures (Exhibit DN2), a "digital stock image," and an unverified aerial view are insufficient to prove the Claimant had the legal authority to operate on this specific land on 6 April 2024.

12. The claimant is outlining that they have the right to manage parking on the land on behalf of the landowner, however, under CDM regulations 2015 an active construction site is legally controlled by the Principal Contractor (in this case the construction company UCBUILD) to prevent unauthorized access. When a landowner enters into a development agreement, possession of the site is normally handed over exclusively to the contractor. Access terms should be outlined in the Construction Phase Plan. The claimant has provided no proof of contract to manage parking or access for the principle contractor of the building site, who would have been legally in control of that section of land during the construction phase. Customers to the retail park were strictly not allowed within the confines of the construction site.

13.  The Claimant’s reliance on One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] is a misapplication of law. While Wilshaw addresses the formation of a contract with a driver, it does not relieve a Claimant of the burden of proving the specific terms of that alleged contract to the Court. In this instance, the photographs of the signage provided by the Claimant in their evidence bundle (Exhibit DN2) are of such poor quality that the terms and conditions are entirely unreadable. Consequently, the Claimant has failed to provide the Court with the necessary evidence to determine the specific terms offered or to verify that a binding contract was ever formed. Furthermore, the Claimant’s assertion that landowner authority is unnecessary provided there is a 'binding contract' fails by its own logic: without legible evidence of the terms, the Court cannot conclude that any such contract exists. In the absence of both a visible Landowner Agreement and legible evidence of the contractual terms, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action.

No Valid Contract Formed

14. It is neither admitted nor denied that any contract term was breached. However, for a valid contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and something of value given in return — which was not present here. Under section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015 ( Consumer Rights Act 2015 ) the Court must apply a 'test of fairness' and this requires contract terms and any “consumer notices” to be clear and prominent. In this case the offer presented was unlimited parking within the confines of the building site for employees after submitting their name, address and registration number to UCBuild (the principle contractor for construction) upon arrival within the construction site.

15.  Looking at Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14, and 18) and section 62 of the CRA, which require fair, open dealing and good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant is known to use unclear and potentially unfair terms and notices. Based on the limited information provided in this case, the situation appears to be similar. The Claimant is therefore required to strictly prove their case with contemporaneous photographs.

16. None of the Claimant’s photographs of the signage on site (Exhibit DN2 of the Claimant’s witness statement) include readable terms and conditions, preventing the court from verifying what contractual terms were offered to motorists on these signs. Instead, the Claimant relies on a digital stock image of a sign, which does not evidence that this version of the sign— and the specific terms and conditions shown on that stock image—were displayed at the site in April 2024. In fact the limited signage very simply and solely specifies that it relates to CUSTOMER parking, not employee or contractor parking.

17.  The Claimant has provided a Signage Location Plan (Exhibit DN4 of the Claimant’s witness statement) purporting to show all signage locations on site. However, this plan is demonstrably both inaccurate and misleading. No boundary line for the construction site is present, the old store logos are on the drawing and the detail is insufficient to show anything in clarity.

18.  Not only has the Claimant failed to comply with their own applicable Code of Practice, but they have also misled the court by asserting that an entrance sign was present when it was clearly not.

19.   The misleading and inaccurate Signage Location Plan (Exhibit DN4 of the Claimant’s witness statement) raises serious concerns regarding the reliability of the Claimant’s evidence and their adherence to the required standards. Without clear, accurate, and consistent evidence demonstrating the location and visibility of contractual signage, the Claimant cannot prove that the terms were effectively communicated. As such, no contract could have been formed with the driver.

Keeper Liability and evidence of construction works

20.  I confirm that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number XXXX and deny any liability.

21. According to the claimant witness statement section 24, the claims were never appealed. I have included (Exhibit CJ3) the template replies from UKPA denying the appeals. I have also included (exhibit CJ2) the email chain to helixproperties (as instructed by UCbuild) showing that I tried to directly get the PCN charges dropped. The email responses proved unhelpful as the suggested point of contact no longer worked there.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

22.  In accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of POFA 2012, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering from the keeper any sum greater than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they existed at the time the Notice to Driver was issued. The sum claimed in these proceedings exceeds that statutory maximum and is therefore unrecoverable from the keeper. ( Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 )

23.  Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor “may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued.”   Any added sums—such as “debt recovery fees”, “late fees”, or other invented add‑ons—are not “parking related charges” within the meaning of POFA. These additional amounts do not appear on signage, are not part of any contractual parking charge, and are created solely by third‑party debt recovery agents. POFA provides no legal basis to impose keeper liability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which is denied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.

24.  To impose a PC, as well as a breach, the Claimant must show two things: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis UKSC67 (https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0280_judgment_c7f37dda32.pdf).

25.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis (click here) , confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'.

26.  The binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores EWHC4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

27.  In addition to this, the ‘additional charges’ constitutes a double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V in which £60 had been added to a parking charge.

28.  Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Following the beforementioned exaggerated costs and charges, the court is invited to strike out or dismiss the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

29. The POC also shockingly tries to claim interest (usually denoted for late payment) starting on 28/07/24. Not only is this outside of the usual 30 day late payment window, it is a day before the vehicle had ever visited the site.

Conclusion

30.  For all the reasons set out in this statement, the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules, fail to specify which contractual terms were allegedly breached, provide no details of the conduct said to amount to a breach, and give no explanation of how any contract was formed. This lack of essential information mirrors the defective pleadings repeatedly criticised and struck out in persuasive appeal authorities and has made it difficult to effectively and properly respond in one’s defence.

31. The Claimant has also failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were prominently displayed, consistent, or capable of forming a binding agreement with the driver. The Claimant’s own evidence shows inconsistent signage and an inaccurate and misleading site plan. Without clear, reliable, and contemporaneous evidence of the terms allegedly relied upon, no contract could have been accepted and no liability could arise.

32.  The Claimant also seeks an inflated sum that includes unlawful and unrecoverable additions. These extra charges have been widely condemned in higher court decisions as disproportionate, penal, and an abuse of process. Such exaggeration further undermines the credibility and validity of the claim.

33. In light of the defective pleadings, non‑compliant notices, unreliable and misleading evidence, and exaggerated charges, I respectfully submit that this claim is without merit. I therefore invite the court to strike out or dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Unreasonable Conduct by Claimant (CPR 27.14(2)(g))

34.  In the alternative to striking out the claim, I respectfully invite the Court to determine that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g). The Claimant is professionally represented by a firm of solicitors specialising in private parking litigation and cannot claim ignorance of the statutory requirements governing their own industry.

35.  As Schedule 4 of POFA provides the sole statutory mechanism in English law to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, the Claimant is knowingly asking the Court to grant a remedy for which they have provided no legal authority. By ignoring the specific issues of POFA non-compliance raised in my Defence while continuing to press a legally hopeless case, the Claimant has demonstrated a vexatious disregard for the law and caused an unnecessary waste of the Court’s resources. No reasonable litigant, let alone a specialist professional, could genuinely believe this position to be viable."

36.  Further, the Claimant has submitted misleading evidence, including an inaccurate and demonstrably poor “Signage Location Plan” unable to show with any clarity or detail, where the signage is located withing the retail park. My contemporaneous photographs, site visit, and Google Streetview image all show the construction site to be separated from the customer area within the main retail park. Such defects undermine the reliability of the Claimant’s entire evidential foundation and amount to conduct no reasonable claimant should display.

37.  Additionally, the Claimant has advanced vague and defective Particulars of Claim that fail to disclose the alleged contractual terms, the conduct said to amount to a breach, or any cogent explanation of how a contract was formed. They have also inflated the claim with unlawful and unrecoverable additional sums, including a £70 “debt recovery” add‑on that has been repeatedly condemned in higher court authority as abusive and penal. The persistence in claiming such invented sums, contrary to POFA and contrary to binding authority, further demonstrates unreasonable conduct.

38.  Taken collectively, the pursuit of a claim with no legal basis, reliance on contradictory and misleading evidence, failure to plead a coherent cause of action, and continued inflation of the claim with unlawful charges amount to conduct that “transcends mere negligence” and meets the high bar of unreasonableness established in CPR 27.14(2)(g). Should the Court agree, I seek my Litigant‑in‑Person costs for time reasonably spent researching, drafting and preparing my defence and witness evidence, in accordance with the applicable LiP rate.

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.

Jame4ters

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82018862#Comment_82018862

The fact that this agreement doesn’t name the companies involved - they don’t include “Limited” - shows how poor an agreement it is. It looks like one someone has knocked together in a rush for some reason

UK Parking Administration could be different from UK Parking Administration Ltd who presumably are the real managers of the site? Are Hozzah Parking and Hozzah Parking Ltd the same firm? Who knows?