UKPA - Moorside legal - Money claim online

Bazarius

if you were the driver or as passenger then you should write the WS in first person otherwise it’s hearsay .

Can we see the sign they allege to have formed a contract . Poorside will refer exactly what sign formed contracts with drivers in their WS . A lot of the time they get it wrong .

Check if the sign actually state that the parking charge must be paid within 28 days .

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82019104#Comment_82019104

@Coupon-mad any ammendments you could suggest to the WS before i send it?

1505grandad

Para 14 - incorrect spelling - " (the principle contractor for construction)"

Is this para correct/relevant?:-

"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."

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82019308#Comment_82019308

nope, think thats a section i've missed from jacks registered keeper issue. I'll remove it. thanks

Coupon-mad

Those aren't actual signs in situ. Are you telling us they've got no photos from that year, only signage mock ups? If yes, attack that at the hearing too!

And the landowner not authorising this Claimant (Limited Companies are legal entities and can't be a 'subsidiary' of another). This is major.

Your WS looks good.

Get it signed & dated and saved as a PDF, with your exhibits as a compressed PDF attachment, and put these in tonight by email and include in the email subject line:

URGENT: DEFENDANT'S WITNESS STATEMENT - HEARING FRIDAY 5th JUNE - CLAIM NO XXXXXXX

Then in the body of the email mention that you did not receive any Hearing Order whatsoever, and as such, the Claimant's email was the first you knew of the hearing date. Therefore there should be relief from sanctions for 'lateness'.

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82019428#Comment_82019428

They did include a selection of photos. However they're all very bad quality, and if the time and date stamp on the bottom left of this photo is correct, they're from november 2022.

Kinda looks like 08/11/2022 11.28 to me

2022 was the year the parking contract is dated and signed, so looks like they went round and took a bunch of photos and have been using those ever since.

krisboats

It also appears the solicitor has put the contract as exhibit DN2 then made a numerical error and listed the photographs as section DN2 as well.

The pdf contains:
Exhibit DN2
Exhibit DN2
Exhibit DN3

Coupon-mad

Yep the ladder tells you that's when the signs went up. Nice blurry pics really won't help them.

There's another point anout that sign. It has '9yards Derby' all over it! Important because UKPA Ltd are only 'an agent of an agent' and have not made the contract their own.

The name of the principal appears far more prominently than the agent, so the authority of Fairlie v Fenton applies. The 'disclosed principal' (the named landowner) makes the offer and agents cannot sue in these circumstances.

Add that to your WS if there's time. If not, raise this at the hearing as well as the binding authority of Hancock v Promontoria if the supposed landowner authority document is heavily redacted.

Search the forum for my thread about a parking court case I won about 3 years ago, by relying on Fairlie v Fenton and Hancock v Promontoria

Did you get this emailed tonight?

Put what I said on the covering email.

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82019563#Comment_82019563

The contract they supplied does appear to be quite redacted. There is no mention anywhere of 9yards derby, which is apparantly the new name for what was once meteor retail park derby. Although this could also be redacting merely the details of the witness signing the statement.

So am i right in thinking that as the signage doesn't actually have UKPA on it, as anything other than an administrative party in a single line of small print nor hozzah parking, that it can't be suggested i knew i was entering into a contract with them?

krisboats

I added the fairlie v Fenton section as follows:

20. The supplied evidence for signage very prominently names 9 Yards derby as the owner of the
property. UKPA appears to be mentioned in small print at the bottom of the sign, although this is
only vaguely legible in the supplied evidence within DN3 and is not at all visible, clear or
mentioned in any of the text show in exhibit DN2.
The name of the principal appears far more prominently than the agent, so the authority
of Fairlie v Fenton applies. The 'disclosed principal' (the named landowner) makes the oAer and
agents cannot sue in these circumstances.
According to the signage it would appear UKPA are listed merely for administration purposes.
3
Simultaneously the signage infers that 9Yards derby is the landowner and the wording implies
that 9yards derby are the one with whom the alleged contract is being made.

It has now been wrapped up as a pdf and i will send the email across to both parties now.