County Court Claim Form from UKPC

Let's hope that's the end of them then, as well as all other BS PPCs.

beamerguy wrote: »

OK, so you have learned a lot today about the scam industry

UKPC will read this forum, they all do because this is where
the zapping starts

Your first job tomorrow is to discover who gave UKPC the
authority and the most important one is who gave UKPC
authority to erect signs that refers to the terms in another
car park.

One step at a time

SCS Law may well not understand the implications and
the impossible position they have been placed in

However SCSLaw has suffered humiliation in court
for lack of understanding and knowledge of the scammers
industry

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=scs+law

Brilliant. First course of action is to find out the above, got it. I'll give Wech, the HA, a call and see what they say. What exactly did you mean by "terms in another car park?"

My defence posted up above...is there anything wrong with it? No one seemed to have noticed.

Thanks very much for your help.

beamerguy wrote: »

The first picture says terms in main car park

Someone, and we have some very good real solicitors
on here giving advice for free will be along to comment
They will give you the best advice. That of course includes
coupon-mad, Redx and Umkomaas, and plenty of others
too numerous to name

My contribution here is to use lateral thinking and point out
the obvious that can be easily missed. The court stuff, I prefer
to leave it to the professionals

Well explained, thank you beamerguy.

I shall do that. The DVLA are no better. As asked previously, why are they being allowed back on? Two months? For what reason? Was it pending an investigation? Again? Those are really good questions to ask Wech CM, thanks a lot. I'll be sure to ask them that and will report what they say back here.

Here's my defence again:

Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.


Background

3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

4. It is denied that any "parking charges or loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5. The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

6. It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material dates, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

7. The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charges in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

8. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

9. It is stated within the Tenancy agreement that "The Tenant has the right to occupy the Premises without interruption or interference from the Landlord for the duration of this Tenancy so long as the Tenant complies with the terms of this agreement and has proper respect for other tenants and neighbours".

10. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

11. The Defendant avers that the operators signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

11. Accordingly it is denied that:
11.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
11.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
11.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
12.1 It has been noticed that the signage within the Premises does not add up to the amount claimed by the Claimant, inciting doubt and arousing questions as to where the extra "charges" have come from.

13. How can there be a "legitimate interest" in penalising residents for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is contrary to the requirement of good faith and "out of all proportion to any legitimate interest" to fine residents or their visitors for using the parking spaces provided.
13.1. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

14. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

--

I added a few points but most others, as they're UKPC and similar to the case here, fits the bill. Thanks for the help CM.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, good.

Remove 11.3 because the claim is not for 'loss' and that point has no legs.

I've re-ordered and re-numbered these for you and moved the heading:

Morning CM!

Thank you very much. I've amended it below with your help.

--

Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.


Background

3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

4. It is denied that any "parking charges or loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5. The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

6. It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material dates, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

7. The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charges in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute.

8. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

9. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

10. It is stated within the Tenancy agreement that "The Tenant has the right to occupy the Premises without interruption or interference from the Landlord for the duration of this Tenancy so long as the Tenant complies with the terms of this agreement and has proper respect for other tenants and neighbours".

11. The Defendant avers that the operators signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

11. Accordingly it is denied that:
11.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
11.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
12.1 It has been noticed that the signage within the Premises does not add up to the amount claimed by the Claimant, inciting doubt and arousing questions as to where the extra "charges" have come from.

13. How can there be a "legitimate interest" in penalising residents for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is contrary to the requirement of good faith and "out of all proportion to any legitimate interest" to fine residents or their visitors for using the parking spaces provided.
13.1. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

14. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

--

Today I'll follow beamerguy's advice and call Wech, asking the questions you provided CM. I'll report the answers back here.