Claim - UK Parking Control & SCS Law

I've written up a draft defence, the deadline for submission is 4pm on Tuesday 29th May (based on the service date 5th May).

Claim Number: [claim no]

UK Parking Control Ltd v [name]

Statement of Defence

I am [name], the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle [vehicle reg], which is the subject of these proceedings. I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

1. The evidence received does not match the Particulars of the Claim.

(a) There were no parking charges referenced:
(i) "[ticket 1]" on [date 1];
(ii) "[ticket 2]" on [date 2];
(iii) "[ticket 3]" on [date 3];
(iv) "[ticket 4]" on [date 4];
(v) "[ticket 5]" on [date 5].

(b) The Particulars of Claim are assumed to be entirely invalid, and it is requested that the Court strike out the claim.

2. Furthermore, the Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea why the charge arose Do I not contradict myself here in my other points?, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

3. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.
(a) The Claimant are not the lawful occupier of the land.

(b) Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to UK Parking Control Ltd.

(c) A contract was provided as evidence, however this was only for an initial period of 12 months in 2014.

4. There is no photographic evidence showing the £100 parking charge on the signs, nor any subsequent charges.
(a) The "photographic evidence" received from the Claimant are blurry, unreadable, and do not show any legible terms and conditions that form a contract the Defendant is alleged to have agreed to.

(b) The Claimant, UK Parking Control were previously caught tampering with photographic evidence to unfairly impose parking charges and have recently been banned from the DVLA (maybe put this somewhere else, or omit entirely?). It is therefore requested that clear photographic evidence is provided displaying signage in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Section 18, and the vehicle in contravention of the terms & conditions.

5. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued.

(a) For each parking charge, the Claimant claims a sum of £160 as the "Amount Claimed", totalling £800. However, each Notice To Keeper received states a parking charge of £100, which leaves £300 in additional costs arising from the parking charges alone.

(b) In addition, the Claimant is claiming £70 in "Solicitor Costs".

(c) It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs, be it legal or debt collector costs. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each parking charge, and that those sums formed part of the contracts in the first instance.

6. It is denied that a contract was formed when the vehicle was parked on the double yellow lines on [date 4] and [date 5].
Note sure of relevance

(a) The double yellow lines at the entrance of Lyndhurst Road were not in the car park where the terms & conditions alluded to, but were present along all of Lyndhurst Road, which was outside of Ascot Business Park.

(b) Other vehicles were also parked along the same section of road where the Defendant's vehicle was parked, and were not displaying any permits. It is therefore not clear whether the boundaries of Ascot Business Park actually are, and a copy of the official title plan is required as proof that the Claimant can pursue parking charges on this land.

7. The ticket machine in the car park was not working on [date 3].
Note sure of relevance

(a) A pay & display ticket is the only way to park in accordance with the terms & conditions, yet due to a fault in the machine, this was not possible.

(b) There is video evidence to prove that the ticket machine was not working.

8. If the driver/s on each occasion were considered to be trespassers if not allowed to park there, then only the landholder can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

Any comments on this? Sorry to keep bumping.

I filed the defence on the 28th of May, the defence questionnaire was later filled out and the claim transferred to my local court on the 21st June.

I assume the defence would have been served shortly after it was received by the court on 29th May (surely within a week?). It's now 10th July and I have not received anything from the solicitors or county court. The county court won't pick up the phone (I've called multiple times over a period of several days).

How can I check if the claim has been stayed? I feel like the 28 day limit would have been passed by now.

From what I understand, the claimant has to respond to the defence within 28 days of the defence being serviced. I've sent an email to the court asking for an update as they don't seem to have a phone.