IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
UKCPM Defence Review
Options
FloatingStrong
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi Guys,
Looking for a quick review on the below, I received a court notification on the 12th and have filed my AoS. I picked this up with Parking Fines Ltd, who said they were busy at the moment, and given their caseload suggested I ran this past the forum as he felt there wasn't a lot to do based on the case so far.
I will file my defence in three weeks, some points to pick up:
* Should I refer to case law here?
* Is the breach of the IPC code of conduct relevant here?
* Any other points needed?
Brief summary
It is unknown who the drive was. I am the registered keeper. My wife, friends and myself are able to drive my car. There are some unclear bays in the area which allow gym members to park, it is not really clear what is a gym bay and which a resident in a number of cases.
I will write to my MP and will print sign and date once reviewed etc!
Defence below:
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX (Defendant)
____________
DEFENCE
____________
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the Claimant have pursued the Defendant under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, issuing a notice to keeper (NTK), which does not comply with the strict requirements under paragraph 8(2)(a). In brief, these are failure to name the period of parking and the land. Meeting the principle established in: Excel v Lamoureux C3DP56Q5.
3. Furthermore, the Defendant, his family and his friends are all able to drive the car are gym members at ********, the defendant has continued to hold a valid membership, and therefore car parking permission for the last 4 years. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘gym parking spaces’ located amongst those forming a much larger residential car park. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a gym member is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.
4. Further and in the alternative, the terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
7. As evidenced by the ticket issued, UKCPM Ltd have failed to meet the grace period specified in the IPA code of practice (under paragraph 15.1 & 15.2).
8. The Defendant differentiates this case from Beavis vs ParkingEye as keeper liability is not established, inadequate and ambiguous signage, absence of authority to enforce and implied permission granted from ***********.
9. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.
10. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
Looking for a quick review on the below, I received a court notification on the 12th and have filed my AoS. I picked this up with Parking Fines Ltd, who said they were busy at the moment, and given their caseload suggested I ran this past the forum as he felt there wasn't a lot to do based on the case so far.
I will file my defence in three weeks, some points to pick up:
* Should I refer to case law here?
* Is the breach of the IPC code of conduct relevant here?
* Any other points needed?
Brief summary
It is unknown who the drive was. I am the registered keeper. My wife, friends and myself are able to drive my car. There are some unclear bays in the area which allow gym members to park, it is not really clear what is a gym bay and which a resident in a number of cases.
I will write to my MP and will print sign and date once reviewed etc!
Defence below:
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX (Defendant)
____________
DEFENCE
____________
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the Claimant have pursued the Defendant under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, issuing a notice to keeper (NTK), which does not comply with the strict requirements under paragraph 8(2)(a). In brief, these are failure to name the period of parking and the land. Meeting the principle established in: Excel v Lamoureux C3DP56Q5.
3. Furthermore, the Defendant, his family and his friends are all able to drive the car are gym members at ********, the defendant has continued to hold a valid membership, and therefore car parking permission for the last 4 years. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘gym parking spaces’ located amongst those forming a much larger residential car park. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a gym member is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.
4. Further and in the alternative, the terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
7. As evidenced by the ticket issued, UKCPM Ltd have failed to meet the grace period specified in the IPA code of practice (under paragraph 15.1 & 15.2).
8. The Defendant differentiates this case from Beavis vs ParkingEye as keeper liability is not established, inadequate and ambiguous signage, absence of authority to enforce and implied permission granted from ***********.
9. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.
10. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
0
Comments
-
I don't know if case law should be mentioned at this stage, but be aware that cases in the lower courts may be relevant or even persuasive, but not case law unless from the higher courts.
Likewise I'm not sure if the IPC Code of Scamage shoud be included here.
What does the bargepole guide in post 2 of the NEWBIES say about this?
Quote Schedule 4 (of the PoFA) in section 2.
Check for typos, for example IPC not IPA.
What happened when you complained to the gym/landowner?
Beware of stating the defendant is a regular car park user and complaining the signs weren't seen or readable. A judge might think someone who goes there often should know about the signs.
Also beware that a judge might assume that on the balance of probabilities the defendant and keeper was the driver by the comments about that person having permission to park for several years.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Love it! :Tthe IPC Code of Scamage
:beer:
Two typos here need putting right:IPA code of practice (under paragraph 15.1 & 15.2).
8. The Defendant differentiates this case from Beavis vs ParkingEyePRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
FloatingStrong wrote: »I received a court notification on the 12th and have filed my AoS.
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?0 -
Hi Keith, 7th May it was issued and it was from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton0
-
@Fruitcake, thanks for your review, I couldnt find anything from Bargepole on this, only that when you come to court it is useful to have it as part of your bundle.
I'll amend 2 as suggested.
I never recieved a reply from the landowner.
Regarding your final point, thanks for picking up, I have amended the wording, so that that inference can't be made by the judge!
:T0 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.FloatingStrong wrote: »Hi Keith, 7th May it was issued and it was from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton
That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:-
Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Hi All,
I've received my date for court shortly and I'm putting together my defence bundle, seeing as I am being taken to court as a driver and not a keeper I was wondering if you guys thought the below WS was sufficient:
Witness Statement
1. I am XXXX XXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXXX, the Defendant in this matter.
2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief
3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.
4. On the 12th of October I received a “formal notice” from UK Car Park Management, which they are relying upon as a notice to keeper. On reviewing the document I noted that this does not meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, therefore I cannot be found liable under the strict requirements of the Act.
6. On XX/XX/XX and XX/XX/XXXX I drove to the car park where the ticket was issued, the layout has not changed.
7. I noted on both occasions that a number of bays within the car park are not marked up for residents, gym users or permit holders. In fact, gym users aren’t given permits, they are required to park in allocated bays, these are hard to identify in many instances as the parking spaces are not marked clearly.
8. Whilst there is no requirement for me to identify the driver, and even though I was not driving on the date in question. As a member of the local gym I am permitted to use these spaces.
9. I also noted during my visit that:
(i) the wording on the signage in the entire area are not clearly marked at the entrance,
(ii) the signage is not at driver height (such as the height of the sign above the picture of the car used in the “formal notice” document).
(iii) The wording on the sign is so small as to be illegible to any driver.
10. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Signature
Date0 -
You've been away so long from this forum you have missed LOADS of stuff:
- we now say to include your costs schedule as well;
- we now say to add a supplementary witness statement and case law, statute laws and a court order about the added false £60
- you need to read the thread by CEC16 (find him in the members' list)
- you need to search the forum for Jack Chapman signature and read LOTS of threads and fund the examples of it, and make the same complaint to the SRA.
Search the forum for posts including those words in bold, one at a time, and read up!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards