UKPC - County Court Claim Defence and Process

Make sure you've covered all bases:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5518614

Yours looked short by comparison, so have you missed anything?

Ah OK, I am guilty of skim-reading your post #71 - sorry!

Yes, you can re-use the same exhibits to make different defence points.

The Defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charge. (what can i use as evidence?)

Assume the Judge does NOT know about Schedule 4 so have it printed out and an idea of which issues (paragraph 8 and 'adequate notice of the charge') you are going to say they have not complied with. And be well-versed in saying you are only the registered keeper and believe UKPC have not shown compliant Notice to Keepers letters were served in time and with the right wording (in 2013 I doubt the wording was as 'good' as it is now). And they have offered no evidence of who was driving every time, which could have been any member of the family with a driving licence & fully comp insurance, as the family has more than one vehicle.

4. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. UK Parking Control cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UKPC. Please refer to the highlighted part, page X, in exhibit BX (This is to show the highlighted section under ‘Property Register’ from the Title Register, showing the land is between Housing Association and my Parents. Should I also include the Title Plan? (both obtained from Land Registry in June))

Yes I would include the Title Plan as well, in case you regret missing it out if the Judge asks.

11. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of 11 PCN's and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £90/£100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording. (what can I use as evidence?)

'adequate notice' is pointing out that the signs and lines (if any are marked on the ground) are inadequate notice of any restricted area and in particular, the £100 charge itself which is in small print. You could also use (if it is useful in your case) the bumf your parents were given when they accepted the permit, and argue that the contract was concluded when the permits were received. And no mention of £100 (specifically that sum) as made nor accepted. As such, it is unreasonable to try to add more terms later and expect residents to read signs every day to check they've not been changed, when in fact the signs were never incorporated into the contract and nor was £100 a feature of the permit scheme.

14. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and UKPC have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Here you need the Beavis decision printed out and relevant bits highlighted. Plus the Court of Appeal stage decision from April 2015 (the one before the Supreme Court) where the 'entirely different' comments were made, which were not contradicted by the Supreme Court so are deemed part of that persuasive decision. And after all, the Beavis case was not about a residents' car park, where there is surely much more scope for an 'out of all proportion' charge to be held an unfair penalty against authorised residents with a permit. The Judges did say that a parking charge did 'engage' the penalty rule and it was only the facts and very clear signs and need for a high turnover of spaces that led to a 'commercial justification' view that disengaged the penalty rule in that case alone.

And you can add that ALL consumer contracts must be considered under the 'test of fairness' according to the UTCCRs (which applied until Sept 2015). This post using IanMSpencer's wording explains it well, why a penalty against a person who already pays for/has signed for a permit and lives at the site, has rights that suggest this sort of charge is penal:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71339517#post71339517

You said in your first post:

Often at times, the road leading to where I live is fully parked, along with the visitor parking spaces being taken, and thus leaving me with no option to park other than in front of my flat.

So, is there something in your lease that lends itself to the argument that you have a right of way under the lease, to the flat entrance, which the PPC has ignored, like Laura Jopson in her appeal case:

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

Can you use that, any similarities? Why should a resident be penalised to this extortionate extent?

And bear in mind the two UKPC cases won recently on this forum this month, were because the photo evidence of the car being near to a sign with legible, prominent terms. So signage and dodgy photos for all the dozen or so situations, might well be your trump card - expose any lack of evidence from UKPC even if it merely gets some of the charges kicked out.

Finally, how about a witness statement from your parents as well? Saying that they are the leasehold owners of xx flat, they have NEVER given authority to UKPC to issue charges to cars parked at the entrance to/outside their flat and that their lease (show it as an exhibit if it helps?) grants them rights of way and the right for them and their family to 'peaceful enjoyment' of their property.

They could state that allowing a third party firm like UKPC (ex-clampers, known for doctoring photos) to sue their son is contrary to all common sense and cannot surely give rise to any lawful cause of action.

They could also confirm that when the permits were supplied, the permit scheme contract was concluded without any mention of £100 (that sum) nor was their attention drawn to any terms on signs which should be read on a day to day basis every time any vehicle of theirs returned after work. At no point were the signs incorporated into the contract and they believed that a permit holder had a right of way to park which this third party cannot overrule and penalise residents for. A contract concluded with the exchange of a permit in good faith cannot have new terms added later nor be held to be 're-made' every day depending on signage that never formed part of the permit contract in the first place.

HTH

Yep - SCS Law are very likely to wait as late as possible but make sure you meet your deadline. Don't wait too late.

If they miss it and you are sure you didn't, then the first thing you can do at the hearing (or even before, with a quick letter addressed for the attention of this case Judge) is object to any late served documents and ask for them to be struck out. You can even get their witness statement struck out that way.

Be aware to also object on the day, if the signatory of any witness statement does not attend.

Take the exhibits in triplicate, to hand over copies as and when each aspect of defence is raised. Have all case law printed out, as well as Schedule 4, site photos of unreadable signs and Land Registry owner information, a copy of the prominent & clear sign in the Beavis case. Plus a copy of a Combined Parking Solutions sign (to show how a non-prohibitive offer can be worded to create a parking licence) etc. Get that from Google images or the Parking Prankster.

Yes to your other questions - have notes with you at a hearing by all means and also, if it helps, post-it coloured notes with numbering, sticking out of your documents, if it helps to find your exhibits easily.

IMHO your defence covers all the bases you can and your strongest cards are no contract formed by the unclear/prohibitive signage and 'no keeper liability' if UKPC fail to prove full statutory compliance (including signage giving 'adequate notice' of the parking charge itself in large letters). I understand that UKPC lost a case the other month on Schedule 4 non-compliance re 'period of parking' on the Notice to Keeper. That's a rare finding though and you'd have to talk the Judge through Schedule 4, no doubt.

If that is dismissed, go for signage in a big way; it is not enough to 'have signs up'. A contract must be transparent and clear, in particular any charges - and of course there must be an offer, the consideration of a parking space offered and agreed (which is not the case with a sign prohibiting parking; it makes no offer and dresses up a penalty as a charge).

Bullet point #14:

14. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and UKPC have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

97 - 99 are relevant but not as early as 91 onwards which just sets the scene, surely?

Have a look at IanMSpencer's summary in his POPLA point #7 and #8 here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71338212#post71338212

Also, include Laura Jopson's appeal case (we do not have the case number so I think we only have the newspaper article but it was a persuasive appeal decision):

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

Shows that a flat's resident has rights and easements that supersede a third party's attempt to bolt on new contractual points to try to punish and bind people who live there and have rights of way.

Attach your evidence as appendices referred to in your witness statement.

HTH