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, Gladstones. No permit displayed in work car park. Defence stage
Options
hateUKCPM
Posts: 17 Forumite
Issue date is 8th Novemeber 2018. AOS has been completed which gives me until 6th December 2018 to file a defence.
I've written out the following defence and I would be really grateful if someone could give it a look through. It's based on Bargepoles defence about unclear signs with emphasis mine based on the wording included in one of the successful POPLA appeals that my old workmate has sent me. I have been told two previous people who worked there had exactly the same ticket successfully appealed through POPLA but unfortunately I took the outdated advice of ignoring all correspondence and consequently have received the claim form
My ticket was issued back on 4th February 2016, almost 3 years ago! And they're trying to charge me £269.33 for all this! Not a chance...
Anyway, heres my defence.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
me (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Hamworthy Heating Limited at Fleets Corner Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Furthermore, the defendant makes a submission that there was no loss of earnings the part of the Claimant caused by this incident. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove on the balance of possibilities that they did suffer a loss of earnings as a result of my failure to display the pass at the appropriate time.
6. Further to the defendants point in item 6, and as a general point, the defendant questions the legality of the ticket(s). Hamworthy Heating Limited has 100 car parking spaces allocated to them under the terms of their lease. These spaces are paid for by Hamworthy Heating Limited and are available for employees only. The defendant was employed by Hamworthy Heating Limited on the date specified and had permission from Hamworthy Heating Limited to park in any of these spaces. On the date specified, Hamworthy Heating Limited had not agreed to, or signed up to, any agreement with the Landlord or the Claimant to police these leased spaces.
7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.
8. 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.
9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name:
Signature:
Date:
wish me luck :A
I've written out the following defence and I would be really grateful if someone could give it a look through. It's based on Bargepoles defence about unclear signs with emphasis mine based on the wording included in one of the successful POPLA appeals that my old workmate has sent me. I have been told two previous people who worked there had exactly the same ticket successfully appealed through POPLA but unfortunately I took the outdated advice of ignoring all correspondence and consequently have received the claim form
My ticket was issued back on 4th February 2016, almost 3 years ago! And they're trying to charge me £269.33 for all this! Not a chance...Anyway, heres my defence.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
me (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Hamworthy Heating Limited at Fleets Corner Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Furthermore, the defendant makes a submission that there was no loss of earnings the part of the Claimant caused by this incident. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove on the balance of possibilities that they did suffer a loss of earnings as a result of my failure to display the pass at the appropriate time.
6. Further to the defendants point in item 6, and as a general point, the defendant questions the legality of the ticket(s). Hamworthy Heating Limited has 100 car parking spaces allocated to them under the terms of their lease. These spaces are paid for by Hamworthy Heating Limited and are available for employees only. The defendant was employed by Hamworthy Heating Limited on the date specified and had permission from Hamworthy Heating Limited to park in any of these spaces. On the date specified, Hamworthy Heating Limited had not agreed to, or signed up to, any agreement with the Landlord or the Claimant to police these leased spaces.
7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.
8. 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.
9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name:
Signature:
Date:
wish me luck :A
0
Comments
-
UKCPM have not offered POPLA for about 3 years and the IPC equivalent is broken (a kangaroo court, reportedly biased in favour of the IPC's paying members). So you missed out on nothing!
You would NEVER win on appeal v an IPC scumbag firm, but are 99% sure to win in court, if you do not miss any court stages.
Your point #5 needs deleting (you need to understand the ParkingEye v Beavis case from 2015 killed this argument):5. Furthermore, the defendant makes a submission that there was no loss of earnings the part of the Claimant caused by this incident. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove on the balance of possibilities that they did suffer a loss of earnings as a result of my failure to display the pass at the appropriate time.
Why not read the other UKCPM wins from this week?
Look for the thread by bargepole, replied on today, about his win at Guildford v UKCPM (on the same thread I have replied and linked the other day's cases, including another poster who also won at the same court, same day!).
No asking for a link. That's not how this forum works well for newbies who need to be 'on it' as regards finding their way around and reading all the relevant threads they can, at each stage, without links being provided.
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 -
Thanks for the reply, C-M, I've been slacking the last week while I went on holiday but I removed point 5 like you said and have added a bit more detail, points 8 & 9, in bold. It seems to me as though UKCPM is a member of both parking associations as they appear on the membership lists of both websites...?
You said I cant go the POPLA route which is fair enough but is the fact that those similar things have been previously successfully appealed through POPLA something to add into this defence?
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
me (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Hamworthy Heating Limited at Fleets Corner Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Furthermore, the defendant questions the legality of the ticket(s). Hamworthy Heating Limited has 100 car parking spaces allocated to them under the terms of their lease. These spaces are paid for by Hamworthy Heating Limited and are available for employees only. The defendant was employed by Hamworthy Heating Limited on the date specified and had permission from Hamworthy Heating Limited to park in any of these spaces. On the date specified, Hamworthy Heating Limited had not agreed to, or signed up to, any agreement with the Landlord or the Claimant to police these leased spaces.
6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.
7. 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.
8. Furthermore, the date of the PCN is 02/04/2016 and in the time taken to issue the claim form it is averred that the signs will have changed, been replaced or updated (to reflect changes in the IPC Code of Practice) and indeed some may have been removed or damaged. There is no evidence that these signs existed throughout the time-span of this claim and it is argued that this operator did not comply with the 'entrance signs' sections of the IPC Code of Practice as it changed between 02/04/2016 to date.
9. Similarly, the date of the PCN is 02/04/2016 and in the time taken to issue the claim form it is averred that the signs will have changed, been replaced or updated (to reflect changes in the BPA Code of Practice) and indeed some may have been removed or damaged. There is no evidence that these signs existed throughout the time-span of this claim and it is argued that this operator did not comply with the 'entrance signs' sections of the BPA Code of Practice as it changed between 02/04/2016 to date.
10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name: my name
Signature:
Date: 05/12/20180 -
No they are not, please read the Q&A in the NEWBIES thread...!UKCPM is a member of both parking associationsPRIVATE '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 -
oh jeez really? I though I had read it all a million times. thanks for the heads up!
yup, I went ahead and removed the BPA reference.0 -
Right, I've added a bit about needing a fob to get in as that is actually relevant to me as well (point 5).
In my opinion this is pretty much as good as its going to get so I'm going to print this off and get it signed and sent tomorrow. I'll make sure to keep this thread updated with whatever happens (I'm crossing my fingers they drop the charges, I cba with spending a day in court...).
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
me (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Hamworthy Heating Limited at Fleets Corner Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. The car parking area contained allocated parking spaces for Hamworthy Heating Limited employees. Entry to the parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to employees. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.
6. Furthermore, the defendant questions the legality of the ticket(s). Hamworthy Heating Limited had 100 car parking spaces allocated to them under the terms of their lease. These spaces were paid for by Hamworthy Heating Limited and were available for employees only. The defendant was employed by Hamworthy Heating Limited on the date specified and had permission from Hamworthy Heating Limited to park in any of those spaces. On the date specified, Hamworthy Heating Limited had not agreed to, or signed up to, any agreement with the Landlord or the Claimant to police those leased spaces.
7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.
8. 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.
9. Furthermore, the date of the PCN is -redacted date- and in the time taken to issue the claim form it is averred that the signs will have changed, been replaced or updated (to reflect changes in the IPC Code of Practice) and indeed some may have been removed or damaged. There is no evidence that these signs existed throughout the time-span of this claim and it is argued that this operator did not comply with the 'entrance signs' sections of the IPC Code of Practice as it changed between -redacted date- to date.
10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name: my name
Signature:
Date: 05/12/20180 -
Yes you have covered all the bases, nice job!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 -
You have more time than you thought.Issue date is 8th Novemeber 2018. AOS has been completed which gives me until 6th December 2018 to file a defence.
With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, you had until 22nd November to do the Acknowledgement of Service.
Did you do the AoS before 22nd November?
Having done the AoS in a timely manner, have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.
A bit longer than you thought, but don't leave it to the very 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 "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put 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.
-
Cheers Keith, got that sent off. I just wanted to get rid of it at this point. Yes I had done the AOS in time so no worries there.
Now I just wait for that questionnaire thing.0 -
Thread update. Directions questionnaire filled out and hand delivered as I only live down the road lol. Easy enough so far.0
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