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.

Court Report: UKCPM hit for £1,000, Gladstones incompetence shown up again

The following report was received from Lamilad, which is reproduced here without comment, save to say he did a splendid job, as did others who helped in the earlier stages:


UKCPM vs Ms F. D2GF4G6M
07/08/18. Burnley Combined Court. Deputy District Judge Parr, presiding
Claimant represented by Ms Peabody
Lay Rep for the Defendant – Lamilad
[Not involved from the beginning so some details may not be entirely accurate]

BACKGROUND:
Ms F received a postal PCN for an alleged parking contravention on the New Whalley Road site in Blackburn (better known as ‘Roe Lee’ car park). Date of contravention was 12/11/16. A reminder letter was sent shortly afterwards. Being extremely busy at the time, Ms F did not respond. Ms F received no other correspondence and assumed the matter had been dropped.

In Oct 2017 Ms F received an alert from Clearscore that her credit score had dropped significantly. On investigation she found that a CCJ had been entered against her by UKCPM a month earlier. She also noted that the CCJ was filed against her previous address where she had lived 6 years previously.

Ms F joined a Facebook group set up to assist people with Roe Lee parking tickets where she attracted assistance. An investigation was commenced to identify how a CCJ could be entered against her old address without her knowledge. SARs were sent to the DVLA, UKCPM and Gladstones. DVLA response showed that Ms F’s vehicle was correctly registered to her current address and had been since well before the contravention date. It also showed that UKCPM had requested her details and were provided with the correct address. The other SAR responses showed that the old address had been provided by DRP. A SAR to DRP confirmed that they had done a ‘trace’ on Ms F which had revealed her current and previous address. For reasons unknown they chose to use her old address. The trace results (showing both addresses) were passed back to UKCPM/ GS after DRP’s failed debt collection attempts (which Ms F obviously knew nothing about).

SET ASIDE/ DEFENCE/ COUNTERCLAIM
Some experienced campaigners joined forces to further assist Ms F. Lamilad was asked to Lay rep should the SA be granted and the matter proceed to a final hearing. An email was sent to GS informing them that they had been using the wrong address and requesting a ‘no contest’ set aside. They agreed on the basis the Ms F paid the Judgement in full, plus a further £100 for the application. This was rejected and Ms F (assisted by others) filed for Set aside which was granted at Burnley in April ’18 with UKCPM ordered to pay Ms F’s fee of £255. A defence and counterclaim, written with outside assistance, was submitted later that month. Counterclaim for £750 was for distress caused by UKCPM’s data misuse/ breach of DPA on the basis that they never had any ‘reasonable cause’ request Ms F’s details from the DVLA [UKCPM have never had authority to issue tickets at Roe Lee as they do not have a contract with the landowner]

After DQ, UKCPM offered to discontinue provided the counterclaim was dropped. This was rejected. A defence to CC was filed by GS and the case was allocated to Burnley court. Shortly after, UKCPM discontinued their claim, leaving just the counterclaim. This was followed by an offer from them to settle for £200. Ms F made a counter-offer of £500 which was ignored. A WS was submitted followed by a costs schedule and skeleton (written by Lamilad).

THE HEARING
Ms Peabody showed up for UKCPM. Lamilad was considering challenging her RoA as she didn’t show up on the Law Society database but he didn’t want to risk an adjournment. UKCPM had not filed a WS or any evidence and their defence was only 4 points. They had also not given notice of their non-attendance, per r27.9. This was all in the skelly but the Judge chose to ignore it.

Thanks to the extremely well written documents and the skelly, the Judge already had a very clear understanding of Ms F’s case and turned straight to Ms P for UKCPM’s response. Ms P seemed unprepared; she was mumbling and unsure of herself. It is unknown if she was nervous or had been hitting the Bombay Sapphire the previous night. She suggested UKCPM accepted ‘some’ responsibility for Ms Flynn’s distress and did accept that they had not done things right. After a prolonged exchange, the Judge took this as an admission of liability – Ms P had not wanted to commit to an admission and seemed to want to find some middle ground.

The WS and skelly had averred that UKCPM deliberately used Ms F’s old address in order to obtain a default CCJ which they could then use as a ‘bargaining chip’ to grant the set aside if she paid in full. Judge Parr seemed to agree with this point but said there wasn’t enough evidence to find for it.

There was a difficult moment where the Judge produced a court data sheet showing details of the original claim issued by UKCPM in July 2017. It showed Ms F’s correct address making it appear the claim was correctly served. This threw Lamilad as it went against the entire basis of Ms F’s CC. After a brief chat with Ms F he held firm that, whilst he could not explain the data sheet, the claim form had not been issued to the correct address and UKCPM were held to strict proof to the contrary. He showed the Judge evidence that the CCJ had been issued against Ms F’s old address which seemed to satisfy him. He concluded that his data sheet had probably been printed after the court file had been updated with Ms F’s correct address.

The rest of the hearing focussed on the data misuse, damages caused to Ms F and the amount claimed. The Counterclaim had averred 2 aspects to the data misuse:

1. UKCPM never had any right to request Ms F’s details from the DVLA
2. UKCPM, whether deliberately or accidently, had misused Ms F’s data by corresponding with her old address despite being given her correct address by the DVLA.

The Judge was more interested in the first aspect than the second and, as liability had already been established, he was satisfied that UKCPM had misused Ms F’s personal data, in breach of the DPA.

On damages, it was averred that the CC was essentially for non-pecuniary damage for distress only and placed reliance on Google Inc vs Vidal-Hall and Ors. Judge had no issue with this. Ms P made some mumbling comment that the claimant had apologised to Ms F and discontinued their original claim as good will gesture and to prevent further distress. Judge was not at all interested in this.

On quantum, Ms P claimed the amount sought was too high and averred that £400-£500 would be more realistic. The case relied on Halliday vs Creation Consumer Finance Ltd as authority for the sum claimed. Judge Parr was reluctant to consider Halliday as it had not been adduced but, fortunately, Lamilad had brought a copy with him. He read it and commented that the facts were very different.

Judgment was awarded to Ms F in the sum of £600. Judge Parr said, whilst he found Halliday a ‘useful guide’ that case involved a breach of a court order which this case did not.

On costs, Lamilad made a strong argument for unreasonable behaviour, based inter alia on UKCPM’s action being entirely baseless from the offset and their refusal to consider Ms F’s offer to settle. Judge agreed with some of the argument but said it wasn’t enough to get over the line. Ordinary costs and fixed fees were awarded at £212.

So, taking the set aside fee into account, this whole affair has cost UKCPM £1067, plus Ms Peabody’s fee.

COMMENTS
A satisfying victory with a decent award but one the does not come close to compensating Ms F for the effect this has had on her life and the stress and anxiety it has caused. The CCJ prevented her from getting a loan and upgrading her mobile phone, and she has been sick with worry throughout this litigation. All of which was inflicted on her by a PPC who never had authority to issue her with a ticket in the first place.

Huge credit has to go to the campaigners (you know who you are) who have worked tirelessly on this case for several months, and who led the set aside. Both have also been an incredible source of strength and support to a very nervous Defendant/ Part 20 Claimant.

I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
«1

Comments

  • System
    System Posts: 178,077
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Community Admin
    Nice. Seems there is an 'open door' now to some of these DPA claims especially where there has been a default CCJ.

    BW Legal must be next in the queue.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Great report

    Lamilad is not only a BWLegal slayer, but now a Gladstones
    slayer :j:j

    And what about the incompetent Ms Peabody:rotfl:

    These low life legals must be aware that, any day, any time,
    Lamilad will turn up and slay them
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,257
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Great read, thank you BP. And well done Lamilad. I bet the PPC network rue the day Excel first ticketed you!
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • Lamilad
    Lamilad Posts: 1,412
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    BW Legal must be next in the queue.
    Agreed, followed by CEL.
  • trisontana
    trisontana Posts: 9,472
    Combo Breaker First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    [UKCPM have never had authority to issue tickets at Roe Lee as they do not have a contract with the landowner]


    So how many erroneous fake fines were issued by these cowboys before that fact came to light? I hope the other motorists affected have also made claims against the PPC?
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • waamo
    waamo Posts: 10,298
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Forumite
    trisontana wrote: »
    [UKCPM have never had authority to issue tickets at Roe Lee as they do not have a contract with the landowner]


    So how many erroneous fake fines were issued by these cowboys before that fact came to light? I hope the other motorists affected have also made claims against the PPC?

    Indeed and how many sanction points does that carry?
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    the stress and anxiety it has caused. The CCJ prevented her from getting a loan and upgrading her mobile phone, and she has been sick with worry throughout this litigation.

    For which she gets a paltry £600, this is not justice. The judge did not even consider the PPC's behaviour be unreasonable.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • Castle
    Castle Posts: 4,159
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    trisontana wrote: »
    [UKCPM have never had authority to issue tickets at Roe Lee as they do not have a contract with the landowner]


    So how many erroneous fake fines were issued by these cowboys before that fact came to light? I hope the other motorists affected have also made claims against the PPC?
    Indeed and how many times were the DVLA satisfied that there was reasonable cause to release the RK's details?
  • Snakes_Belly
    Snakes_Belly Posts: 3,696
    First Anniversary Photogenic First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    edited 9 August 2018 at 8:56AM
    Retailers and other organisations should think twice before they give a PPC the powers to pursue a claim through the courts.

    Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    Trading Standards needs to investigate this company, I am sure tha they are acting fraudulently.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards