Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 22nd Aug 17, 11:29 AM
    • 81Posts
    • 47Thanks
    completelyfubar
    RoeLee Retail Centre - Tesco metro - Gourm8 - UKCPM
    • #1
    • 22nd Aug 17, 11:29 AM
    RoeLee Retail Centre - Tesco metro - Gourm8 - UKCPM 22nd Aug 17 at 11:29 AM
    RoeLee Retail Centre - Tesco metro - Gourm8 - UKCPM
    UPDATE 19th Jan 2018
    I successfully defended the claim D1GF3Q4F and it was thrown out

    UKCPM do not have a valid contract of authority to operate on RoeLee Retail Centre car park.
    Anyone that was caught out by the manager of Gourm8 using the i-ticket app Sept 2016> - DO NOT PAY.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Good day to all on the forum, hopefully I can gain some valuable information before filing my defence.... A summary of what has gone on before;
    UKCPM PCN received: 21/11/2016 . From what I have read I don't think this was the first PCN issued but never received one before IF it was posted.
    I replied to the above notice with an altered template I got from this site but they just sent back a letter with an escalated fine/costs and references Beavis etc. There have been plenty of notices/debt collector ond Gladstone letters and I have replied twice since by letter and also email to Gladstone (no response to email other than an auto response)
    I have now been issued a claim (14/08/17) and have acknowledged it on the government gateway.
    I was not the driver.

    I have absolutely no idea what the 'fine' was for as the car park is free and all my family and friends had been parking on there for years prior to this. We had no idea they even had a parking management company there although I have now learnt from the council that they only put the signs up around late Sept > early Oct 2016.
    The sign on the wall (pohoto'd near my vehicle) has very small lettering and wasn't even noticed by any of our family and friends until the PCN landed and I informed them.
    It is not within a yellow hatched area that the sign appears above and eludes that it is protecting.
    It is contentious from the photo's if the car is indeed parked or that it is purely stationary/giving way, i.e. no picture showing the front seats etc.and the car is not facing a wall, the photo's are only 29 seconds apart!
    There are no signs at the immediate entrance and we had not noticed any on our previous visits to the small retail car park. There is another sign on the same wall for tesco metro that states 30 minutes parking allowed and nothing more.
    I believe the photo's were taken by a disgruntled cafe owner who doesn't like cars parking in front of his premises. The yellow hatched areas in front of his cafe appeared a few weeks prior and the car is not on them.
    I have tried ringing Tesco but no luck there & I have never been showed a contract or details that I could follow up with the landowner (requested in my letters)

    Any initial thoughts on this one peeps? Any help would be very much appreciated. I have read a considerable amount of the Sticky's and just wanted an initial opinion before setting out my defense.

    Thanks in advance
    Last edited by completelyfubar; 22-01-2018 at 9:27 AM. Reason: typo
Page 4
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Dec 17, 7:16 PM
    • 58,368 Posts
    • 71,888 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good stuff, sounds like you know what you are doing but do you want to show us the WS for comments?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 20th Dec 17, 11:13 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    I have their WS
    Hi Coupon_mad
    I now have their very brief WS if you can call it that (it's been emailed). Basically it tries to debunk my defence but offers very little evidence, quite laughable in fact! She makes assumptions, denies and contradicts herself with evidence... bizarre!
    They have included a supposed contract but blanked out the name and signature? I expect they have to reveal this contract in full during the hearing though?
    I am still going to spend the next day or so compiling my 'bundle' and leave the WS as it should be, a simple chronological list of events so far with supporting evidence.
    My Skeleton argument will then debunk their WS and state my clear areas of defence.
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 8th Jan 18, 2:37 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Skeleton Argument
    Hi chaps, so I have one week to go and want to construct a brief SA.
    I have their WS and I could set about debunking it, but feel I should just stick to my main arguments. I don't want to get into 'he said, she said' kind of arguments and try to look professional. If their representative wants to argue their points in the WS then I will have my responses ready and waiting.
    Please have a look at the structure/wording and feel free to jump in with any comments at all peeps.
    In the County Court
    between
    UK Car Park Management Ltd
    vs
    Me
    ________________________________________
    Skeleton Argument
    ________________________________________
    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract with any pre-action correspondence or the particulars of Claim as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1)
    “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing”
    and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A)
    “The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims to be issued by the Centre, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction”.
    Particulars of claim were not served separately.
    2. The ‘contract’ included in the claimants bundle has the ‘leasholder’ blanked out. I challenge that the signatory on that document is not the Landowner or Landlord for the carpark area and that UK Car Park Management (UKCPM) do not have sufficient authority to request personal data from the DVLA or issue claims. I also challenge that UKCPM do not conduct due diligence on clients using their ‘i-ticket’ app.
    3. The claimant has failed to prove if the car is indeed parked as the two photos provided are only 30 seconds apart and show only the rear of the vehicle obscuring the driver’s seat. The driver could easily have been waiting for a parking space to be vacated or giving way to traffic. This is a very busy car park and is regularly full due to Tesco shoppers.
    4. The claimant states in their particulars of claim that there is a parking charge for the **/**/2016 yet the photo’s provided are date stamped **/**/2016.
    5. I contend that the parking signage was/is woefully inadequate and certainly not ‘prominent’ as stated in their Witness Statement and is therefore not compliant with either the IPC or BPA code of practice. There is also a prominent contradicting sign only a short distance away that has been in existence for many years.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Signed:
    Date:
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 8th Jan 18, 4:19 PM
    • 2,748 Posts
    • 3,405 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I!!!8217;d suggest rebutting their points. If you can. Give fact x but they state y, then it doesn!!!8217;t look good for them.
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 8th Jan 18, 6:02 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    I'll give it a shot
    Thanks for the reply nosferatu1001
    OK, so I'll give it a shot and see how it reads... I'll post up my draft later this week.

    By the way, do you think they deliberately blanked out the signatories details just for me or do you think they did that for the court bundle as well?
    I assume they will bring the original document to the hearing but whats stopping them using my research on the landowner to fill in the gaps and help their own case? Could this be another potential dirty trick?
    cheers
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 8th Jan 18, 7:37 PM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    By the way, do you think they deliberately blanked out the signatories details just for me or do you think they did that for the court bundle as well?
    I assume they will bring the original document to the hearing but whats stopping them using my research on the landowner to fill in the gaps and help their own case? Could this be another potential dirty trick?
    You and the court should get the same.
    Looks like something else for you SA.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 8th Jan 18, 8:39 PM
    • 2,748 Posts
    • 3,405 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Indeed, if the signatures are blanked how can you verify who,signed it, and whether they are an officer of the company empowered to do so? There!!!8217;s no reason to blank it out. They!!!8217;ll probably sputter !!!8220;DPA!!!8221; but that!!!8217;s, of course, not applicable for two reasons , at least (legal proceedings, s no private info!)
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 10th Jan 18, 8:33 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Sorry guy's, missed your responses but just to clarify the situation...
    The landowner of the car park is different from the landowner of the retail unit the car is allegedly parked outside. It is common knowledge that it was the owner of the unit that signed up using the i-ticket app and took the photo's. The contract between UKCPM and the 'client' should (i believe?) be the landowner or landlord of the car park. Is that right?
    The 'contract' has all the personal details and the signature blacked out on my copy.
    If the court must get exactly the same evidence as myself then the contract is useless and there is no direct line of authority for UKCPM to enforce any parking restrictions.
    However, my concern is that they will turn up on the day with the 'original' document that could have been 'constructed' using my research on who the landowner actually is. Do you think they will stoop that low? That is falsification of evidence so I expect they wont risk it?
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 10th Jan 18, 9:13 AM
    • 2,405 Posts
    • 4,283 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Do you think they will stoop that low? That is falsification of evidence so I expect they wont risk it?
    Yes they do and they will.

    UKCPM came up with the wheeze of an idea of getting people to shop on others using the i-ticket app. All they do is to get the "client" to say they have the authority to issue tickets. More often than not they don't.

    UKCPM can innocently say that they didn't know the client did not have authority and do hide information so you are never sure. However I've dealt with a few of these UKCPM, PCM and NE Parking contract and most are facsimiles (posh word for dodgy).

    And Gladstones are off the hook too, as a solicitor has a duty to the court which is to advise UKCPM, PCM and NE Parking about the penalties for misleading the court - which of course they have done being the fine upstanding officers of the court they are.

    Check everything and have you checked with the landowner if they have given the authority UKCPM are claiming.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 10th Jan 18, 9:27 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Thanks IamEmanresu, that was my worry so I will be ready and waiting for any dodgy paperwork.
    They failed to black out everything and I will be able to prove it is falsified.

    Isn't that a blatant lack of due diligence though, so then putting the responsibility squarely back on UKCPM? i.e. UKCPM should request at least a copy of the land register or deeds from the client.
    However, wherever they put the blame, if they don't come up with valid proof of authority then their case is dead in the water surely?
    Last edited by completelyfubar; 10-01-2018 at 9:37 AM.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 10th Jan 18, 10:27 AM
    • 1,766 Posts
    • 2,389 Thanks
    Castle
    In light of this very recent case you should mention in your SA that the company, (client), needs TWO signatures on the contract:-
    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117947
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 10th Jan 18, 11:02 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    More ammo
    Thank you Castle, that does bolster my assertions to the validity of the 'agreement'.
    I'll put reference to this and indeed Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.
    Thanks again
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 10th Jan 18, 1:04 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    This SA is getting bigger... need to try and keep it concise!
    Am I right in saying that I can bring the SA and cost schedule to the hearing or should I drop a copy off at the courts beforehand?
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 10th Jan 18, 2:22 PM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    Am I right in saying that I can bring the SA and cost schedule to the hearing or should I drop a copy off at the courts beforehand?
    My opinion / knowledge from my appearance at court and what I have read:

    1) Your costs schedule should go to the court and Claimant at least 24 hours before the hearing.

    2) The SA is also best to go to the court before the hearing. (Also email to Claimant is best but not mandatory. If not sent hand a copy to them on the day)

    You are the defendant in a small claims so the rules should be more relaxed
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 10th Jan 18, 2:36 PM
    • 2,748 Posts
    • 3,405 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    SA shoudl be no more than a page of A4, or so. Its a summary

    Send to court and claimant 3 days before
    Costs send at least 24 hours before.
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 10th Jan 18, 2:54 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Thanks for the reply, does that mean post 3 days before to ensure delivery on-time or to get there 3 days before? If the latter then I need to drop the SA off tonight or tomorrow.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 10th Jan 18, 2:58 PM
    • 2,748 Posts
    • 3,405 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Get there 3 days before

    Email is fine. Its one page.
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 10th Jan 18, 3:05 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Damn, 3 working days before is today
    and I am still two pages in size....
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 10th Jan 18, 3:19 PM
    • 2,748 Posts
    • 3,405 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I did not say 3 working days
    I said 3 days.
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 10th Jan 18, 3:22 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Sorry, my mistake, thanks for the clarification ... phew!
    I will put the two page SA up asap in the hope that I can reduce it's size.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,846Posts Today

8,079Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Nearly at the Cheshire Show. Doing an @itvMLshow there today and tomorrow. Do say hi if you're there or ask a question.

  • Good morning. I'm on the train to go to the Cheshire Show today to film for an @itvmlshow Roadshow. Looking forwa? https://t.co/T0uKOKyj4I

  • Early days, but so far a huge majority - 19 in 20 people - support legalising cannabis for medical use. Whereas t? https://t.co/a3gJipQITc

  • Follow Martin