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
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 8th Apr 18, 8:24 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 1Thanks
    TalekMorac
    Loading/unloading in UKPC car park > SCS Law
    • #1
    • 8th Apr 18, 8:24 PM
    Loading/unloading in UKPC car park > SCS Law 8th Apr 18 at 8:24 PM
    HI I've only just come across this forum, otherwise I would have been here sooner!

    I've now received a SCS LBCCC. I will write up a full response based on the info I've read in the newbies (plus information I've read elsewhere), and post it shortly. But to give a bit of context prior, and to see if anyone is able to advise of any specifics which might help, i'll give a quick background below:

    We Live in flat on 14th floor, which has paid for private parking underneath and marked bays outside (both manned by UKPC). The car is often left below (not obstructing, and also not in a marked bay), whilst it's either being loaded or unloaded. The car is barely downstairs 15 minutes on most occasions and often the hazards are left on to signify it's a fleeting visit.

    However, tickets have been received during these periods for the car being parked downstairs.

    We have previously also been told by reception that there is a gross period for loading and unloading. The tickets give no indication of how long the car was parked below - considering delivery vehicles for supermarkets are often parked for a considerable time and receive no tickets!

    I'll pen up a draft letter, for which i would appreciate some feedback shortly.

    Thanks!
Page 1
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 10th Apr 18, 9:46 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 18, 9:46 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 18, 9:46 PM
    Your Ref: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Dear Sirs,

    I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of XX March 2018.

    Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

    Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

    Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

    As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

    Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

    I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
    5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
    6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
    8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
    11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form


    If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

    Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


    Yours faithfully,
    XXXXX


    -----------------

    Should i mention, something about being the owner being a resident and making use of loading/unloading? I've reviewed the leasehold and cannot find anything within it about allowing time for loading/unloading; but we've been informed by reception that we have a 15 minute leeway.

    Would it be also worth at this stage mention the recent government discussions on private parking companies?

    Any support would be great
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Apr 18, 9:53 PM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,686 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 18, 9:53 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 18, 9:53 PM
    11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form
    Are you sure SCS Law has not sent a compliant PAP letter with these forms?

    You are looking at quite an old pre-Christmas version of a reply to a LBC.

    Should i mention, something about being the owner being a resident and making use of loading/unloading? I've reviewed the leasehold and cannot find anything within it about allowing time for loading/unloading; but we've been informed by reception that we have a 15 minute leeway.

    Would it be also worth at this stage mention the recent government discussions on private parking companies?
    Yes, and get it in writing NOW from the reception or Managing Agent (MA) that residents have been told many times, that they have 15 minutes grace to load/unload (and do not take no for an answer in getting that by email or in writing from the MA or Reception).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 11th Apr 18, 9:04 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    • #4
    • 11th Apr 18, 9:04 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Apr 18, 9:04 PM
    Hi Coupon-mad thanks for that! I!!!8217;ve seen a few more recent posts so I!!!8217;ll have a look at rewriting based on them


    Re:loading/unloading I!!!8217;ve spoken to reception today (there!!!8217;s a new manager). He advised to fight the parking fine but that the load/unload 15minutes is actually only !!!8216;marked spaces outfront!!!8217; which actually have signage specifying allocation to companies or other residents.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Apr 18, 9:11 PM
    • 10,728 Posts
    • 11,152 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #5
    • 11th Apr 18, 9:11 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Apr 18, 9:11 PM
    TalekMorac, you might want to consider turning off Smart Punctuation on your ipad/iphone to make your posts easier to read.

    This guide may help:
    .
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 11th Apr 18, 9:59 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    • #6
    • 11th Apr 18, 9:59 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Apr 18, 9:59 PM
    - Thanks for the tip (re-posted)
    Hi Coupon-mad thanks for that! I've seen a few more recent posts so I'll have a look at rewriting based on them


    Re:loading/unloading I've spoken to reception today. He advised to fight the parking fine but that the load/unload 15 minutes is actually only for marked spaces out. These spaces have signage specifying allocation to companies or other residents - which makes it very confusing.
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 12th Apr 18, 7:03 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    • #7
    • 12th Apr 18, 7:03 AM
    • #7
    • 12th Apr 18, 7:03 AM
    Dear Sirs,

    Re: UKPC Ltd

    References
    XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

    I note your letter before claim dated XXXXXX, received XXXXXX.

    I deny that I owe any debt to your client, UKPC Ltd.

    I intend to defend any claim and I invite you to advise your client to withdraw at this early stage, before costs are incurred in defending a claim against me as registered keeper. I believe any claim by UKPC Ltd is baseless and misconceived and is bound to fail.

    Due to the owner of the vehicle being a resident at the car park’s associated building, the vehicle is often left downstairs whilst the driver loads/unloads the vehicle. In order to not cause an offence or obstruction, the vehicle is not left on a yellow line or making use of an already assigned bay. Having inspected the signs at the location before responding to your letter, I am aware that whilst your client's signage is displayed at the material location, the terms are illegible from a driving seat.

    Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the drivers at the material times. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTKs in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended. Indeed I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had UKPC Ltd evidenced the driver(s) in their NTKs, I would have passed the purported 'PCNs' to those drivers, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law. This position is entirely due to the choice of your client when drawing up a Notice to Keeper (NTK) document which does not in any way attempt to use nor rely upon the rights they might otherwise have been able to claim, under the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) Schedule 4.

    You have listed separate 'parking charge notices' in which the facts seem to be fairly identical but all of the NTKs are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on each or any occasion. Should you attempt to rely upon the cases of Elliott v Loake (irrelevant criminal case) and or Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films (irrelevant employee/employer commercial liability issue), you should be aware and fairly warned now, to advise your client that these have never been reported as persuasive or even applicable to any robustly-defended private parking case.

    Your client need to be aware of several recent cases where the Judges ruled Elliott v Loake as not relevant or applicable, including Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016, and Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016. Further, Excel v Lamoureux at Skipton C3DP56Q5 involved three unreasonable claims in which DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds examined the Parking Operator's NTK and found that it did not comply with the POFA. The claimant was warned not to bring further baseless non-POFA cases to that Court and were forced to discontinue the final vexatious claim. This transcript will be adduced in evidence in my defence:

    [link goes here]

    In addition, PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA Annual Report 2015). All AOS members with the British Parking Association (including your client) adhere to POPLA requirements and have been furnished with copies of all POPLA Annual Reports to date so there is no lawful excuse for proceeding against a registered keeper when an operator chooses not to use the POFA.

    In each demand, your client has added in costs/administrative charges which are not defined in any contractual document. It is my belief that your client's additional costs are arbitrary and unsubstantiated and are an attempt at double recovery, which cannot be supported on the small claims track. Should your client attempt to rely upon another commonly trotted-out case in these baseless robo-claims for parking operators, namely Chaplair Ltd vs Kumari [2015] this can easily be distinguished from this matter, since that was an irrelevant decision about contractual fees set in lease terms, not 'costs' fabricated by a parking firm who already make a significant profit from paid 'PCNs' as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], where I would remind you that the parking firm were only entitled to claim for the £85 charge itself. This sum was held to be more than sufficient to cover the very minimal cost of operating a generic 'enforcement regime' with a few template letters generated automatically.

    Since the POFA also states that the only sum that can be claimed from a registered keeper (subject to full compliance with Schedule 4) is the sum stated on the NTK itself - not allowing double recovery - it is clear that it is neither within the intentions of Parliament, nor was it held by the Supreme Court, that any parking firm can add further costs dressed up as 'damages' or loss, over and above the artificially high/already inflated parking charge sum itself.

    If your client will not withdraw, then I ask for your response to the matters above and for the following documents:

    i. The contract (or chain of contracts) between your client and the site landowner - not a site agent or other non-landholder - giving your client authority to carry out parking management and on what terms;

    ii. Any and all photographs taken of my car on the material date, including what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated

    iii. A copy of any document your client asserts sets out the terms of the alleged contract between it and a driver (this may be the same as iv below);

    iv. A copy of the signs on display and a dated plan of where in the car park they were displayed on those dates;

    These are core documents, central to your client’s claim. As such, they are documents which are required to have been produced at an early stage (regardless of whether or not I asked for them) in this pre-action phase, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction: Pre-Action Conduct. I would have expected at the very least, that the contract requested under iii above should have been appended to the Letter Before Claim. I am requesting these documents because I clearly require them in order to be able to prepare a proper defence to any Claim and/or a meaningful POPLA appeal, as is my entitlement. The CPR clearly anticipate an early exchange of information, as per paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction: Pre-Action Conduct, Rule 16 and Practice Direction 16 !!!8211; any failure to produce the information I have asked for will be nothing other than a deliberate attempt to frustrate my ability to defend the claim and a failure to comply with pre-action obligations.

    Any failure by you/your client, to enter into meaningful dialogue in order to avoid unnecessary litigation will mean that you will have denied me the opportunity ‘take stock’ pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction, or to enter into discussions with you pursuant to paragraph 13. I will seek the sanctions provided for by paragraph 15 of the Practice Direction.

    It is noted that you have stated inexplicably, that you do not consider that this matter is suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). However, I disagree. Not only is ADR a requirement at this stage under the pre-action protocol but I also wish to draw your attention to the EU ADR Directive of 21 May 2013 and The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015.

    Private parking tickets issued by AOS members are always suited to the ADR of an independent appeals service, which exists for this exact purpose. As UKPCLtd is a member of British Parking Association, should your client refuse to withdraw I hereby make the reasonable request that this dispute is resolved out of court by of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) and to minimise costs, the claimant should issue one POPLA code for one of the Parking Charge Notices and agree to place the other disputed ‘charges’; on hold whilst this process is completed.

    I would remind you that POPLA is very clearly a reasonable resolution out of court and since on your website you state that: 'the solicitors at SCS Law have vast experience of civil litigation, debt recovery and enforcement, which provides {...} a highly specialised and expert service' it should not even be remotely necessary for me to have to draw your attention to the overriding objective within the Civil Procedure Rules, enabling parties to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, saving expense for both sides in resolving a dispute. I protest at your suggestion that you can deny me my right to ADR. POPLA codes can be issued at any time, not just in the first 28 day arbitrary deadline (imposed in the interests of parking operators only, creating a significant imbalance in the rights of consumers). It may interest you to know that POPLA codes have been produced by parking operators many months/years after parking events, by order of the Courts and if your client refuses to withdraw I am formally asking for a POPLA code now and will make the same reasonable request of the CCBC when serving my Directions Questionnaire in due course.

    Should your client deny my right to ADR and proceed despite being unable to invoke 'keeper liability' in law, I will consider the action to be indicative of wholly unreasonable and vexatious conduct in litigation. I will draw to the court’ s attention to the issues, will claim my costs and will cite unreasonable conduct pursuant to Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    Finally, since there is clear evidence that this proposed claim has no prospects of success and if pursued, will have been wrongly brought, I am advised that your client has breached the terms of the Data Protection Act by misusing my data to mislead me about liability.

    Your client has accessed my keeper details from the DVLA on more than one occasion and despite having no information as to the driver on each occasion, it continued under an unreasonable and unlawful assumption to pursue me instead, when it had no right to do so. Whilst obtaining DVLA data to enquire who was driving is allowed under the KADOE rules, that data must not be further used for any purpose outside the basis upon which it was provided by the DVLA. Your client has stepped outside the DVLA provision of my data by continuing to cause me significant distress by harassing me, the registered keeper. There can be no doubt whatsoever that a Letter before Claim sent blindly to a person with no legal liability is likely to cause enormous distress and I confirm that this is the case.

    I require you and your client to case and desist. To be clear, I decline any invitation to name the driver and this is my lawful right. There the matter must end, because UKPC Ltd have no lawful excuse to use my DVLA data beyond the very basic cause, of enquiring as to the driver's identity. A line must now be drawn under this exchange.

    Should this matter proceed then I put you on notice that I will make a counterclaim for damages in respect of such Data Protection Act (DPA) breaches, in respect of each and every individual PCN/DVLA data request. I understand that there is case law which supports a damages award of £750 for each breach (so a total of £3000 in this case as a counterclaim). I believe I am entitled to claim an award of aggravated damages because your client must have been aware of the provisions of, and its duties pursuant to, the DPA and the limitations as to the use of the data they extracted under the KADOE. They are indisputably aware that they were operating a business model which gives them no rights whatsoever to claim against a registered keeper and I require them to withdraw immediately.

    I expect a substantive response with the documents and POPLA code (or confirmation of cancellation of all PCNs) within 14 days of this letter.

    Yours faithfully,


    -----------------------

    Hoping to post this tonight, so any feedback would be great!
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 12th Apr 18, 8:57 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    • #8
    • 12th Apr 18, 8:57 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Apr 18, 8:57 PM
    Sorry to push but as I said hoping to send this tonight.
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 12th Jun 18, 8:01 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    • #9
    • 12th Jun 18, 8:01 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Jun 18, 8:01 PM
    I had a reply from them with photos of the car with alleged timestamping.

    They have said they will await my response. In the meantime I have spoken to the building about the unloading policy and they have clarified where we can be parked for loading/unloading; which does not match what I believed before.

    I have also spoken to the ticketer and asked him where he believed people where allowed to load/unload - this does not match the picture that the building supplied. So it seems to be a massive mismatch here.

    At this stage, I think I should ask SCS Law to clarify where they believe the loading zones are, or do people think this will be a waste of time? Surely if they do not confirm the same zone as the building then there is discrepancies in the enforcement of the policy.

    The letter was dated 14th May but I only received the letter 28th May and wanted to get confirmation from the building on the loading rules before going further.

    What do people normally do at this stage?

    Thanks for your help in advance

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jun 18, 8:49 PM
    • 9,346 Posts
    • 12,300 Thanks
    beamerguy
    UKPC are scammers and fraudsters ..... Do you not
    know they were banned by the DVLA for timestamping
    fraud ????

    Proof is required that the timestamping is correct ?

    UK Parking Control continue to issue fraudulent tickets

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/10/uk-parking-control-continue-to-issue.html

    UKPC history of illegal activities can only mean that you query
    every claim made by UKPC, even in front of a judge

    So ask SCS to provide proof of the timestamping
    Last edited by beamerguy; 12-06-2018 at 8:51 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 12th Jun 18, 9:05 PM
    • 2,209 Posts
    • 2,666 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    I had a reply from them with photos of the car with alleged timestamping.

    They have said they will await my response. In the meantime I have spoken to the building about the unloading policy and they have clarified where we can be parked for loading/unloading; which does not match what I believed before.

    I have also spoken to the ticketer and asked him where he believed people where allowed to load/unload - this does not match the picture that the building supplied. So it seems to be a massive mismatch here.

    At this stage, I think I should ask SCS Law to clarify where they believe the loading zones are, or do people think this will be a waste of time? Surely if they do not confirm the same zone as the building then there is discrepancies in the enforcement of the policy.

    The letter was dated 14th May but I only received the letter 28th May and wanted to get confirmation from the building on the loading rules before going further.

    What do people normally do at this stage?

    Thanks for your help in advance

    Originally posted by TalekMorac
    forget any rubbish you are being fed by "managers" , WHAT IS THE TIME DIFFERENCE shown on the photos ?
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 12th Jun 18, 9:10 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    Hi

    Thanks for coming back. The timestamps are all just over 15 minutes which is what is the time allowed for loading/unloading.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jun 18, 9:19 PM
    • 9,346 Posts
    • 12,300 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Hi

    Thanks for coming back. The timestamps are all just over 15 minutes which is what is the time allowed for loading/unloading.
    Originally posted by TalekMorac
    As it's UKPC, you cannot trust them as they are fraudsters.

    They and their dodgy legal must provide proof .

    In the last fraudulent case of UKPC the attendent
    changed the time on pictures ..... now they must prove
    they did not do that with you
    Last edited by beamerguy; 12-06-2018 at 9:24 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 12th Jun 18, 10:08 PM
    • 2,209 Posts
    • 2,666 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    As it's UKPC, you cannot trust them as they are fraudsters.

    They and their dodgy legal must provide proof .

    In the last fraudulent case of UKPC the attendent
    changed the time on pictures ..... now they must prove
    they did not do that with you
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    indeed , and in this case they "cried off" rather than explain in court http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/05/ukpc-caught-apparently-doctoring.html
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 18, 10:55 PM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,686 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi

    Thanks for coming back. The timestamps are all just over 15 minutes which is what is the time allowed for loading/unloading.
    Originally posted by TalekMorac
    Well how very *convenient* for them...

    Stop thinking you've done wrong!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 15th Jul 18, 5:47 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    Hi guys

    Thanks for all your help so far!

    Unfortunately, they've ignored my previous letters and have proceed to the County Court Claim. At this stage i'm obviously going to go off and do lots of reading! But is it worth me starting a new thread or do I keep going on this thread?

    I'm still awaiting a response on the loading/unloading rules (or their interpretation of them). I have them from the building reception team, but when I chatted to the attendant recently he told me something completely different - so if i can get that it writing that would help.

    I've searched my leasehold agreement for anything on loading/unloading and cannot find anything

    I'm still also waiting on more evidence re: the time-stamping as they have not come back on that yet.

    I've signed into the MCOL portal and filled in the AOS; so now have until the 4th August.

    Any help would be great
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jul 18, 6:02 PM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,686 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Keep on this thread, please, so we can see the background about the PCN.

    Search* the forum for defence UKPC and (separate search) defence loading which should reveal several good examples - spend time on it. Copy them & adapt & show us a draft.


    *always always always change the default search to SHOW POSTS (NEVER leave it to show threads, or you will be there for a month of Sundays!).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 29th Jul 18, 9:46 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    Hi All

    Here's my first stab.

    The points I want to get across are:
    - 3 out of the 4 'offenses' claim the vehicle was parked in a 'designated bay' but the car was not in a bay and was at the side out of the way.
    - there is no loading/unloading grace period allowed
    - UKPC's history of timestamping
    - should i mention about their DVLA info ban?

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary

    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence, failing to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    1.1 The Claimant's solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

    1.2 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is 'robo-claims' which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe to their significant detriment that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute. A punitive costs order will be sought against the Claimant and a wasted costs order against its solicitors.

    Background

    2. For all of the alleged ‘offenses’ the vehicles was left for a short-period of time whilst the driver was loading/unloading the vehicle. During this time, the vehicle was left in a way as to not obstruct permit-holders.

    3. The claimant’s ‘robo-claims’ contain duplicate state of ‘parking in a designated “Permit Holder Parking Space” without clearly displaying a valid permit’. Despite their own ‘evidence’ for 3 of the alleged-offenses showing the car not parked within a parking space; showing a lack of thorough preparation and thus a disregard for the sanctity of the court process.

    4. It is acknowledged that at all material times the defendant, XXXX, residing at XXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

    5. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    6. It is admitted that the Defendant's vehicle was stopped on the material dates, for the purposes of loading and alighting. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that can have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    Claimant's rights to bring a Claim

    7. The particulars of the contract the claimant supplied as ‘evidence’ contain references which are out of date (including the Site plan), and give no indication of the rules for loading or unloading. They also contain no reference to loading and unloading agreement which exists with the land owner.

    8. Whilst the Claimant has supplied ‘evidence’ of the alleged-parking offense, given the history of timestamp manipulation by the Claimant. I do not believe this to be sufficient evidence.


    Forbidding Signage and Legibility

    9. The Claimant's signage at this site states ‘All vehicles must be parked only within bays’. None of the signs make any reference to loading/unloading at property, which is surely a requirement due to deliveries and domestic/commercial unloading required of a building with both commercial and residental occupants. Not only is the closest sign illegible from the position of the car, but it is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

    9.1 The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that: "If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels' first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass."

    9.2. While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive. A full transcript of the Approved Judgment for the above case will be provided in the event that this case proceeds to a hearing.

    9.3. In Beavis vs ParkingEye case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were ‘large lettering’ on all signs according to the Judges. By comparison the signs provided by the Claimant fails as an example of the ‘large lettering’ that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park, a contract and ‘agreement on the charge’ existed.

    10. In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretation the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply.

    11. In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the 'contravention' according to the Claimant is already committed.

    11.1 The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up

    11.2 In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but the cases are as follows; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8.

    12. The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
    Thus the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

    13. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    14. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for loading and residents alighting during Loading is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    15. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, SCS Law, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

    16. There has been recent discussions at the House of Commons about the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, and the rogue industry, which can be read here: hxxps://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

    17. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    18. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

    19. In addition to the £100 'parking charge', for which liability is denied, the Claimant's legal representatives, SCS Law, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report SCS Law to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.

    20. The parking charges sought are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but an extravagant penalty, and therefore unenforceable. In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court was only prepared to accept a charge of £85 sufficient to act as a disincentive. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable (ParkingEye v Somerfield). The charge of £125 to the Defendant is clearly extravagant and disproportionate to the Claimant's interest and in fact comprises non-contractual elements

    21. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.


    -----------------------------------

    Feedback would be great!

    Thanks,
    Ben
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 29th Jul 18, 9:50 PM
    • 10,728 Posts
    • 11,152 Thanks
    KeithP
    What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?
    .
    • TalekMorac
    • By TalekMorac 29th Jul 18, 11:05 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    TalekMorac
    Haven’t got the form on me at the moment but I’ve got until 4th August to respond
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

806Posts Today

7,520Users online

Martin's Twitter