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
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 5th May 18, 9:16 PM
    • 56Posts
    • 7Thanks
    Lunek
    PLEASE HELP! Court Claim for residential parking fines!
    • #1
    • 5th May 18, 9:16 PM
    PLEASE HELP! Court Claim for residential parking fines! 5th May 18 at 9:16 PM
    Hello there,
    Iíve read the NEWBIES thread and other ones but couldnít see any similar situations.
    I received Court Claim Form for parking fines (UKPC)
    I live in a block of flats with private car park. You need the permit to park here. There are coded gates to the car park.
    My flat is from the council and when I moved in in 2016 I was told there was no permits for council tenants and that they were sorting it and I should get one within few weeks (in reality it took almost a year). I was told I will get fine if I park my car there and the same thing says in my tenancy agreement.
    I tried to keep my car elsewhere but sometimes I had no choice but to park in the car park because my children were very young at the time and often fell asleep in the car. Iím a single mum and thereís nowhere to park near my place.
    I received 5 fines in total which I ignored (I know...not wise!) Now I received Court Claim Form. I have acknowledged it online without writing any defence.
    I donít really know where to start and how I can defend myself in this case. I canít get any photos of the signage because UKPC is no longer in charge of this car park.
    I was thinking about settlement, offering them me paying for the permits from the day I moved in which would be 10 months of £25. But not sure it will work.
    Can someone Please give me some guidance ? I donít think I can handle it on my own !!!128584;
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th May 18, 10:27 PM
    • 19,998 Posts
    • 25,321 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 5th May 18, 10:27 PM
    • #2
    • 5th May 18, 10:27 PM
    these are not "fines" , so get that word and that idea out of your head from now on

    they are invoices , parking charge notices, so dont call them anything else

    there are hundreds of "own space" residential court claims on here so you need to read a dozen of them to get the idea on what the advice is for these types of charges and how to defend them

    then find a suitable defence posted in the last 6 to 12 months and adapt it

    as you have done the AOS you have 28 days to do this and submit the defence to the CCBC by email attachment

    once you have done the above, and drafted your defence , post it on here for critique

    do not assume you are the only one in this position, many have trod the boards before you

    you will have to do the research yourself, and find and adapt a defence, but once you have done this and posted it, it can be honed for your particular circumstance where necessary
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th May 18, 7:54 AM
    • 10,650 Posts
    • 10,498 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 6th May 18, 7:54 AM
    • #3
    • 6th May 18, 7:54 AM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th May 18, 4:00 PM
    • 64,149 Posts
    • 76,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 6th May 18, 4:00 PM
    • #4
    • 6th May 18, 4:00 PM
    I was thinking about settlement, offering them me paying for the permits from the day I moved in which would be 10 months of £25.
    Nononononono.

    POINTLESS. THEY WILL NOT AGREE TO A SETTLEMENT. NO.

    ...told I will get fine if I park my car there and the same thing says in my tenancy agreement.
    Really? That would be the first tenancy agreement I've seen that actually names £100 parking charge, are you sure? Tell us what it says EXACTLY.

    I have acknowledged it online without writing any defence.
    I don't really know where to start and how I can defend myself in this case.
    What, despite seeing the advice in the NEWBIES thread post #2 about doing the AOS, where just below that, are example defences including one by Johnersh about residential locations?

    Search UKPC defence Jopson to read more.

    Also see this, UKPC are banned by the DVLA (being investigated yet again) so work that into the defence to show your Judge how they operate:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/ukpc-banned-by-dvla.html

    As a first step to calm you down, read other UKPC defences by searching the forum and copying from them and learning what happens.

    We have loads of current UKPC defence examples, such as on the thread by ShazEll where I replied recently with advice on how to reply when SCS desperately ask for a copy of the lease/tenancy agreement. That was fun to write and you can use it, if & when SCS ask!

    Read other recent UKPC claim threads first, ShazEll's included (NO LINK, GO FIND IT)!

    Stop being scared of a rogue ticket firm banned by the DVLA and on a very sticky wicket.

    Dare I ask, as UKPC are kicked out, which PPC do you have infesting the car park now? Do you have any useful letter or email from the Managing Agent (MA) saying (for example) that UKPC were 'removed' for predatory ticketing? If not, email the MA this month and ask specifically, one question: why UKPC were removed, to try to get a useful reply for later as evidence!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-05-2018 at 4:06 PM.
    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
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 10th May 18, 2:04 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    • #5
    • 10th May 18, 2:04 PM
    • #5
    • 10th May 18, 2:04 PM
    [QUOTE][/Nononononono.

    POINTLESS. THEY WILL NOT AGREE TO A SETTLEMENT. NO.QUOTE]

    I!!!8217;ve read on PADI that it!!!8217;s good to at least try settlement and even if they don!!!8217;t accept I can show that in court.
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 10th May 18, 2:07 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    • #6
    • 10th May 18, 2:07 PM
    • #6
    • 10th May 18, 2:07 PM
    Really? That would be the first tenancy agreement I've seen that actually names £100 parking charge, are you sure? Tell us what it says EXACTLY.
    My tenancy agreement says: where provided you will not park a vehicle in the car park area unless you have been issued with a residents car park permit. If you live on an estate with car parking controls you must comply with any rules or regulations advised to you.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 10th May 18, 2:10 PM
    • 37,946 Posts
    • 22,061 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #7
    • 10th May 18, 2:10 PM
    • #7
    • 10th May 18, 2:10 PM
    [QUOTE=Lunek;74268898]

    I!!!8217;ve read on PADI that it!!!8217;s good to at least try settlement and even if they don!!!8217;t accept I can show that in court.
    It's your call!

    You don't "have" to take any advice you get given here!
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 10th May 18, 2:11 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    • #8
    • 10th May 18, 2:11 PM
    • #8
    • 10th May 18, 2:11 PM
    Dare I ask, as UKPC are kicked out, which PPC do you have infesting the car park now? Do you have any useful letter or email from the Managing Agent Dare I ask, as UKPC are kicked out, which PPC do you have infesting the car park now? Do you have any useful letter or email from the Managing Agent (MA) saying (for example) that UKPC were 'removed' for predatory ticketing?
    PCM is controlling the car park now. I remember receiving the letter about changes but I believe I got rid off it.
    I will ask definitely ask about.
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 10th May 18, 2:12 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    • #9
    • 10th May 18, 2:12 PM
    • #9
    • 10th May 18, 2:12 PM
    Thank you. I just thought it!!!8217;s best trying any possible option.
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 10th May 18, 2:20 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    As a first step to calm you down, read other UKPC defences by searching the forum and copying from them and learning what happens.
    Thank you for all your help.
    I!!!8217;m not trying to make excuses or anything but I!!!8217;ve never been To court or anything like that.
    Ive read a lot of posts on here. One problem is I don!!!8217;t understand half of it and I!!!8217;ve spent ages translating it to my own language. All I asked for is some guidance which I!!!8217;m grateful for.
    I will try to put my defence together and will post it on here.
    Thanks for all your support.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th May 18, 2:50 PM
    • 20,285 Posts
    • 32,020 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Please switch off your 'Smart Punctuation' on your iPhone/iPad to avoid the littering of your posts with !!!!8217; and the like, as every apostrophe and some other punctuations convert to exclamation marks and numbers.

    Go to 'General' > 'Keyboard' > 'Smart Punctuation' and flick the switch off.

    Switching off seems to have no detrimental affect on any other use of the keyboard.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 1:10 AM
    • 64,149 Posts
    • 76,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    PCM is controlling the car park now.
    That's even worse, dreadful ex-clamper scumbags. Seriously, not joking, I would move house.
    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
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 15th May 18, 10:12 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    Hello again.

    I have managed to put my defence together and I will appreciate if someone could have a look through it and correct/add whatever is missing.

    Thank you in advance.


    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: XXXXXX

    Between:

    UK Parking Control Ltd v XXXXXX


    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. 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.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

    Background

    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it at the time.

    4. The Defendant is unable to identify the driver for the [dates]. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    4.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    4.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    4.2.1. there was a relevant obligation either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    4.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    4.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    5. It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material dates, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that 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.

    6. It is denied that any "parking charges or loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    7. The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
    The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

    8. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    9. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

    10. The Defendant avers that the operators signs cannot
    (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and
    (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    11. Accordingly it is denied that:
    11.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    11.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    11.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

    12. 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).

    13 How can there be a legitimate interest in penalising residents for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is contrary to the requirement of good faith and of all proportion to any legitimate interest to fine residents for using the parking spaces provided.

    13.1. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

    14. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free resident parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    15.
    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.

    16. 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.

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

    Signed
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th May 18, 10:26 PM
    • 10,768 Posts
    • 11,212 Thanks
    KeithP
    4. The Defendant is unable to identify the driver for the [dates].
    5. It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material dates, whilst residing at the private residential property.
    Which is it?

    Remember, you are going to sign this under this statement:
    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    This is serious stuff.
    Last edited by KeithP; 15-05-2018 at 10:31 PM.
    .
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 15th May 18, 10:29 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    Thank you.
    Do you suggest I delete para 5?
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 15th May 18, 10:31 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    Also I!!!8217;m not sure about para 10, if it relevant to my case.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th May 18, 10:33 PM
    • 10,768 Posts
    • 11,212 Thanks
    KeithP
    Thank you.
    Do you suggest I delete para 5?
    Originally posted by Lunek
    See my additional comment. You need to decide.
    .
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 15th May 18, 10:35 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    Which is it?
    I!!!8217;m not sure which one will be stronger in defence.
    • Lunek
    • By Lunek 15th May 18, 10:43 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Lunek
    See my additional comment. You need to decide.
    I have removed para 5.

    Also I am not sure about para 10, if it relevant to my case.
    Could you have a quick look at that please?
    Thank you
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th May 18, 12:20 AM
    • 10,768 Posts
    • 11,212 Thanks
    KeithP
    What is the date of issue on your claim form?
    .
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

1,097Posts Today

7,119Users online

Martin's Twitter