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
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 8th Aug 18, 11:47 AM
    • 2,496Posts
    • 7,152Thanks
    bargepole
    Court Report: UKCPM hit for 1,000, Gladstones incompetence shown up again
    • #1
    • 8th Aug 18, 11:47 AM
    Court Report: UKCPM hit for 1,000, Gladstones incompetence shown up again 8th Aug 18 at 11:47 AM
    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 Fs 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 DRPs 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 Fs fee of 255. A defence and counterclaim, written with outside assistance, was submitted later that month. Counterclaim for 750 was for distress caused by UKCPMs data misuse/ breach of DPA on the basis that they never had any reasonable cause request Ms Fs 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 didnt show up on the Law Society database but he didnt 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 Fs case and turned straight to Ms P for UKCPMs 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 Flynns 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 Fs 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 wasnt 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 Fs correct address making it appear the claim was correctly served. This threw Lamilad as it went against the entire basis of Ms Fs 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 Fs 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 Fs 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 Fs details from the DVLA
    2. UKCPM, whether deliberately or accidently, had misused Ms Fs 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 Fs 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 UKCPMs action being entirely baseless from the offset and their refusal to consider Ms Fs offer to settle. Judge agreed with some of the argument but said it wasnt 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 Peabodys 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 35, lost 10), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am a Graduate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
Page 1
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 8th Aug 18, 12:00 PM
    • 3,783 Posts
    • 6,224 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #2
    • 8th Aug 18, 12:00 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Aug 18, 12:00 PM
    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.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Aug 18, 12:03 PM
    • 9,638 Posts
    • 12,709 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #3
    • 8th Aug 18, 12:03 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Aug 18, 12:03 PM
    Great report

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

    And what about the incompetent Ms Peabody

    These low life legals must be aware that, any day, any time,
    Lamilad will turn up and slay them
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th Aug 18, 2:16 PM
    • 20,522 Posts
    • 32,440 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 8th Aug 18, 2:16 PM
    • #4
    • 8th Aug 18, 2:16 PM
    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, 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.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 8th Aug 18, 8:55 PM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 2,822 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #5
    • 8th Aug 18, 8:55 PM
    • #5
    • 8th Aug 18, 8:55 PM
    BW Legal must be next in the queue.
    Agreed, followed by CEL.
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 8th Aug 18, 11:09 PM
    • 9,005 Posts
    • 13,893 Thanks
    trisontana
    • #6
    • 8th Aug 18, 11:09 PM
    • #6
    • 8th Aug 18, 11:09 PM
    [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
    • By waamo 9th Aug 18, 9:10 AM
    • 4,876 Posts
    • 6,314 Thanks
    waamo
    • #7
    • 9th Aug 18, 9:10 AM
    • #7
    • 9th Aug 18, 9:10 AM
    [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?
    Originally posted by trisontana
    Indeed and how many sanction points does that carry?
    This space for hire.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Aug 18, 9:34 AM
    • 10,963 Posts
    • 10,926 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #8
    • 9th Aug 18, 9:34 AM
    • #8
    • 9th Aug 18, 9:34 AM
    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
    • By Castle 9th Aug 18, 9:34 AM
    • 2,086 Posts
    • 2,808 Thanks
    Castle
    • #9
    • 9th Aug 18, 9:34 AM
    • #9
    • 9th Aug 18, 9:34 AM
    [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?
    Originally posted by trisontana
    Indeed and how many times were the DVLA satisfied that there was reasonable cause to release the RK's details?
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 9th Aug 18, 9:52 AM
    • 273 Posts
    • 276 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    Retailers and other organisations should think twice before they give a PPC the powers to pursue a claim through the courts.
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 09-08-2018 at 9:56 AM.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Aug 18, 9:52 AM
    • 10,963 Posts
    • 10,926 Thanks
    The Deep
    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.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 9th Aug 18, 11:04 AM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 2,822 Thanks
    Lamilad
    For which she gets a paltry 600, this is not justice. The judge did not even consider the PPC's behaviour be unreasonable.
    TD, I could not agree more.

    Leaving the court there was no elation or cheering from me or Ms F. It was just a subdued sense of - we'd got the result but not the justice.

    Her worry and distress has been very real and it has affected her family too. Her husband is furious about it. The good thing about that is, I understand he's not letting this lie and will be taking it to t the DVLA, ICO and his local MP.

    So, maybe more to come....
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 9th Aug 18, 11:20 AM
    • 9,638 Posts
    • 12,709 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Trading Standards needs to investigate this company, I am sure tha they are acting fraudulently.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    If, we can get to the TS that is ?

    The problem started when Gladstones dreamed up the
    famous scam, the IPC and those parking companies, greedy
    for money jumped ship from the BPA, well knowing, the IPC/IAS
    would favour them

    Why government were duped into allowing the IPC as an
    ATA is beyond belief.
    We certainly do not need 2 ATA's especially one that
    attracts scammers to the likes of the IPC.

    Let's face it, the main purpose of belonging to an ATA
    is to get DVLA access, the codes of practice means little
    to the scammers, especially IPC scammers

    Gladstones / IPC should be terminated as an ATA and if the
    scammers who jumped ship want DVLA access, let them
    pay dearly for it, not like the current 2.50
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • DW190
    • By DW190 9th Aug 18, 11:22 AM
    • 70 Posts
    • 97 Thanks
    DW190
    .

    So, maybe more to come....
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    Should see an increase in the share price of Popcorn Companies.
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

274Posts Today

1,375Users online

Martin's Twitter