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
    • Amis95
    • By Amis95 24th Jun 19, 6:59 PM
    • 55Posts
    • 58Thanks
    Amis95
    County Court Claim - Private PCN from UK CPM
    • #1
    • 24th Jun 19, 6:59 PM
    County Court Claim - Private PCN from UK CPM 24th Jun 19 at 6:59 PM
    Hi guys,
    Wondering if you can help me. I received a claim form from County Court Business Centre, Northampton for Private parking fine received back in June 2018. I wasn’t wise in responding to any letters to date hoping it will go away which is my bad hence landed on this site for help.

    Here are all the info you may need:

    Name of the Claimant – UK Car Park Management
    Claimants Solicitors – Gladstones
    Date of issue – 10/06/2019
    (Deadlines - 29th June for AOS & 12th July for Defence)
    Particulars of claim:
    ‘The driver of the vehicle with registration xxxxxx (the vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at 93-101 GREENFIELD ROAD – LONDON GREATER LONDON E1 1EJ, on 11/06/2018 thus incurring the parking charge (the PCN). The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN with in 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £60 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £11.69 pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.4 per day.’
    Value of the claim - £246.69
    The claim has been issued by the Private parking Company
    Date of the infringement - 11/06/2018
    Date on the NTK issued – 14/06/2018
    They took two pictures of my car and printed them in the letter
    As mentioned, I did not respond to any communications.
    I received, NTK, Formal Demand letter in July 18, two DRP letters on Aug 17 and one in Sept 18, and three Gladstones letter in Oct 18 and then ‘letter before claim’ in March and April 19.

    I will do the AOS asap and send a SAR to UK CPM.

    Please help me with writing a defence, I have already read through many, but they are a bit overwhelming as I am not sure what my grounds are. I am sure the driver did not agree to pay anything as they have stated in the particulars of the claim. This was a Camera PCN so whoever was driving the car would have not known that they received a PCN. Also, I have visited the car park to see the signage and they are appalling. They are affixed high, with tiny fonts and the signages are blocked with bins and other materials so you can’t get close to it. There are no signage at the entrance of the car park.

    I look forward to your response.

    Thank you
Page 6
    • mlees98
    • By mlees98 14th Jan 20, 3:34 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mlees98
    VCS lease car claim MEDIATION
    Great News on the win.

    Would anyone be willing to help with the claim against my company that has now gone to mediation...
    i submitted this defence and then both parties filed a directions questionnaire (N180) and now the claim against me has gone to mediation what do i do next. Any help much appreciated. The car is a lease company car that i was driving at the time.

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

    3. The area named in the claim, Hartlepool Marina, is subject to the byelaws of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority and is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of complying with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, of which you are aware, and only the driver can be held liable for the alleged breach.

    4. The vehicle has multiple drivers and VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES has failed to comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the Defendant in law. Given that the car is insured with more than one driver, the Claimant cannot assume nor tip the balance of probabilities, that the registered keeper was necessarily the driver. Thus, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action and liability against the Defendant

    5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    7. VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
    vehicle parking at the location in question. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.
    8. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

    9. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
    PR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
    (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
    (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

    10. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
    11. In this case the provision requiring payment of £185 is an unenforceable penalty clause and is not a genuine estimate of loss incurred to the claimant.

    12.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case 2015 is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

    13. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

    14. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA 2014 a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

    15. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

    16. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstone’s' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

    17. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

    18. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

    19. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 14th Jan 20, 3:35 PM
    • 8,027 Posts
    • 9,121 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Whoopy Do! Nice one. Bet you are both over the moon.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 14th Jan 20, 3:39 PM
    • 8,027 Posts
    • 9,121 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Great News on the win.

    Would anyone be willing to help with the claim against my company that has now gone to mediation...
    Originally posted by mlees98
    Why have you posted on someone else's thread, notwithstanding that you congratulated them in their win, you should post in your own thread (if you already have one open) or start your own thread and post full details.
    • Amis95
    • By Amis95 14th Jan 20, 4:47 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 58 Thanks
    Amis95
    Whoopy Do! Nice one. Bet you are both over the moon.
    Originally posted by Le_Kirk
    Hi @Le_Kirk,
    Thank you! over the moon about it. I am actually going to volunteer my time on helping others win cases for free like you all helpful people. Would have not won anything without you guys!

    There is an interesting point I learn from today's case. The Judge was a bit reluctant on awarding the schedule of costs and he mentioned something along the line that people often are abusing the schedule of costs. i.e. he thinks this has become a money-making scheme for both parties. I really had to put up an argument for this one. I know there are people out there offering to help with PPC claims for a fee.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 14th Jan 20, 4:51 PM
    • 8,027 Posts
    • 9,121 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Yep, good if you can stick around because you can offer assistance and advice from a "been there, done it" point of view. Considering costs are limited and dictated by CPR I don't know how the judge was thinking it could be used as a money making scheme!
    • Amis95
    • By Amis95 14th Jan 20, 5:28 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 58 Thanks
    Amis95
    Yep, good if you can stick around because you can offer assistance and advice from a "been there, done it" point of view. Considering costs are limited and dictated by CPR I don't know how the judge was thinking it could be used as a money making scheme!
    Originally posted by Le_Kirk
    Maybe I got the wrong impression. The judge didn't seem as friendly as Judge Shanti but rightly struck it out the case anyway. Didn't get a chance to push Jack Chapman's signature or the abuse of process £60.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 14th Jan 20, 5:44 PM
    • 26,824 Posts
    • 35,098 Thanks
    Redx
    well done on your win against VCS


    Another one bites the dust !!


    WELCOME TO OUR WORLD, THE MORE THE MERRIER
    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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jan 20, 9:33 PM
    • 26,606 Posts
    • 43,724 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done @Amis95.

    It would be fantastic if you joined the fight. Of every 100 people we help to beat PPCs, whether at initial appeal, POPLA or court, just about nobody comes back to help anyone else. An extremely bitter-tasting, 'I'm alright Jack, pull up the ladder, I'm outta here' attitude.

    So much more needs to be done to rid the country of this scourge other than just getting off a ticket. There's fewer than a dozen people here fighting this on behalf of millions of motorists across the length and breadth of the country.

    Think about it, 7 million PPC tickets issued in the year, and no more than a handful of stalwarts plugging the dam. More helping hands would most certainly be welcome by us (if not by the PPC network!).

    Look forward to seeing you getting your revenge on VCS and other predators.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 14-01-2020 at 10:38 PM.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask.
    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 15th Jan 20, 3:44 AM
    • 80,775 Posts
    • 95,442 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Well done - I specially sought out your thread to check you did win this one!

    ANOTHER TWO BITE THE DUST!

    Stick around and post when you can and tell people to avoid the awful touts on websites and facebook saying they can do this for a fee, when in fact we are the experts and they are a mix of aggressive nasty gits who sue people (customers included...Jeez...and they boast about it) and an ex-PPC employee, among others.
    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
    • Amis95
    • By Amis95 16th Jan 20, 4:43 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 58 Thanks
    Amis95
    Hi all, thank you for the lovely messages. I am sticking around now that I feel confident and determined. I have started reading some of the forums and must say it takes a lot to read and advise which only goes to show how much time and effort you guys spend. I met a guy at court who received dozens of CC Claims so he hired a guy from the private parking company paying him expenses and £50 + awards of costs by court which made me think, these people are already in trouble and you are making money of them makes you no different than the PPC.

    I am also doing my best to inform people not to pay, not to ignore and fight CC Claims though my networks.

    I will do my best

    so much love for you guys!!!!
    • didgeridoooo
    • By didgeridoooo 24th Jan 20, 6:11 PM
    • 273 Posts
    • 224 Thanks
    didgeridoooo
    I have read countless threads but that's my very first BOGOF

    Great work, oh and Great work! I sat with a huge grin on my face for last couple of pages!!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Jan 20, 8:22 PM
    • 80,775 Posts
    • 95,442 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi all, thank you for the lovely messages. I am sticking around now that I feel confident and determined. I have started reading some of the forums and must say it takes a lot to read and advise which only goes to show how much time and effort you guys spend.
    Originally posted by Amis95
    Brilliant to have you join us whenever you can. We all started as a newbie.

    I met a guy at court who received dozens of CC Claims so he hired a guy from the private parking company paying him expenses and £50 + awards of costs by court
    Do you mean he paid a (shudder...) parking appeals company ''expenses and £50 + awards of costs by court''? I believe that's illegal as a lay rep can only claim expenses, otherwise they overstep the mark in doing the work of a solicitor.

    Which appeals company?


    Did you see this 'hired guy', what was his name/company and at which court was it?

    We want to know who was charging that, despite not being a solicitor.

    WARNING - DO NOT EVER TRY TO USE AN APPEALS COMPANY.

    I know what I am talking about when I tell you how aggressive they are, even suing customers then boasting about it and warning people not to mention it on forums.
    which made me think, these people are already in trouble and you are making money of them makes you no different than the PPC.
    Yes, when firms are run like that. Avoid avoid avoid.

    We even had a poster here touted by message, either on this forum or maybe pepipoo, who never posted again after realising his mistake when we told him to check TRUSTPILOT.
    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
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

3,079Posts Today

6,636Users online

Martin's Twitter