Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Hello everyone,
I had been posting in this thread Re: Me V UKCPS Ltd consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/115769-me-ukcps-ltd-5
Al27 suggested I should start a new thread, so here it is.
I have included those I posted below.
To give you a quick run down:-
A vehicle registered to me was used to collect some items, thus was in the small car park located near Wilkinson's in Scarborough for the staggeringly short time of barely four minutes, if we are to believe the time given on the issued ticket.
This familiar car park has been used by locals for the same reasons, delivery or collection for many years. No one takes any notice of signage these days because all to often it is to say yadyyah these premises are protected by cctv or whatever blah blah.
Anyway. Car stopped at almost a dot before 5pm, less than two mins past the hour, driver returns to discover a ticket slapped on the windshield. Allegedly claiming a contract had been entered into whereby the driver of the said vehicle agrees to pay a parking fee of sixty pounds.
There are a number of things wrong with this action of the car park attendee :
As if anyone would knowingly enter into a "contractual" agreement to pay £15 per minute !
Secondly, to make a "contractual" agreement expressed or implied would require both parties to be aware of the terms and conditions, and that would need to be through the landowner and the vehicles driver.
UKCPS First Offence - flyposting on the windscreen = defacement.
Second Offence - The parking attendant claims to have observed arrival five minutes before attaching the notice, impossible = false information, no car park attendant in attendance = fraud
Third Offence - The ticket states "Unauthorised Removal or Interference Is An Offence - this is in fact illegal, as they are not empowered by law therefore such a claim is false = This statement is a criminal act.
Fourth Offence - The Ticket emulates those issued by authorities who are empowered by the law, such as the Council and the Police - Private Car parks do not have this umbrella of support = False declaration = fraud
Ultimately their [problem] revolves around ignorance of the driver and a level of intimidation by making the issue of the ticket to appear official. Threats of daily costs levied, owner details obtained through DVLA, Court summons, bailiffs, Vehicle clamping etc.
Add to this the ambiguous nature of their wording, this is tantamount to money by deception and fraud whilst further attempting to obtain money through extortion. Both are illegal, and constitute criminal offences.
Parking in a private car park does not constitute an offence in the eyes of the law.
The registered keeper is not bound by law in this instance to divulge any information whatsoever. No terms and conditions are available apart from a poorly written sign, which itself does not state hours of operation i.e. 9am to 5pm nor does it state this is a 24hour restriction. It gives no portion of time in which the vehicle is then committing and "offence" (I use the term loosely) For that to exist may give them some grounds of potential loss of revenue or that they have been denied that revenue, so the fee imposed is extortionate, disproportional and unreasonable.
In any event they have no power to enforce.
Letters are designed to further intimidate suggesting the vehicle was somehow committing an offence for which they want payment. They attempt to appear as if they are following procedure by issuing five letters. Next should follow Solicitors letters of perhaps first attempts via a debt collection agency. Only then if that fails does protocol suggest they can move to the next step of issuing county court proceedings.
In my case they have skipped from the letters from them (five) to Court Action.
They have sent me photographs which will be very useful in Court, they show no times stamp, there is no proof of driver, and best of all show their own offence in the warning of removal. Own goal I think.
So what next.... any comments much appreciated
==========
1st post
Re: Me V UKCPS Ltd
Hello everyone
I have read the above this thread with a lot of interest over the past couple of months, the exact same thing happened as the original poster said, vehicle stopped for just four minutes whilst the car was loaded, many letters followed, the last one showed photographs of the vehicle but no time stamp on it, nor any proof of driver. I have not entered into any correspondence, but the letters kept coming, five in all. Now I get a Claim form from the County Court.
I have the impression that perhaps UKCPS try their hand on occasions taking a person to court, maybe hoping the distance involved would mean they get a default hearing resulting in a person having to pay.
In Scotland this type of behaviour from a private carpark was deemed to be nothing more than an attempt to extort money, given that the style they use by attempting to emulate official parking tickets is tantamount to fraud, to claim on their ticket removal is an offence is in itself an offence in law by them.
Add to this their signage does not state hours of operation such as 9 to 5 conversely neither does it state 24 hours.
There has been no proof of driver, nor time stamps on the photos they produced.
I am mad as hell this type of extortion should be practised let alone they feel able to take a person to court.
Advise would be most welcome, of course I shall respond to the courts demanding retraction and that UKCPS must prove the registered keeper was the driver at the time, or surely their case would collapse.
Regards
Sour Cream
==========
2nd post
Oh to add to my first post, I am tempted to write to the pc company and invite them to uphold their case against me in court, telling them it will be challenged vigorously and give case law in scotland as supporting argument, then suggest we may end up setting the same
precedent here in the uk and they can effectively say goodbye to their thriving rip off extortion business
Regards
Sour Cream
I should have added, in regards to my idea to send a letter to the courts refuting liability as there is no case to answer in law, the only case up for discussion is extortion by them, it is the legal system now whereby all supporting documentation "evidence" must be provided to all parties prior to the hearing, the law is all about full disclosure, tactics of old are not permissible these days, so my request for proof of driver should rattle their cage somewhat
==========
Al27 response
I would start your own thread on this Sour Cream.
It sounds like you know what you are doing, but shout if you need help.
Say hi to Steve from all of us in court. Oh I forgot, he'll chicken out at the 11th hour.
==========
3rd post
Hi Al
Is it worth starting a new thread since so much is already written within this one, and we are talking about the same car park ie Wilkinsons. ?
I can easily cut and paste into a new thread if you think its a good idea.
You mentioned Steve, (Steve Hall aka? Steve Allen aka? Matthew Brough) am I to assume UKCPS (ltd) and UK P.A.O (leeds) are one and the same company ?
If this is the same crowd then I shall let it go to court.
Regards
Sour Cream
==========
4th post
hmmm they don't appear at the same address, but does that rule out if they are the same people
UKCPS LIMITED
1ST FLOOR
STANDARD HOUSE GEORGE STREET
HUDDERSFIELD
WEST YORKSHIRE
HD1 2JF
Company No. 05090613
Previous Names:
Date of change Previous Name
22/06/2004 JUSTIFIABLE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Name & Registered Office:
UK P.A.O. LIMITED
38 BRADFORD ROAD
PUDSEY
LEEDS
LS28 6DD
Company No. 04958206
Although they sent me a number of letters, five in all, at no time did it then go to the next procedure of "debt collection" by issuing letters from a solicitor nor agency.
I think they have shot themselves in the foot by attempting to use the courts as collection, this is in fact incorrect and an abuse of the legal structure.
The fact remains this is money by extortion, I cannot see a court being party to that by ruling in their favour.
Comments appreciated .....
Regards
Sour Cream
==========
Al27 response
That's a good question. Hall is UKCPAO, but the paperwork from both is suspiciously similar. Have a look at
If you've received court papers, I think it would be a good idea to start a new thread and scan the paperwork minus *all* personal details, plus a brief bit of background (without giving anything away to the UKCPS trolls)
cheers Al interested in any views. of course this [problem] is all about making money, it has little or nothing to do with preserving parking spaces, if that was the nature of the exercise then there would be a barrier at the entrance to the car park, allowing only access to those who held a key. Plain and simple.
I would say this goes for any area of parking that is deemed private but not cordoned off in some way.
outright greed
sour cream, I don't wish to be mean (so to speak), but as court papers have been issued I would concentrate on your defence before focussing on allegations against the claimant.
They have written you a number of letters, and it could therefore be considered reasonable for them to have got a response from you. Going to the courts next is normally a reasonable thing to do in cases of a contract dispute; there are plenty of people here who would have criticised them for using a "debt collection agency".
I would love to see you present a competent defence and win, or have the company back down when they see your defence.
I would hate to see you fail to defend the case properly because you were focussing on allegations of fraud etc.
If anyone is offended by anything in this post, please ignore it.
Hi Steve m,
Responding to any letters from them is contradicting the majoritive advise given in this forum. I do take your point, however, in preparing for a defence which ought to include a counter claim.
Letters followed by action from solicitors or debt collection letters is the norm, to circumvent this usual practice and issue court papers premature, is to use the courts as a tool, usually frowned on heavily by the judiciary .
Regards Sour Cream
Fair enough. I would advocate writing one put up or shut up letter to the parking company, and (possibly) one shut up letter to any "debt collector" that emerges from the woodwork.
The reason I say this is because if companies who have weak cases plan to target people with court cases to make a point, they will more likely target those who do not respond in the hope that they get a default judgement or an easy win.
This is the technique that music companies used for illegal downloads, and that event-holders use for people reselling tickets on ebay, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear that parking companies do so as well.
It sounds like other people have experience of this company bottling it at the sign of a decent defence, so I wish you the best with this.
UKCPS Ltd court papers issued
, Vehicle clamping etc.
Reply With Quote
