County Court Letter From UKCPS

[tanwer2001]

dd

Edited November 26, 2008 by tanwer2001

[Al27]

Is it stamped?

 

Have you got an original thread with your story?

[tanwer2001]

dd

Edited November 26, 2008 by tanwer2001

[Al27]

Sweet. Expect UKCPS to chicken out a few days before the court date.

 

Someone here should be in touch with what to write for your defence.

[sour_cream]

hello, this is exactly what has happened to me also, should be interesting to see what replies you get.

Although my papers were not stamped, ie clearly a stamp from the courts it was a printed stamp as the forms are self printed. There is no signature but a typed name of PA Haswell and also issued from Northampton, which is odd dont you think, since UKCPS is in Huddersfield

 

Regards Sour Cream

[Steve__M]

This thread has fouled up my recently presented theory in sour_cream's thread that parking companies are less likely to target people who've responded to their letters!

 

Northampton is used for all Money Claim online claims. If the claims are defended they'd be transferred to a local court.

[sour_cream]

This thread has fouled up my recently presented theory in sour_cream's thread that parking companies are less likely to target people who've responded to their letters!

 

 

Northampton is used for all Money Claim online claims. If the claims are defended they'd be transferred to a local court.

 

Yup I did wonder if this maybe the case, defend and it will be re-listed at a more convenient court

 

28 days to respond with a blistering defense, I intend to invite the court to try the case ... but not with the magistrates as they have no clue at all about the law, indeed the only person qualified in law in the magistrates, is the clerk.

 

Regards Sour Cream

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

 

 

 

Yup I did wonder if this maybe the case, defend and it will be re-listed at a more convenient court

 

28 days to respond with a blistering defense, I intend to invite the court to try the case ... but not with the magistrates as they have no clue at all about the law, indeed the only person qualified in law in the magistrates, is the clerk.

 

Regards Sour Cream

 

Don't worry it won't go anywhere near magistrates. They deal with criminal cases (with a few exceptions). This will go to a county court judge who is legally qualified and with a number of years experience.

[electron99]

Don't worry it won't go anywhere near magistrates. They deal with criminal cases (with a few exceptions). This will go to a county court judge who is legally qualified and with a number of years experience.

 

Now here is a thought.Judges and courts are expensive to run and some newspapers are reporting that courts may have to go on short time to save costs.What if every single person who got a PPC invoice did their best to get it into court.

 

The court system would grind to a halt, and perhaps then something would be done about the activities of private parking companies.

[Howard0181]

2 points in response

 

1) To confirm that the Summons has been issued there should be a Claim Number on the documentation. Telephone Northampton and they will advise you if the claim is genuine. It sounds like it is.

 

2) You need to be very careful in what you write in your Defence. Most important is that you tell the truth on who was driving the car. If it goes to Court the judge will not be pleased with you for not answering this question. If another person was driving this car then you should give the name and address of the person driving the car.

 

Hopefully one of the legal experts will assist with the best wording of your initial defence.

[electron99]

2 points in response

 

 

2) Most important is that you tell the truth on who was driving the car. If it goes to Court the judge will not be pleased with you for not answering this question. If another person was driving this car then you should give the name and address of the person driving the car.

 

 

Since this is a civil case there is no legal requirement for the registered owner to reveal who was driving.PPC's like to make out you have to, but this is totally wrong.

[Howard0181]

Electron

 

If the defence states that "I was not the driver" then in Court the plaintiff will ask the question "who was driving the car". If the answer is "I am not going to tell you"..then the Judge will ask the same question....If the reply to the Judge is the same then the Judge will form the opinion based on probability that the defendant was the person who parked the car. Furthermore, the judge will take a dim view of the defendant.

 

Its best to base the defence based on the legal aspect of the case and not to dodge or lie to a question. Based on the above if it was me I would state who was driving the car in my original defence and then use the legal arguments on why the invoice is unlawful.

[pin1onu]

Since this is a civil case there is no legal requirement for the registered owner to reveal who was driving.PPC's like to make out you have to, but this is totally wrong.

Absolutely agree with electron on this one. They onus is on the plaintiffs to prove privitiy of contract, i.e. provide evidence of who the driver was and that a contract had been established. The RK and the driver are not necessarily the same person. They ignore this fact at their peril. Have a look at the thread titled Perky defeated in Oldham County Court. It clearly demonstrates the what will happen if they ignore this fact.

 

However this is only the first line in your defense.

 

On a more general note be careful that you don't actually lie to the court as that is perjury and we all know what happened to Neil Hamiliton and Geoffery Archer when they told porkies to the court. That said you don't have to give chapter and verse either. A judge will not necessarily ask the question. If you are presented with a photo of yourself in the vicinity of the vehicle then that would constitute evidence and there is no point denying it. However AIUI such material would need to be included in the evidence bundle for it to be considered in court.

 

Have a read of the private parking charges guide in the stickies section. It will provide you with a starting point for the rest of your defense.

Edited September 12, 2008 by pin1onu

[My Real Name]

If the Judge were to ask who the driver was at the time, it may also be reasonable to not know.

 

I received an invoice from a PPC alleging a breach of contract for some months previous. I may not reasonably be expected to know who was driving the vehicle at that time, as I do not keep records.

 

Either way, I would be inclined to go the excess damages route, as the judge may assume the driver to have been the keeper.

[Steve__M]

Electron

 

If the defence states that "I was not the driver" then in Court the plaintiff will ask the question "who was driving the car". If the answer is "I am not going to tell you"..then the Judge will ask the same question....If the reply to the Judge is the same then the Judge will form the opinion based on probability that the defendant was the person who parked the car. Furthermore, the judge will take a dim view of the defendant.

 

Its best to base the defence based on the legal aspect of the case and not to dodge or lie to a question. Based on the above if it was me I would state who was driving the car in my original defence and then use the legal arguments on why the invoice is unlawful.

 

Howard, the answer to this question is quite important. Can you say on what you base your answer from?

 

A judge may choose to draw such a conclusion based on the evidence supplied, and a denial without evidence may be regarded on balance of probabilities, not sufficient evidence. But reasonably someone may be able to prove that they were likely somewhere else at the time the car was parked, or that they cannot recall who was driving.

 

There seems to be quite strong case law that states that they would not be forced to name the driver, and that it is the PPC's responsibility to establish who they have a contract with.

 

Going back to what electron99 says, yes, we are supposed to try and sort issues out without them going to court. I think a single letter giving your position, followed by template letters sent by the parking company to you that ignore what you said shows that you tried and they didn't.

[Barnsley Boy]

I am not suggesting that anyone should lie to the judge. However, the PPC is under an obligation to establish who their arguement is actually with before just conveniently accusing the driver. Any defence should start with the statement that the PPC has made no effort to establish the identity of the driver.

[Howard0181]

Steve

 

Before I answer your question I would strongly advise that the OP seeks the advice of a solictor or at least one of the legal experts on this site or the Pepipoo site. The defence which needs to be lodged soon is a very important document. Also, I strongly believe that the correct defence will give the OP victory in this case although its quite likely that UKCPS will withdraw at some stage.

 

District Judges act in different ways. I had a case last year where I sued TFL for restoration of a previously paid PCN (local authority). One of the experts on the Pepipoo site assisted me and there was another similar case of restitution. We both had the same legal arguments. I lost and the other person won. Both cases where within 3 weeks of each other.

 

To answer the question its my guess that a judge will ask the question "who was driving the car". I have never been in court so I cant say it will be asked or not. Its just my guess. If I was in court I would be making the legal arguments on why the Claim of UKCPS should be dismissed. I want the judge to concentrate on the sham business tactics of PPC's and not to get side tracked on the drivers identity. Its easy to upset a judge in Court. Fact is if you dont answer a question he or she will not like it and that could influence his or her decision.

 

I would never disclose identity in letters before Court but believe that tactics need to be reconsidered in the event of a Summons being issued.

 

I would be interested to read any comments by a solictor on this important issue.

[lamma]

I am not suggesting that anyone should lie to the judge. However, the PPC is under an obligation to establish who their arguement is actually with before just conveniently accusing the driver. Any defence should start with the statement that the PPC has made no effort to establish the identity of the driver.

 

I agree strongly with this. If the PPC is asking this question in court (or even pointing their fingers and saying 'it was him gov honest, we just know' - something that is not allowed in courts now but PPCs don't care overmuch about anything) then the response should be querying in the strongest possible terms to the judge why an action as been brought to court with NO counterparty to the alleged contract (or to the tort if they are mad enough to go that way) having been identified. Of course if you send representation instead of going personally the whole argument becomes moot. (but I don't think you would get back solicitor costs if you used one. unless it was a friendly who just wanted to hand out a pro bono kicking to the PPC.)

[Genepool1]

I endorse the advice to get over to pepipoo and in touch with the experts there to construct a proper defence. Are these UKCPS losers anything to do with that even bigger loser Perky? The tactics (and no doubt the same forthcoming court losses) appear the same.

[crem]

or even pointing their fingers and saying 'it was him gov honest, we just know' -

 

But they would not just say that in court lamma surely? !

[lamma]

you think that they wouldn't try (out of desperation). I may be doing them a disservice, identifying people on the day (in the dock) is not done anymore. but we have seen all kinds of attempted weird things. if they did they are opening the door to get hammered for bringing a case as a fishing expedition. if they are still fishing it is obvious they can not have tried to settle before court - they have not even identified anyone to settle with !! You don't need to be a silk to advocate them into the dust if they do this.

[emsgeorge]

Perhaps they have just picked up some cases to send to court to 'up their sucsess rate' they tell to their customers ... And have picked on the wrong person !

[Fair-Parking]

Am I missing something here?

 

- there are no drivers in unattended parked cars.

[pin1onu]

Am I missing something here?

 

- there are no drivers in unattended parked cars.

Agreed. But some car parks do have CCTV and the PPC's have been known to photograph people. If they had CCTV footage of you entering and exiting the vehicle and presented it in court there is no way you could reasonably deny being there or being the driver.

 

That said you should not be basing your entire defense on the "it wasn't me guv, take it up the driver route". I've always maintained its the first line of your defence but not the only defence. As we all know, PPC's routinely shoot themselves in the foot on Penalty Charges and Unfair Terms as so eloquently laid out in the PPC Charges guide in the stickies section. There is plenty in the guide to defend yourself with.

[Fair-Parking]

I can understand that but the OP was recommended to put the name of the driver in his defence. At that stage it has no relevance and it is not going to be frowned upon by the judge if no declaration is filed.

 

If the judge feels that the nature of the case itself is unlikely to succeed, then he can rule before the details of it are revealed.

 

If it is asked outright in court who the 'driver' was, then anything other than answering truthfully is likely to harm your case, which will be decided on the balance of probabilities, or to be more blunt, who is more credible to the judge.