UKCPS/? PCN nov 2015 Claimform - Driver-passengers observed leaving site - WEST QUAY RETAIL HULL

[Gily]

Sorry for the stupid question but What does it mean? How can I use this in my defence?

Thanks

[Gily]

Hi guys,

 

I am writing my defence at the moment and my head is spinning...I will try to post it later today for some more advice.

I got a pic of the entrance sign I am try to figure out if it comply with the BPA code of practice.

 

 

 

Thank you for your help.

[ericsbrother]

the sign says conditions apply but doesnt list them - so it isnt a contract

but at best an "invitation to treat" which can be considered and either accepted or rejected

when the actual offer is made clear,

 

a bit like a sign saying "sale, 50% off" doesnt force you to buy anything

just becasue you then go into the shop to look.

 

Also the use of symbols used makes it look like a public car park

and thus inviting people to park where the smaller wording gives the opposite impression

so it is confusing signage to say the least.

 

So, skeleton defence:

no breach of contract as none was entered into.

The signage is an invitation to treat and not an offer of a contract.

The signage is contradictory and confusing so cannot be said to be a unilateral contract.

 

The details can be gone into later.

[Gily]

How good or bad is that please:

Does it need to be more detailed or that brief is ok?

Thank you.

 

 

Claim No: xxxxxx

 

Claimant: UKCPS Ltd

 

Defendant: xxxx

I wish to defend this claim in its entirety on the following grounds:

1. No Contractual Authority

The respondent has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver/registered keeper of the vehicle. That is to say, that it has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park; it is the properly appointed agent of the landowner or has been properly authorised by the landowner to recover unpaid parking charges from the driver/registered keeper. Accordingly, the respondent should be required to provide a copy of its contract with the owner of the land on which the car park is situated and evidence of the land ownership of the party with whom the respondent is contracted.

 

2. Signage at Site

The signage at the site fails to meet the standard required by Regulation 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and as such it cannot be relied upon to demand a parking charge.

The signage is an invitation to treat and not an offer of a contract.

The signage is contradictory and confusing so cannot be said to be a unilateral contract.

The boundaries of the car park are not clearly defined.

3. Failure to mitigate loss

It is the respondent’s responsibility to avoid avoidable losses by taking reasonable steps to do so. The respondent is not permitted to stand aside and let damages accrue with a view it will simply be recovered in due course.

It is asserted that the respondent’s representative had a duty (and failed in that duty) to take reasonable steps to prevent avoidable losses occurring, which, as with the case of VCS vs. Ibbotson, if as alleged the driver of the vehicle was observed leaving the site would have been to advise the driver of the vehicle in question that to step off the site would incur a punitive penalty charge.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

 

Name & Signature

Date

[ericsbrother]

why waffle when one line will do at this stage.

 

 

You are a lay person so you dont have to use the verbiage that lawyers use when writing a simple point.

 

As for contractual authority,

you send a CPR 31.14 and CPR 31.2 request to them demanding sight of the assignment of authority from the landowner to the parking co that allows them to enter into contracts with motorists and to take legal action in their own names.

 

Also for the reference for the planning permission from the council for their signage.

 

This isnt part of a skeleton defence

but something you use to show they have no standing to make a claim in the first place.

 

Once a defence is lodged you will have months to get all the details sorted before a hearing takes place.

 

They may well drop the claim anyway as they know they are likely to lose ANY defended claim.

[Gily]

You completely confuse me now.

What I need to write now?

 

Do I need to send a letter to request more info from UKCPS under CPR31.14?

 

Can you point me to good defence I can use.

 

I read so many but apparently none are be useful in my case.

 

Thanks

 

I have just noticed there is no barcode at the bottom of the page.

 

Is this any sign is not valid?

Thanks

[dx100uk]

You completely confuse me now.

What I need to write now?

 

Do I need to send a letter to request more info from UKCPS under CPR31.14?

Can you point me to good defence I can use.

 

I read so many but apparently none are be useful in my case.

 

Thanks

 

I have just noticed there is no barcode at the bottom of the page.

 

Is this any sign is not valid?

Thanks

 

no barcode is immaterial

 

forget your defence for the minute.

 

not needed yet

 

get that letter running

AND DONT PAD IT OUT

simply ask what EB details to in post 30

 

CPR 31:14

[Gily]

So, just to clarify please. I will send this letter by post to the UKCPS LTD and wait for their answer hopefully within 7 days. Is the letter asks for all the info I need.

Thanks

 

 

[template removed]-please read our rules & whats at the TOP of the CPR link you copied here - dx

[dx100uk]

you need to ADAPT the template to request the info EB referred too

 

 

that's a general template geared for financial matters

[Gily]

you need to ADAPT the template to request the info EB referred too

 

 

that's a general template geared for financial matters

 

Thank you dx for your answers. I will do it now and post it tomorrow.

Sorry about the template I have not read all the rules apparently.

[dx100uk]

its ok.

 

just take things a step at a time and don't get kerfuddled...

 

so all the bits in that letter from 1:

right through to the red £10,000 you remove

 

replace with..

 

sight of the assignment of authority from the landowner to the claimant

that allows them [the claimant] to enter into contracts with motorists

and to take legal action in their [the claimants] own names.

 

reference for the planning permission from the council for the claimants signage

at the relevant site mentioned in the PoC.

 

..think that's about right

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

the defence will be that no contract was ever formed between the claimant and the defendant.

 

the signage isnt a contract or offer of a contract but an invitation to treat.

 

the other signage in the car park is contradictory and confusing so cannot form a contract either.

 

This goes to the court either via MCOL or by letter to Northampton or Wigan, whichever address is on the paperwork.

 

As I said the detail is not needed until a fortnight before the hearing

and you are 6 months away from there assuming UKPCS dont withdraw the claim when they realise you are defending.

 

The CPR 31.14 and CPR 31.2 letter you send to either UKCPS or better still their solicitor

and give them 14 days to provide the paperwork.

 

If they dont you write to the court and say that they have failed to complay with this request

and that your defence relies on showing they have no "locus standi" and these documents will determine this.

 

Ask the council planning dept if UKPCS have planning consent for their signage at this site

under the advertising hoadrings regulations of the Town and Country Planning Act.

 

If they dont have PP then they are committing a criminal offence and you cannot create a contract by criminality.

 

This will be covered in your defence by the phrase no contract ever formed

so no need to add any detail yet or amend the defence to include.

[Gily]

Thank you EB.

 

I have sent CPR31.14 to UKCPS as they don't use solicitors in my case ( I don't know why?).

 

As a CPR 31.2 I could not find what that is.

 

I will ring the council today to ask about planning permission for signage.

 

Do you suggest my defence to be like 3-4 bullet points without any waffling?

 

Any point toward site borders not clearly defined , or amount of penalty unfair?

 

 

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

CPR 31.2 is discovery request as you are intending to take legal action against them.

Let them worry about that.

 

Your request should have read

I demand sight of (the documents) under CPR 31.14 and 31.2.

dont bother writing a separate letter making the same demands if you have already sent off the CPR letter.

 

As for defence,

you are not entering a full defence with all that goes with it at this time,

all you are saying is I intend to defend in full because.

 

.... and then the 2 lines I suggested.

 

Everything else will come in good time

but just returning the court form says you arent going to pay up without a fight

will make them consider whether they want to spend a couple of hundred quid

getting stuffed in a court miles away from their base

and it becoming public knowledge in the local paper that they dont ahve a right to demand money with menaces.

 

It is common for the companies to then quietly discontinue

 

so once your 2 liner has gone in keep an eye on the clock for when the allocation fee has to be paid by them

and if they dont pay it ask for the claim to be struck out.

They will then have a hell of a job restarting.

[Gily]

Thank you EB for all explanation.

I have my defence in short as you suggested just added one more line.

Does it look right now? Most of the defences I read are longer and more detailed?

 

 

 

 

Defendant: xxxx

 

 

I wish to defend this claim in its entirety on the following grounds:

 

1. No contract was ever formed between the claimant and the defendant.
   
2. The signage is not a contract or offer of a contract but an invitation to treat.
   
3. The other signage in the car park is contradictory and confusing so cannot form a contract either
   
4. The claimant failure to mitigate loss
    
   I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    
   Name & Signature
   Date
   

[ericsbrother]

point 4 is only relevant if the person who slapped the ticket on the car was present when it was being parked and then they could have advised the driver that they werent allowed to park or that the charge for parking was £100 and had they considered this?

In short, better to leave it out rather than get trapped by it later. You can raise it in your full defence but I would advise not using it as a main point.

[Gily]

Thank you EB.

I believe the cowboy is there all the time.

 

I have been a few times there to take a pic and looked around.

 

There was a car parked at one of the corners with somebody in it.

 

I will delete it.

 

I have one more question.

 

Can I use non-compliance with Schedule 4 of POFA maybe in my full defence in not now?

 

Is it relevant?

Thank you.

[ericsbrother]

well, we havent seen the original NTK nor been told when you got it so cant say

 

You can add it and also the bit about mitigation if you wish but all you are doing at this stage is denying their claim.

 

The main reason for this is to make the parking co pay the allocation fee,

spend money producing all of their documantation and turn up to a court

(or pay a lawyer a couple of hundred do do so on their behalf)

with the knowledge they are going to get stuffed on the day.

 

The best outcome would be that once they see the claim is being defended they discontinue

and save themselves some money and you a lot of aggro.

 

that is why I say dont get bogged down but by all means mention these points

as their main reason for the supposed breach of contract is utter cobblers anyway

 

If it goes to a hearing then you will have plenty of time to dig out relevent cases

and also get them to prove they ahve the rights to be there and claim in the first place.

 

This should be done via a CPR 31.14 discovery request

and you can look that up and see what you need to ask for when your AOS

and defnece is safely sent back to court and then they can do the sweating.

[Gily]

Hello.

I submitted my defence on 14.07.16

 

today I received Notice of Proposed allocation to the Small Claims Tract and the form N180.

 

I think not to tick mediation.

 

Does this notice mean that PPC paid the hearing fee or that will happen after submission of this form?

 

It says to serve copies on all other parties.

 

Does this mean to send a photocopy to UKCPS LTD?

 

Any advice please.

Thank you.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Gily

[dx100uk]

doesn't mean they are going anywhere no.

 

 

the copy to the claimant listed sols you do not sign

IMHO always yes to mediation

but private parking speculative invoice claims are sometimes diff

see or read what EB recommends

[Gily]

Thanks dx

 

I don't have solicitors involved in my case so I fill the form and send a copy to the UKCPS LTD.

 

If I agree mediation does it mean I agree to pay particular amount of the proposed money?

 

I don't think I own them anything but I may consider a fiver

 

In a worst scenario what will be the maximum amount I would be asked to pay?

 

Thank you.

[dx100uk]

Thanks dx

 

I don't have solicitors involved in my case so I fill the form and send a copy to the UKCPS LTD. - their named sols

 

If I agree mediation does it mean I agree to pay particular amount of the proposed money? no

I don't think I own them anything but I may consider a fiver

 

In a worst scenario what will be the maximum amount I would be asked to pay?

 

Thank you.

 

 

you lose- the claimed sum

but I very much doubt that

[Gick]

Unfortunately DX100uk is wrong (not the first time), mediation is not applicaple in the case of PPC claims, which you deny in total.

 

Mediation is only suitable in the sort of claim involving sums of money for services or articles, where there is a dispute regarding the total amount that should be paid, eg repairs or building work.

 

Follow ericsbrother's advice as he is the dog's gonads in these matters.

[dx100uk]

Said that in post 46……...........

[Gick]

But you repeated your wrong opinion in post #46 IMHO always yes to Mediationicon