UKCPS/MIah Claim Form - Parkit, Bridge St Sheffield, S3 8NS - *** Claim Dismissed ***

[aa412]

Hi I’m unfortunately back again.

 

I received a claim form from UKCPS a while ago.

I did the AOS within 14 days and now have a few days left to file my defence.

 

Technically Sunday which i understand means Friday but should have been today because of bank holiday.

I stupidly thought the old advice to ignore letters still stood and i probably had a great chance of it getting dropped but here i am.

 

Particulars of the claim:

 

1.The Claimant is employed by the Landowner to manage private parking at Parkit, Bridge St Sheffield, S3 8NS (the Land).

 

2.The Defendant was the driver/ registered keeper of the vehicle registration xxx(the Vehicle).

Signage is present on the Land stipulating conditions of parking, that a £100 charge will be due for any breach of those conditions, including additional costs if recovery steps are taken. In parking on the Land the Defendant contractually agreed to be bound by those conditions.

 

3.On [date] [time] the Vehicle was parked on the Land in breach of one or more conditions and so a Parking Charge Notice was issued to the Defendant.

As the Charge was not paid, a Notice to Keeper was sent to the registered keeper of the Vehicle.

If the registered keeper has not named the driver, then they are responsible for the charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

4.The Claimant claims payment of the £100 Charge, a £10 admin fee and fixed solicitors costs.

 

I’ve been back to the car park and the signs are tiny.

I had to stand close to them and zoom in to take a picture.

 

They state the conditions of parking then: by parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above you, the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms: you are agreeing to pay a ‘parking charge’ in the sum of £100 to be paid within 28 days of issue reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

 

I’ve read lots of cases but can’t work out if my defence is the one line ‘there was no breach of contract so no cause of action by the plaintiff against the defendant’ or the more full version.

 

Thanks in advance for you help.

Edited March 29, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[dx100uk]

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465231-Received-a-Court-Claim-From-A-Private-parking-Speculative-invoice-How-To-Deal-With-It-HERE***Updated-Aug-2016***

 

can you complete the above please

[DragonFly1967]

Those PoC's make no sense at all.

 

Particulars of the claim:

 

1.The Claimant is employed by the Landowner to manage private parking at Parkit, Bridge St Sheffield, S3 8NS (the Land).

 

Debatable. But no argument with that.

 

2.The Defendant was the driver/ registered keeper of the vehicle registration xxx(the Vehicle).

 

Well. Which is it? Who are they claiming against and in what capacity? Are they claiming against you as the driver or as the keeper? This is important as they may not be one and the same, so they have to decide who it is they are suing and why. It's not a fishing expedition.

 

Signage is present on the Land stipulating conditions of parking, that a £100 charge will be due for any breach of those conditions, including additional costs if recovery steps are taken. In parking on the Land the Defendant contractually agreed to be bound by those conditions.

 

Now, while there might be signage on site (easy to see or not), this takes us squarely back to point 2.

 

In parking on the Land the Defendant contractually agreed to be bound by those conditions.

 

For that to be true, they must be suing you as the driver. The keeper may not have parked anywhere and thereby would not have seen any signs nor agreed to any terms thereon.

 

If you can honestly say to the court that you were not the driver, their PoC's fall.

 

3.On [date] [time] the Vehicle was parked on the Land in breach of one or more conditions and so a Parking Charge Notice was issued to the Defendant.

 

Again, this means that they must be suing you as the driver. If you were not, then no PCN was issued to you. So this is either misleading or an outright untruth.

 

As the Charge was not paid, a Notice to Keeper was sent to the registered keeper of the Vehicle.

If the registered keeper has not named the driver, then they are responsible for the charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

Oh, so now they want to sue you as the keeper. They really need to make up their minds. As to whether or not you're responsible, well, we'll see.

 

4.The Claimant claims payment of the £100 Charge, a £10 admin fee and fixed solicitors costs.

 

What admin fee is this then? Where in POFA does it allow for such a fee? Hint. Don't bother looking

 

 

Fill in the details as requested by dx, also, if you still have any of the paperwork sent to you by UKCPS, scan it in, mask any personal info, any bar, QR or PCN codes, vehicle reg etc, convert it to PDF and upload it please.

[aa412]

I didn’t get email alerts to replies. Thanks! I’ll fill in the template now and scan this tomorrow when I have access to a scanner.

[dx100uk]

so you've not sent a cpr 31:14 yet?

[aa412]

Name of the Claimant: UKCPS LIMITED

claimants Solicitors:MIAH SOLICITORS

 

Date of issue – 26.02.18

 

Date of issue 26.02.18+ 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 17.03.18+ 14 days to submit defence = 31.03.18 (33 days in total) -

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?

1.The Claimant is employed by the Landowner to manage private parking at Parkit, Bridge St Sheffield, S3 8NS (the Land).

 

2.The Defendant was the driver/ registered keeper of the vehicle registration xxx(the Vehicle).

Signage is present on the Land stipulating conditions of parking, that a £100 charge will be due for any breach of those conditions, including additional costs if recovery steps are taken. In parking on the Land the Defendant contractually agreed to be bound by those conditions.

 

3.On [date] [time] the Vehicle was parked on the Land in breach of one or more conditions and so a parking chargeicon Notice was issued to the Defendant.

As the Charge was not paid, a Notice to Keeper was sent to the registered keeper of the Vehicle.

If the registered keeper has not named the driver, then they are responsible for the charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

4.The Claimant claims payment of the £100 Charge, a £10 adminicon fee and fixed solicitors costs.

 

 

What is the value of the claim? £185

 

Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ?issued by UKCPS

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a

 

Thanks!

[aa412]

No CPR 31:14 sent. I assumed I’d left it too late given my defence is due tomorrow and with the bank holiday.

[dx100uk]

opps your defence was due by 4 pm Friday

 

however as you're are a LiP [litigant in person ]

you have certain leeways...

 

i'd be filing the two paragraph defence NOW if MCOL is working!!

[dx100uk]

you'll get away with all this don't panic on anything

UKPCS/Miah make all manner of mistakes so dragon will sort you out

though i'd be getting this CPR 31:14 in the post in the morning

 

to the solicitors

 

[Your address]

.

 

[Their address [solicitors]

.

[Date]

.

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

.

Re: (Claimant's name) v (Your name) Case No:

.

CPR 31.14 Request

.

On (date) I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the (Name) county court.

.

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim.

.

Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of [each of the following / the] document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

.

1. the contract between [parking company name] and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name,.

.

2.proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007

.

3.copies of the notice to driver, notice to keeper and any other correspondence from [insert Claimant Name] & [insert Solicitors Name} to the defendant that they intend to rely upon in court.

.

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are disclosed at your earliest convenience..

.

Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy.

.

Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.

.

Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party.

.

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

.

If you are unable to comply with this request within 14 days and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request please confirm in your response.

.

You are reminded that as this case is yet to be allocated to a track, CPR31:14 does apply, a refusal to comply because you 'think' at this stage you dont have too will be used against you in any filed defence.

.

 

Yours faithfully

.

TYPE YOUR NAME DO NOT SIGN IT

[aa412]

Thanks. I’ll send it out first thing. You mean the 2 line right? :”The claimant does not have the authority to enter in to contracts so there has been no breach of contract by the defendant"

 

I have images of the signs. Should I post them here? From what I’ve seen it changes the 2 lines slightly when signs aren’t clear.

[dx100uk]

post what you have here to ONE multipage PDF

read upload.

 

don't worry about the defence

get your info up.

 

then Dragon will advise

it wont hurt you filing a few days late

 

most imp thing is that CPR get that cpr 31;14 off tomorrow.

 

bit crass you came here almost a month after the claimform but we've got big buckets...

[aa412]

Thanks. I’ll upload everything tomorrow when i have access to a scanner.

I know I’ve been a terrible procrastinator. Although as some defence I’ve been researching the forum for info since i got the claim form and did my AOS on time but still not excuse!

[dx100uk]

well why no cpr sent off..sorry you've been here 5yrs...should know better!!!

[DragonFly1967]

Just a simple defence will do for now.

 

Jump on to MCOL.

 

Defend all.

 

No to mediation.

 

Defence:

 

The CLAIMANT has failed to show any clear cause of action against the DEFENDANT and the claim is denied in its entirety.

 

The Particulars of Claim disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and is an abuse of the court process. Therefore I ask that this claim be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b).

 

 

 

That'll do.

 

Everything can then be expanded upon in your witness statement when the time comes. By keeping your skeleton defence to an absolute minimum, you're not painting yourself in to any corners and all options (for your full defence WS) remain open to you.

[aa412]

Thanks to you both. I've submitted my defence now and sent off the CPR 31:14. The scanner is refusing to work but I'll get the relevant docs uploaded in preparation for a WS when I'm back at work on Tuesday. You've been most helpful!

[aa412]

I spoke to soon. Pics, letter and PCN attached!

docs1.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

aa412 thank you for posting up all the data.

However with regards to the notices we required a close up of all of them so that we could read them.

 

The notices tend to contradict each other which makes it difficult for them in to Court to prove that a contract exists between you and them.

 

The good thing about your notices is that you can see where they are sited.

 

When you get their Witness Statement [WS} they will have a plan of where they think their notices are placed.

 

You can then compare their layout to yours and if they don't coincide, and they often don't, it calls into question the whole WS.

Edited March 31, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[ericsbrother]

Dates and times are important so dont blank these out or we cant see if the NTK was sent out within the specified time allowed.

 

their sigange offers a contract of £4.50 for all day aprking.

There is no mention about any other conditions and you arent expected to go and search for them.

 

I can also see another sign that is unreadable on the same image that has other what appear to be parking charges for other periods that contradict the big sign so is it a case of the signs give you a pick n mix contract where you put your choices in a little bag and they their weigh them up?

 

The sign on p10 doesnt mention any charges for breaching the offered terms.

No indication as to who manages the car par or that you are being offered a contract by UKCPS, the signs dont even mention them so again rather damaging their claim that the driver agreed to a meeting of minds with an unknown and unspecified contract offered by an unknown body.

That will destroy their claim as long as this is expressed clearly in your witness statement

 

The little signs on the wall dont really mean anything and they could well apply to that building or even that particular space for all that anyone knows.

 

Page 7 shows one of those signs on a tin shed that is the other side of a painted line so I assume that the land it applies to is the narrow strip that side of the line.

 

As the smaller signs are illegibleI cant say what they do or dont say and whether they fulfil the minimum standards laid down by the BPA as required to create a contarct under the protocols of the POFA.

 

In short, so much wrong here it is a wonder why they thought that a court claim was a good idea. Perhaps they wont after they lose.

 

Miah's are the 3rd choice sols for parking co's but they use the same terminology as the other 2 useless firms so DF's suggestion of a simple denial for a skeleton defence is absolutely fine

Edited April 1, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[aa412]

Hi All

 

I've got a court date now for 29th August, so I need to send my witness statement to get to the claimant and court by Wednesday. I've just realised I've probably made another mistake though and interpreted 14 working days for 14 business days but will double check my paperwork.

 

Miah are no longer representing the claimant according to a letter I received from them in June. Is that a good/bad thing?

 

They have also sent a statement of fact which I assume is what they will use in court. I'll upload for you to see. I'll upload my proposed WS in my next post. Should I take into account anything in theirs?

 

Thanks in advance

letter.pdf

[dx100uk]

Nothing says working nor nor business days....

It says days..calender days..

 

Yes pop yours up lots here already

[aa412]

My proposed WS with some questions in red. Also to confirm that I should print all of the cases referred to below and include them in the pack for all 3 of us?

 

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxx, which the claimant alleges was parked at Parkit Bridge Street on 11/07/2017 at 16:11.

 

2. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times she was parked in Parkit Bridge Street as she has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. They have sent pictures of my car with the ticket on it. Should I still include this?

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.

 

 

The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide carpark management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.

 

 

Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.

The proper Claimant is the landowner.

Again should this be included? They’ve sent me an authority agreement with Parkit which I’ve attached.

 

4. If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed.

 

 

Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because the size and placement of the signage was such that they would not have been visible until after the defendant had parked her car. See Exhibit A (I’ll include the photos I took here)

 

5. The signage in Exhibit B does not mention any further conditions nor does it provide any charges for breaching the offered terms. The signage also does not indicate who manages the carpark or who is offering the contract. This is page 10 of my upload in post 16. I can go back and take more pictures for it to be clearer.

 

6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The defendant makes a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g

 

Thanks as always!!

 

I also think that I should add a paragraph referring to their use of Parking Eye v Beavis. They are referring to paragraph 98 when trying to justify expenses for unreasonable behaviour by the defendant. I'm not quite sure what to write though.

Authority agreement.pdf

[dx100uk]

that's reads more like a defence not a witness statement.

[dx100uk]

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=ukcps+witness+statement&sa=Search+CAG

[ericsbrother]

good god, where did you dig up that cut and paste job from? I wouldnt use it as is because all it will do is wind up the judge.

 

Your WS should tell your side of the story with suitable examples of other cases that were found to be in the defendants favour to persuade the judge.

 

So, you deny being the driver at the time if the NTK was not compliant and point out that the claimant hasnt said in what capacity they are suing you as it cant be both as driver and keeper. Quote the POFA on this and add a copy of that to your evidence bundle

 

You then say that the claimant has failed to produce evidence of the right to enter into contarcts withthe public and to make claims in their own nams so you belive that they are at best merely agents of the landowner an have no locus standi in this matter.

 

Likewise you do not believe that they have planning permission for their signage and equipment under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 and thus their signs are there illegally and you cannot be held to a criminal compact with the claimant.

( you then read up on this via the link in the Parking Pranksters blog and copy the relevant part of the law and add it to your evidence bundle.

 

You then say in any case the position and layout of the signage is inadequate to be considered acceptable for offering a contract because......

 

... add all of your points as to why and then refer to other cases where inadequate signage was the reason for beating the claim, again the parking pranksters blog and web site will have plenty of previous cases.

 

You quote the case number in your WS and then add a copy of the precis to your bundle for each example.

 

PE v Beavis is a red herring for both sides so rebut their claim if they rely on it but dont jump in to use it yourself

 

Lastly write in plain english as the meaning of words are their commonest form.

[aa412]

Thanks. I spent hours looking for witnesses statements but only found a few that other forum members referred to as war and peace. Most of what I found were defence statements or references to WS where the actual structure had been dealt with via DM.

 

Having gone through POFA paragraph 8 the NTK itself is compliant so I don't think I can use that argument. There is only one person insured to drive the car too. Do you still suggest I use this?

 

My brain seems to have stopped working but I'll have another go.