Jump to content


UKCPM/gladstones Windscreen PCN Claimform - Vista Centre, Salisbury Rd, Hounslow TW4 6JQ ** Claim Dismissed**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 454 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

any of the 2-3-4 line ones will do

and I believe you need to make ref to the fact that you only briefly by the allowed the min 10 of mins or so  there is no max

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dx, As requested:

 

Queries are made in red.
Date of Statement: xx December 2019
Claim Number: XXXXXX
Between: UK CAR Park Management Limited and XXXXXXX

 

1.    It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXX XXX.

 

2.    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 car-park 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. How do I check who the landowner is?

 

3.    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 [explain] I assumed this means no contract was agreed?

 

4.    The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:-

 

a)    The Claimant has no commercial justification
b)    The Claimant did not follow the BPA Code of Practice, allowing a MINIMUM grace period of 10 minutes.
c)    The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
d)    The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
e)    The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.

 

5.    A parking ticket was purchased. However, after much difficulty. The Defendant made several attempts to initially pay for parking via telephone and the indicated telephone-based application, which were both declined by the claimant’s system of payment. The Defendant was attending a Drug and Alcohol (D&A) test based on the conditions of a new employer. The delay in obtaining a parking ticket caused significant delay. The Defendant was late to the appointment and was not permitted to leave the test until indicated by the examiner. Options made available to extend parking durations remotely did not function. Please refer to Attachment 1 – an email of complaint sent on the said day of apparent contravention (12th March 2018). My own wording. Is this ok?

 

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.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5/6 should be 2/3.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

you should have been doing all this months ago.

 

landregistry site [but only use the £3 .gov.uk one!!

else some can cost you +£50

 

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=vista centre&oq=vista centre&gs_l=partner-generic.3...17946.21288.0.21497.12.12.0.0.0.0.92.854.12.12.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.3370j1170812j12...1.34.partner-generic..12.0.0.0WDwHy7ibiE

 

your defence also need slimming

dont go into details

 

just plant the seed you think.

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated defence written below, thought?:

 

Date of Statement: xx December 2019
Claim Number: XXXXXX
Between: UK CAR Park Management Limited and XXXXXXX

 

1.    It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXX XXX.

 

2.    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.

 

3.    A parking ticket was purchased, however, after much difficulty. The Defendant made several attempts to pay for additional parking via telephone and the indicated telephone-based application, which were both declined by the claimant’s system. Please refer to Attachment 1 – an email of complaint sent on the said day of apparent contravention (12th March 2018).

 

4.    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 car-park 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.

 

5.    The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:-

 

a)    The Claimant has no commercial justification.
b)    The Claimant did not follow the BPA Code of Practice, allowing a MINIMUM grace period of 10 minutes.
c)    The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
d)    The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
 

 

Edited by maclarke
pasted image of defence text was removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a defence, not a WS, right?

 

If so, keep what you've prepared for your future WS, but that comes later.

 

Just send the two-line defence that is on loads of threads here about no contract having been formed or broken with UKCPM. 

 

You can flesh that out later with your WS.  There's no point showing all your cards to the fleecers at this stage.

 

BTW, you did send the CPR 31:14 request which the conmen haven't been bothered to reply to, right?

 

 

Edited by FTMDave

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are not filing a witness statement most of that is for later

 

like post 46 here

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@FTMDave that's correct it should be a defence. I'll include it below and save the previous text for my witness statement.

And yes, I submitted the CPR 31:14 request which they haven't replied to.

 

@dx100uk Please see my defence below. I plan to submit this within the next couple of days on the MCOL website.

 

Is it ok?

 

Defence:

1.    A parking ticket was purchased.

 

2.    The Claimant has failed to show, upon request under CPR 31.14, any authority or agency to enter into contracts with the public by way of an assignment from the proprietor to do the same and to make civil claims in their own name. 

 

3.    The defendant does not believe that the claimant has locus standi in this matter as they have failed to produce a contract between themselves and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a huge improvement - well done!

 

In a sense (2) & (3) are really the same thing.

 

How about adding EB's "3. In any case no contract exists between the claimant and the defendant due to the paucity of the signage at the site that offers the supposed contract"?  This is extremely generic and can be added to later in your WS, where you can add the stuff about their app being pants and them making it almost impossible for you to pay, the cash machine hidden away, etc.

 

That's if it gets to the WS stage - often the charlatans wet themselves & run away when they see the motorist is confident & can defend their claim.  No guarantees, but you're doing everything right to show the fleecers they're going to get a good kicking if they dare to go to court.

 

Wait for EB & other experts to come on tomorrow, then file the defence.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep 2&3 in your defence make the same point 

 

drop 2 totally.

 

and don't forget they have not said WHAT you have done 'wrong' other than a 'breach' and you have said well I'd paid..

 

the facts:

you purchased a 1 hrs ticket 12/3/18 expiry 15:54
operator observed time 12/3/18 15:54
windscreen ticket issued 16:04
reason - ticket expired.

you admitted being the driver under appeal 21/3/18
they refused
you replied again , wrongly using the word FINE.
probably why they have issued the claim hoping you would wet yourself and pay up.

 

one bonus is they issued the ticket at exactly 10 mins 

that's the minimum of the 10 mins grace period

there is no maximum quoted anywhere in PPC guideline from IAS/BPA.

they don't know what time your returned

 

so:

I would expand slightly on your point 1.

 

as you were certainly back at your car by 13:00hrs as you heard the news on your car radio driving out??:lol:

 

 

here is their poc 

 

1.The driver of the vehicle with registration xxxxxxx (the ‘Vehicle’) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the ‘Contract’) at VISTA CENTRE – 50 SALISBURY ROAD HOUNSLOW MIDDLESEX TW4 6JQ, on 12/03/2018 thus incurring the parking charge (the ‘PCN’).

 

2.The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle.

 

3.Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

 

4.THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £20 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

 

In that case, if you're happy I will submit the following tomorrow morning on the MCOL website. My defence date is 09-Dec.

 

Defence

 

1.    A parking ticket was purchased. The alleged "breach" must have taken place just as the defendant was returning to the vehicle. Following the BPA Code of Practice, a MINIMUM grace period of 10 minutes is permitted.

 

2.    The defendant does not believe that the claimant has locus standi in this matter as they have failed to produce a contract between themselves and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

needs point 3,

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks @dx100uk -

 

For other users' reference, i will submit the following for my Defence on the MCOL website.

 

Defence

 

1.    A parking ticket was purchased. The alleged "breach" must have taken place just as the defendant was returning to the vehicle. Following the BPA Code of Practice, a MINIMUM grace period of 10 minutes is permitted.

 

2.    The defendant does not believe that the claimant has locus standi in this matter as they have failed to produce a contract between themselves and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name.

 

3.    In any case no contract exists between the claimant and the defendant due to the paucity of the signage at the site that offers the supposed contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

add to 1. the defendant did not exceed this grace period 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you.

 

the following defence was submitted.

 

1.    A parking ticket was purchased. The alleged "breach" must have taken place just as the defendant was returning to the vehicle. Following the BPA Code of Practice, a MINIMUM grace period of 10 minutes is permitted. The defendant did not exceed this grace period.

 

2.    The defendant does not believe that the claimant has locus standi in this matter as they have failed to produce a contract between themselves and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name.

 

3.    In any case no contract exists between the claimant and the defendant due to the paucity of the signage at the site that offers the supposed contract.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok they have 28 days to do something.

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

yep await yours from the court

it's only sent by gladdy's early through some vague idea it will intimidate a defendant..

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

"Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" Letter received from the court Attached with a "Directions questionnaire" - i'll fill this in and return to the court.

Please see attached.

 

Also, there is HMCTS page asking "would you like to settle your case without going to a court hearing?" - i'll fill this in and say NO to a settlement.

 

@honeybee13 sorry for not responding. No, I didn't select mediation

Notice of Allocation.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

N180

no to mediation

1 wit you

the rest is obv

 

3 copies

1 to the court [along with the n149]

1 to gladdy's minus email/phone/sig

1 for you file

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Happy New Year all,

 

Just received a response to the CPR 31.14 Request that I sent in mid November (please see attached).

 

They didn't attach (and refused to include in future) the following:

 

1. The contract between UK Car Park Management Limited 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.


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to UKCPM/gladstones Windscreen PCN Claimform - Vista Centre, Salisbury Rd, Hounslow TW4 6JQ ** Claim Dismissed**
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...