UKPC/DCB Legal Windscreen PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER **Claim dismissed, counterclaim dismissed**

[brassnecked]

Agree FTM Dave Counterclaim is a double edged sword,and can cause multiple issues.

[Intrepid]

I expect they will put in a lot more effort knowing they face a counterclaim which relies on the fact that their claim fails, they now have almost no incentive to discontinue.

Given their exact same particulars have already been struck out once in another court I will introduce this at some point. UKPC's reputation is horrendous, we're talking about a company that has previously falsified evidence in order to issue= speculative invoices, some of which sadly were likely paid.

My risk appetite is higher than most and I am quite prepared to accept the risks in order to be able to deal with both issues in one sitting, that would be quite convenient for me.
 

I haven't issued a counterclaim before so I'm willing to see where it leads.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Intrepid

[brassnecked]

If you have already had a similar claim from them kicked out, and you are prepared to see it all through, please keep us updated.

[Intrepid]

The claim has been transferred to a nearby court. I wasn't expecting this to happen before a defence is filed to my counterclaim.

[Intrepid]

Attached is a copy of DCBL's reply to defence and defence to counterclaim.

 

If you want a really good laugh read paragraph 9 (a) where they appear to want to defend my counterclaim partly on the basis it is a personal injury claim .

 

I have not received an acknowledgement or reply to my request pursuant to CPR 31.14 and no contract has been disclosed which shows they have the right to bring claims on behalf of the landowner.

UKPC - DCBL - Defence and Reply 28.04.23 - Redacted.pdf

 

I'm aware there is plenty of time, however attached is a draft witness statement in respect of their claim only.

DRAFT UKPC - Defendant - Witness Statement - Redacted-min.pdf

Edited April 29, 2023 by Intrepid

[lookinforinfo]

Rather humorous  the way they claim you haven't itemised your £1000 when they failed to itemise how they arrived at £60 which is 60% more 

than they can claim according to PoFA.

 

However I do think it was a mistake to claim £1000 for damages and distress when you had probably a more winnable charge against them for breaching of your GDPR.  Their PCN did not comply with PoFA therefore you as keeper were no longer liable to pay their charge. In addition you wrote then a Cease and desist letter advising them their PCN was deficient.

 

On top of that if you are right that your car was not where they claimed it was you have further grounds for claiming a breach of your GDPR. You should put them to strict proof that your car was not parked in the NCP car park. I believe you have receipts from NCP so how could your car have entered their car park yet received a charge fro UKPC?

 

I do think yo have to look at the possibility that your car was in the UKPC car park . If you were then as it is a Permit only car park  he car was not allowed there so as  the signs were prohibitive they  could not form a contact with the driver. The only claim that UKPC could make therefore was that the motorist was trespassing. Only the land owner can sue for trespass so UKPC are stuck only being an agent.

 

I also think that you should avoid bringing your wife into the WS. Suffice to say that you were not the driver so the y cannot pursue you as their PCN was not compliant. After all anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car so why mention just one person.

[FTMDave]

I've just read through your thread from the start.  I think the WS leaves out a lot of points that could easily win your case.

 

Have a look at the attachment in post 110 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#commentsish PCN

 

 

If it's not in post 110 it'll be a couple of posts above or below, sometimes the post count goes wonky.

 

This case is not similar to yours.  But Look at how Alaska101 sets out the introduction and the conclusion.  And how the clear headings show the judge instantly which legal arguments are being used.  You need to do something similar.

 

Your arguments will be something like -

   - rubbish PCN which cites a road where you've never parked in your life and where indeed it is impossible to park

   - insufficient signage, you thought you had paid to park in the NCP car park but perhaps had inadvertently put your car in an adjacent one, there's stuff in the government CoP and the BPA CoP that adjacent car parks have to be clearly separated by markings

   - this is predatory behaviour, again not allowed under various CoPs

   - no keeper liability under POFA

   - consideration period

   - trespass/prohibition, you were a trespasser, and only the landowner can sue for trespass

   - no locus standi

   - illegal signage

   - Unicorn Food Tax.

 

I too disagree with counterclaiming, it would have been better to see them off and later issue a separate claim.

 

[Intrepid]

Attached below is a revised draft witness statement and a draft skeleton argument in defence of UKPC's claim only.

I believe I have incorporated all of the points above as well as a few of my own.

I'm aware there's a bit of tidying to do and references to add in later but I'm grateful if anyone points out that something is missing or not clear.

I realise as I type I have not yet made reference to illegal signage, I'm not aware a parking claim has ever been dismissed on this point but I can include it in a later draft.

I will post up drafts in support of the counterclaim when they are complete.
 

On 30/04/2023 at 00:53, lookinforinfo said:

However I do think it was a mistake to claim £1000 for damages and distress when you had probably a more winnable charge against them for breaching of your GDPR. 

To clarify, my understanding is that each member state of the EU (at the time) was required to bring into force the legislation widely referred to as the GDPR. The Data Protection Act 1998 was the UK's original implementation of the EU directive.

The Data Protection Act 2018 brings an update to that legislation and the UK GDPR is now brought into effect under the DPA 2018.

So although it's semantics I have done as you suggested above.
 

On 30/04/2023 at 00:53, lookinforinfo said:

I also think that you should avoid bringing your wife into the WS. Suffice to say that you were not the driver so the y cannot pursue you as their PCN was not compliant. After all anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car so why mention just one person.

I had considered allocating two witnesses on the DQ and having my partner submit a WS, but following your opinion I decided against it.

The reason I mention just one person is it that UKPC will have to show on the balance of probability who was driving. While I could advance the argument that anyone could have been driving, based on the evidence it will be very clear that at the very least one of two people could have been driving. In my view what is significant about the owner and a named driver is that the balance of probability doesn't favour either party, whereas the owner and anyone else legally qualified could still lean towards the owner being the driver on the balance of probability.

DRAFT 1.1 UKPC - Defendant - Witness Statement - Redacted-min.pdf DRAFT 1.1 UKPC - Defendant - Skeleton Argument - Redacted-min.pdf

Edited May 28, 2023 by Intrepid

[FTMDave]

To be blunt, 90% of what you have prepared is waffle.

At a certain point I got a headache trying to wade through the torturous arguments, as I'm sure a judge would too.

Some of the arguments were discounted by legal precedent eight years ago.

Two posts up is a list of what you should be arguing.  There are plenty of excellent WSs on CAG you can use as a base for your own.

I haven't a clue where you found the arguments you have included, but it certainly wasn't on this forum.

[Intrepid]

Would you mind explaining which ones you consider out of date?

As I understand it I have covered the points you suggested under the following headings.

On 30/04/2023 at 09:43, FTMDave said:

F. VEHICLE NOT SHOWN TO BE ON RELEVANT LAND   - rubbish PCN which cites a road where you've never parked in your life and where indeed it is impossible to park

 G. NO CONTRACT FORMED/FAILURE TO DISCLOSE TERMS  - insufficient signage, you thought you had paid to park in the NCP car park but perhaps had inadvertently put your car in an adjacent one, there's stuff in the government CoP and the BPA CoP that adjacent car parks have to be clearly separated by markings

 G.   - this is predatory behaviour, again not allowed under various CoPs

 D. NO KEEPER LIABILITY  - no keeper liability under POFA

 G 33  - consideration period

 I. NO CONSIDERATION/PROHIBITION  - trespass/prohibition, you were a trespasser, and only the landowner can sue for trespass

 C. NO LOCUS STANDI  - no locus standi

   - illegal signage

 J. UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY/ABUSE OF PROCESS  - Unicorn Food Tax.

 

 

[dx100uk]

i think what @FTMDave is trying to say is certainly on PPC PCM claimform WS's you don't need to physically throw the kitchen sink at them.

merely a few good, already used, points in WS's here are good enough, the rest is extra extra stuff that is rarely needed. unlike in other court claims you have been involved in here, where they are.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Work calls now.

I'll try to go through the two documents properly this afternoon.

[FTMDave]

OK, here we go.

The Witness Statement first.

In (6) are you sure it was an NCP car park?  Isn't it better to hedge your bets and say the driver believed it to be NCP?

in (6.2) and (6.4) shouldn't you refer to "the driver" rather than "I"?

In (12) presuming it was a CPR request they ignored, you should add that.

Onto the Skeleton Argument.

The obvious question to ask here is why you want to file two separate documents, rather than merging them into a WS like everyone else.

In (24), presuming it was a CPR request they ignored, you should add that.

Is all the B1 & B2 stuff really necessary?

As dx says, this is a simple case.  Judges have often congratulated Caggers in filing succinct documentation compared to the pages & pages of tripe by the fleecers.

The driver parked in what they thought was an NCP car park and paid for their entire stay.  However, it is possible that they had inadvertently parked in an adjacent car park run by the fleecers who deliberately do not have signs showing the "border" as they wish to entrap motorists.  Such predatory behaviour is forbidden in various Codes of Practice.  The PCN is rubbish as it does not refer to the car park in question but to a parking area where the driver has never parked and indeed it is impossible to park.

I haven't read further than E in detail because your files are completely different from what other Caggers write and I think there is a huge danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.

However, you specifically asked which bits are out of date - (10.5) and parts of H mention the question of a penalty which is an argument that hasn't been used since Beavis.

K is no good, they can legitimately bring a claim within six years.

[Intrepid]

Thank you for your input.

As to the WS:

(6) There is no question the vehicle entered the NCP car park, there is no other access and their signage is clearly on display at the entrace. Inputting the location code into NCP brings up the following address: Parkside, R/O The Martlets, Parkside, Crawley, RH10 1EH.

(6.2)(6.4) This is a witness statement to be written in first person. A statement along the lines of the driver or more properly I observed the driver implies I witnessed the driver do something and therefore know who the driver is. Note I did not say I drove into or out of the car park.

(12) I will add the CPR reference to the skeleton.

As to the skeleton:

Skeleton arguments are either exchanged by agreement or lodged not less than two business days before trial. I have been ambushed before by a very reputable chambers hours before a hearing and the judge thought nothing of it.

To answer your question directly, because that is what is expected by the court. Witness statements in higher courts have been struck out for introducing argument and while I agree litigants are given an amount of discretion which in some cases can be taken advantage of, I can see no advantage in submitting ones arguments earlier than is required. Presumably neither can the court as its directions are primarily designed to ensure neither party gains an advantage during the course of litigation.

(24) I have updated to include the reference to the CPR.

As far as I'm aware B1 and B2 is the standard format for a skeleton, to introduce the judge to the relevant legislation and then to relevant precedent in case law.

You may notice the example WSs you refer to often have the elements of B1 and B2 incorporated under each subheading. I have put it at the start. I don't think this minor change in style should be all that offensive. Also I note the examples WSs are usualy between 8 and 10 pages in length. My skeleton is 10 pages in length and in part due to the inclusion of the relevant legislation, so I'm not really sure why the length of the skeleton wood be considered an issue. I think the real skill in writing a skeleton is in keeping it relevant and concise, I'm no professional and it is clearly a skill that takes time to develop. If there is a way to shorten it without missing anything important I am very happy to address this.

(10.5) is a one line introduction to your unicorn food tax argument which has been expanded on at (J). It was used in 2019 to dismiss an application by a parking company which saught relief from sanctions after their claim for £160 was found to constitute a penalty sum and struck out as an abuse of process. To be more specific the issue that reached the supreme court in Beavis is whether the parking charge itself was an unenforceable penalty. It was held not to be. However the additional sum in this claim of a futher £60 is what tips the balance outside of the supreme court's ruling and results in the claim being tainted.

(K) does not dispute the fact UKPC has brought its claim within the allowable timeframe, rather it brings to the attention of the court that it is an abuse to delay submitting a claim in the knowledge you will later seek to collect interest. In my view the point of the limitations act is to allow claimants to bring a claim if they become aware of their right to do so late in the game, the limitations act is not designed to allow people to sit on their claims in order to later claim more money.

I'm sorry to read you didn't go into much detail beyond E as you have a lot of experience concerning these claims and a keen eye for detail.
 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Intrepid

[FTMDave]

Let's go off on a tangent for a minute.

What do you think happened on the day to cause you to get the ticket?  In particular, why do you think the fleecers, in their diseased minds, thought it justifiable to put the ticket on your car?

Using this Google Maps screenshot, where was the car parked (using the bloke in the black top as a reference point)?

 

4 Parkside - Google Maps — Mozilla Firefox 14_01_2022 23_30_02.pdf

[Intrepid]

I believe I have covered this under G. and more specifically at [34] but perhaps I haven't made it clear.

They are under the impression the vehicle was parked on land associated with the stores which open onto The Martletts, presumably somewhere behind the yellow NCP sign to the right of the person you reference.

I have reviewed their evidence and I don't think it shows exactly where the car is located.

[FTMDave]

You have made it clear, it's just I'm trying to second guess what on earth they will put in their WS and how they will justify issuing you a ticket for staying in the NCP car park!

There's something up with the forum and I can't see any of the uploads on the first two pages of this thread.  I know it's a pain, but can you please upload the original PCN again so we can have a look at their rubbish photos?  Thanks.

[Intrepid]

My account previously reached its upload limit and one of the staff kindly removed some of the older files to make space.

Attached below is the upload containing the information you refer to.

A minor observation is that their letter begins RE: Notice to Keeper, as if they are responding to something or have previously sent something. While their template is marked as NTO/England/POFA/07-2016 understood to mean Notice to Owner which is not a term I've seen referenced anywhere in legislation or litigation.

Let me know if you'd like to see anything else.

UKPC - CAG Combined PDF - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

Thank you.

Their photos are pretty poor.  The car could be anywhere.

I've now read from E to the end.

When I came across this site seven years ago I quickly understood that the forum had a tried & tested method of beating the PPCs.  Of course this has been tweaked over the years due to changes in legislation, different tactics by the fleecers, successes or failures in court, etc.

You've decided to do something very different from what the forum advises, from snotty letter stage to issuing a counterclaim to producing a WS/Skeleton Argument which is vastly different from the norm here.  Therefore it's very difficult to advise as you've decided to do your own thing.

You have more experience in a county court than me.  Certainly more recent experience - the last time I was in a county court was in 1986!

However, personally I would cut down on the legalese and make the arguments simpler and more concise - and therefore easier to accept or reject - for the judge.

[lookinforinfo]

I have just seen the latest paperwork with your NCP payment.  You were parked in Parkside and when you look at the map, NCP has parking on the left side of Pakrside and UKPC cover the right hand side with permit only parking. And some of their signs say No Unauthorised parking. So if you did park on the UKPC  side of  the car park two things to question. 

The first is whether that car park is called 1-21 The Martletts or is it still Parkside? If Parkside you win because they have failed to identify the location and you were not parked in the Martletts.

If that side is called the Martletts then they  cannot form a contract with you since the signage is  prohibitory. It also looks like a scam site as there is nothing clear to the right side of the entrance that it is covered by UKPC.

From your pictures it does appear that you were parked on the UKPC side however the Martletts are nowhere near Parkside so have different post codes.

 

[dx100uk]

On 30/03/2023 at 13:30, Intrepid said:

1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at  1 To 21 The Martletts crawley ,west Sussex,rh10 1er

and the claimform poc says....

 

silver van between the white and black cars - exact spot of parking

martletts intrepid car.pdf

[FTMDave]

Great work dx.  That's clear then.  The OP entered the NCP car park and then inadvertently left it and parked in the right-hand area "managed" by UKPC.  A very easy "mistake" to make as the signage is pathetic.  Google is full of reviews for the NCP car park from people who did the same thing.

UKPC are keenly aware of this problem parking but do nothing to stop it as it keeps the £60 payments rolling in.

I suppose they can just about get away with calling the car park "The Martletts" as the place is rear to businesses which open onto The Martletts.

The OP needs to concentrate on the pathetic signage and predatory behaviour in their WS.

[Intrepid]

Thanks @dx100uk, I wouldn't say that is the exact spot of parking but I am interested to know how you came to that conclusion based on the evidence. Not with the intention to get into a scrap, which is most likely immaterial, but so I can better understand what may be said if it the claim goes to a hearing.

In reference to the kitchen sink I must have misunderstood FTMDave's comments here.

Is anyone actually aware of UKPC setting foot inside a court room since their access to the KADOE database was suspended for a second time?

I am aware that UKPC in cohorts with DCBL have discontinued over 140 claims in the past 10 months.

I wonder whether they will deviate from their current pattern given that there is a survivable counterclaim if they elect to discontinue.

SIGNAGE:

I have done some more research and been back to the car park in question as well as taken a few photos.

The first is that I have queried the land registry and put simply the address as referred to on the (lets call it the) PCN doesn't exist. A search for the post code RH10 1ER returns at least 10 properties numbered between 1 and 21 the Martletts.

There is a poorly placed sign facing the wrong way at the entrance, it wasn't there in 2018 according to google maps but was there by 2020. A previous equally poorly placed sign attached to a wall has been removed. What is significant is that the newer sign is next to parking spaces which appear to belong to the NCP Car Park.

The Crawley Borough Council does not return any results for planning permission for the erection of any signs after 2014.

@FTMDave Thank you for pointing out the reviews I will look into a way to include these.

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Intrepid

[lookinforinfo]

UKPC have misidentified their parking area. They have said the car was parked in 1-21 The Martletts RH10 1 ER on both NTD and the NTK which is a pedestrianised street  a couple of blocks away from the carpark in Parkside where the postcode is RH10 1EH.

The NTD does not comply with PoFA since there is no parking period mentioned. In the NTK  although the parking period is not mentioned on the Notice which it should, at least they mention it on their photos which is still insufficient. What it does mean is that as the NTD definitely does not comply with POFA  they cannot transfer the charge to the keeper  as they have not met all the applicable conditions . That is on top of placing the car in the wrong spot.

I think they are dead in the water for those two fails at least. Never mind the lack of visible signage at the entrance: all their signs are situated on walls with small signs and not easily picked up by drivers parking in the middle of the car park: the signs are prohibitory in any case so no contract can be formed. 

When you turn into the car park the NCP sign is large and clearly visible. but in one picture the UKPC sign is facing into the car park so cannot be read by drivers arriving at the car park. In another picture form an earlier date, that sign on a pole is not there but there is a tiny sign fixed to the wall low down on the right hand side which would be very difficult to pick out especially as you have already been aware that it is apparently an NCP car park.   The UKPC entrance signage  is a complete joke.

[lookinforinfo]

Intrepid I wrote the above post a couple of hours ago and forgot to actually post it at the time so a few of the points I made you also mentioned.