UKPC ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - vehicle on site during restricted no parking period - Rom Valley Retail Park, Romford *** Claim Dismissed with Costs awarded***

[FTMDave]

It's difficult to advise what to do because there are so many ifs and buts.

In the majority of cases where a PPC start a court claim they go all the way to the final hearing.

However, in a minority of cases, and by no means a tiny minority, they have no real intention of going all the way to a final hearing. They know their case is rubbish and they know it will cost them a hefty wad to send a solicitor to court (remember solicitors' costs are capped at £50 at small claims).  They pretend they are going all the way to court to intimidate the motorist into giving in.  Yes, the pretence often includes paying the hearing fee.  Yes, UKPC often do this.  And no, they haven't produced a WS (so far).

I suppose it depends on how much you have spent on flights (and accommodation?) and if this is refundable v the approx £250 at stake if you lose the case.

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry about getting your status mixed up. 

I have noticed one thing in your excellent WS. On their claim they are only pursuing you as the keeper-I think it is  in their Point C that  states along the lines of -the driver did not pay , so the keeper is liable.

So on your No keeper Liability section 

You may prefer  to alter 13 to 

  . It is trite Law that the driver and the keeper cannot be regarded  as the same person and the claimant has failed to offer any proof who was driving.  BY  only pursuing the keeper  when the PCN does not comply with PoFA must mean that their claim fails.

See what the Site team thinks as it should  stop the Judge from looking at who was driving as your statement preempts them from even thinking about it.

[FTMDave]

With LFI's change your WS is good to go.

E-mail the court theirs.  In the subject field put the claim number, the names of the parties, the hearing date and "Witness Statement".  Click on Return Receipt.

Send UKPC theirs by 2nd class post - all they are worth - and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

[wv600]

Thank you FTMDave, I am going to change my travel plans.   If PPC decide not to go to the final hearing, will I only find out on the day?

Thank you lookinforinfo,  I'll change 13 as suggested.

[FTMDave]

Don't do anything hasty re the travel plans.  I'm at work now but have a break in an hour and a half's time so will scribble then.

[wv600]

Thank you FTMDave, much appreciated

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, wv600 said:

If PPC decide not to go to the final hearing, will I only find out on the day?

We can never be 100% certain, as we're outguessing the other side, but it's highly likely that over the next couple of days something will pop through your letter box.  Either -

1.  their Witness Statement, and you'll know you'll be in court on 16 May, or

2.  their Notice of Discontinuance.

If you able to I would hang on a couple of days before changing your travel plans.

[wv600]

Thanks FTMDave, I'll hang on for now and post any updates.  

WS has been posted to UKPC, 2nd class with certificate of posting.  

Will email the court now.  Do I also need to post a copy to the court?

 

[jk2054]

How long is your WX?

 

If 30 pages or less then your fine

if more than 30 then you need to post

[wv600]

The WS with exhibits is 22 pages in total.  Reason why I'm not sure is because of the section below about 'in person' hearings saying a hard copy is required?

 

Trial Bundle Format.pdf

[jk2054]

nah you can email it it'll be fine

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry about getting your status mixed up. 

I have noticed one thing. On their claim they are only pursuing you as the keeper-I think it is  on their Point C that the driver did not pay , so the keeper is liable.

So on your No keeper Liability section 

You may need to add 8a after 8.

 8a  . It is trite Law that the driver and the keeper cannot be regarded  as the same person and the claimant has failed to offer any proof who was driving.  BY  pursuing the keeper . when the PCN does not comply with PoFA must mean that their claim fails.

 

[wv600]

So, just an update...

Received the WS pack from UKPC in the post on Friday, so looks like I'm going to court on 16 May.   I shall scan and attached the documents a bit later

[wv600]

Please see below for the Witness Statement from UKPC received in the post on Friday, 3 May.  The letter is dated 1 May 2024.

I am also including Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.   The remaining exhibits relate to the PCN's and other correspondence already posted on this thread.

The most glaring mistake for me is in Exhibit 2 (UKPC's OWN copy of their signage), NOT SHOWING that parking is not allowed between 22:00 and 08:00.  Note that this restriction IS showing on the draft sign approved in the contract between UKPC and their client.

Also, the site plan in Exhibit 1 shows signs against the wall of the building (depicted by a "W"); whereas the picture in my witness statement clearly shows no signs visible on that particular wall.

I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback on this!

 

 

Claimants WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

12 minutes ago, wv600 said:

The most glaring mistake for me is in Exhibit 2 (UKPC's OWN copy of their signage), NOT SHOWING that parking is not allowed between 22:00 and 08:00. 

That would be the sign for Rom Valley Reatil Park

[wv600]

Yes FTMDave, I also noticed the professional spelling on that one!

[FTMDave]

Bethany seems a new kid on the block, I hadn't read her stuff before.

I will applaud her for keeping her WS mercifully brief.  Generally we have to plough through pages & pages of waffle.

It all seems quite simple.  She says there were signs (para 7) yet your WS shows these signs were not there. 

Then her para 8 mentions your "offence" which is absent on the signs she produces.  One of these signs limits your stay to two hours, the other one to three hours, and you obeyed these regulations.

BTW, what have you decided about court attendance?

[wv600]

FTMDave, I have decided to go to court....was hoping I wouldn't have to but haven't come all this way to give up now....

The flights are costing a fortune to change, so holding off on that for now in the hope that UKPC may still withdraw.   Not holding my breath though....

[Nicky Boy]

1 hour ago, wv600 said:

The most glaring mistake for me is in Exhibit 2 (UKPC's OWN copy of their signage), NOT SHOWING that parking is not allowed between 22:00 and 08:00.  Note that this restriction IS showing on the draft sign approved in the contract between UKPC and their client.

"Draft" is spot on. They didn't actually manufacture that sign.

The pics of actual signage you posted from Google spyview earlier are exactly the same as their exhibit 2.

 

Depending on the OP's stamina and hate level, I can see a good GDPR claim looming.

[Nicky Boy]

54 minutes ago, wv600 said:

The flights are costing a fortune to change, so holding off on that for now in the hope that UKPC may still withdraw.   Not holding my breath though....

I forgot about this.^^^

Guys, I know it goes against the grain, but is it worth a letter to UKPC pointing out their lack of signage as a gentle nudge to discontinue?

It could save the OP some grief and expense...

[FTMDave]

Just thinking out loud.

You could e-mail a Supplemental Witness Statement to the court and to UKPC specifically ridiculing the signage and adding that you will request an unreasonable costs order including your preparation time at £19 for five hours.  In the hope they might throw in the towel.

Normally we would never advise such a thing as you would be playing your cards far too early.

But then, thinking about your flights ...

Just an idea.

 

[Nicky Boy]

I think playing cards early in this case is not a problem Dave.

The idiots have referred in their WS to a sign that does not have the out of hours restricion on it.

AND that signage is actually in place.

There is no way they can refute that evidence.

[brassnecked]

Another part is para 13 where they try to go behind Beavis as the £100 was judged to be inclusive of debt recovery and the extra £70 is a Penalty in all but name, but as stated by other's the signage is pants.

[wv600]

Thank you all for your replies.

I am really interested in getting this claim thrown out due to my travel plans, so have drawn up the following supplementary WS in word format (personal details removed) for easy editing.

I would appreciate any advise/guidance on if/how it can be improved.

many thanks in advance

 

Supplementary WS.pdf

Edited May 7 by FTMDave
Personal details removed

[FTMDave]

Onto it.