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]

Good grief!

We thought the regulars here were pretty good at sarcastically telling the fleecers where to go - but you take the snotty letter to a new level.  Well  done!

The whole point of their Letter of Claim was to legally tell you to either pay or it would be court.  But they still haven't got the gonads to do court, they've faffed around writing twice more giving you a final final final chance to pay.

Yours is not the next move.

[FTMDave]

They have been very naughty in claiming £50 legal representative's costs - yet the documentation is to be sent to them rather than a legal representative.  A search for Angelika Brzozowska shows she is "Head of Legal at UK Parking Control (UKPC)" (i.e. the tea lady).  Make sure the question of this fictitious cost is added to your defence in mid-September.

[FTMDave]

If you haven't filed a defence yet, hang on a mo, I'm just rereading your thread from the start.

[FTMDave]

Go to  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-dec-2021/

Scroll down to  Q2) How should I defend?

Copy the introduction and the six points verbatim.

However, as they have been particularly naughty in your case with two lots of made-up costs, change (6) into (7) and add a new (6).

(6).  The Claimant is abusing the court process by claiming legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative.  They are representing themselves.  Angelika Brzozowska, who signed the claim form, is an employee of UK Parking Control Ltd.

[FTMDave]

So - all good news.

In your WS you can state that, although they  replied to your CPR request, they did not include proof of planning permission - because they don't have it, which is a criminal offence.

They refused to produce the contract with the landowner, instead attaching a useless letter.  A letter is not a contract.

The fleecers have also idiotically stated without ifs & buts that they are using POFA - so woe betide them when LFI points out how they haven't respected POFA.

Well done on dealing with the DQ.

 

.

[FTMDave]

So, ideas for your WS..

1.  Sequence of events - a brief description of how you got the invoice.

2.  Insufficient signage - everything you've written about here being a dearth of signage and what there was wasn't illuminated.

3.  Penalty - the charge is an unlawful penalty as your visit was at night when there was no interest in limiting the time motorists could stay.

4.  Prohibition - no parking is a prohibition and no contract can be formed

5.  No keeper liability - how they haven't followed POFA.

6.  No locus standi - although they replied to your CPR request, they refused to produce the contract with the landowner, instead attaching a useless letter.  A letter is not a contract.

7.  Illegal signage - although they  replied to your CPR request, they did not include proof of planning permission - because they don't have it, which is a criminal offence.

8.  Abuse of process - you can copy that verbatim form Mystic Berties's thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/459507-ukpcdcbl-anpr-pcn-appealed-paploc-now-claimform-mcdonalds-bristol-patchway-562-bs34-5tq/page/5/#comments  Add an extra paragraph that they have invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative.

[FTMDave]

Yes!

[FTMDave]

It might be only me, but I can't open your uploads.

[FTMDave]

That makes two of us.

[FTMDave]

It worked this time!

Will have a peek now.

[FTMDave]

That is a cracking first draft - well done!

[FTMDave]

However, if it can be improved - why not?

I see you've been looking at other WSs.  You need a little introduction at the start about being a Litigant-in-Person.

In Insufficient Signage/Exhibit 1 is it necessary to show the close-up of their signs?  That's almost showing the signage as better than it is.  I would leave out your 2nd, 4th and 5th photos.

In Penalty flesh it out a bit.  Add that the Claimant will witter on about the Beavis judgment but that your case is distinguished, Beavis dealt with a car park during opening hours when there was an interest in limiting the time cars could stay.

Again in Prohibition flesh it out.  Add some persuasive cases.  There are loads in WSs.

In Abuse of Process/Double Recovery para 14 they have inflated their claim from £100 to £170.  The other costs are allowed.

The rest is superb - well done.

[FTMDave]

Given you usually spend 25 hours a day on the site I think you're let off dx

[FTMDave]

That is a superb WS.

However, I have a few tweaks to suggest.

In (2) "indicating" not "indication".

I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2.

Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay.

I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion.

After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point -

8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.  

In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits.

In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write -

16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.

17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative.

You also need ot number your exhibits.

The rest is excellent - well done.

[FTMDave]

Finally, finally, finally found it!  It's this para that talks about the legitimate interest and a two-hour parking limit.

57_extracted_WS Combined excl Ex2 .pdf

[FTMDave]

No, I think you're fine with the exhibits you've prepared.

Exhibit 1 - photos

Exhibit 2 - para 107 of Beavis

Exhibit 3 - CPR request

Exhibit 4 - Excel v Wilkinson

[FTMDave]

In practice - forget about the theory - if you don't turn up you have a 0% chance of winning.

However, all is not lost.  It's perfectly possible that UKPC will bottle it when they get your WS.

It may be telling that they have produced no WS.

In post 45 you uploaded part of the court order.  There will be the date they were supposed to pay the hearing fee by which I'm guessing was 18 April.  Give the court a bell tomorrow and see if they have paid.

Edited April 28 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

 

[FTMDave]

Onto it.