UKPC ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - vehicle on site during restricted no parking period - Rom Valley Retail Park, Romford, RM7 0AF

[wv600]

Hello all,

I have prepared the following defence, would appreciate some feedback before filing it.  Many thanks in advance!

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of the xxxxxxxxxxxx registration xxxxxxx.  The Claimant is not in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time.  

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant as stated in paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 by the Claimant.

3.  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 car park 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. 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  The Claimant is also adding fictitious “Legal Representative” fees when not using a legal representative.

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.

[wv600]

I have added another line to my defence below:

7 Not withstanding the above on 29 August 2023 I made a request pursuant to CPR 31.14 for the claimant to disclose its necessary evidence in support if its claim. To this date the claimant has failed to respond to said request.

[wv600]

I have also added the following:

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence its cause of action and contractual costs and what loss it has suffered. 

 

The Claimant is further put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

 

The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all.

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

Stick with the standard defence. It's stood the test of time...

CPR is just a request. They don't have to reply, but slate them in your WS for being uncooperative.

Also, don't remind them about needing a landowner contract. If they don't produce one at WS stage, all the better!

[wv600]

Thanks Nicky Boy - so just stick to points 1 - 6 above?

[Nicky Boy]

Yes.

[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.

[Nicky Boy]

In that case, number (5) needs editing as well...

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  The Claimant is also adding fictitious “Legal Representative” fees when not using a legal representative.

Remove the part highlighted in red.

As Dave said, it's a good idea to highlight the fact that there's TWO dodgy claims for money by listing them separately...

[brassnecked]

That should also serve to let them know their claim is in for a bumpy ride through the system, they have 2 strikes with the Legal Representative Fee already.

 

[wv600]

Hello all,

Thanks for all your assistance to date.

Unfortunately I had already filed the standard defence as per Nicky Boy's 1st reply, so did not include the subsequent comments from FTM Dave, Nicky Boy and brassnecked in my defence.  Please see attached for the defence filed.

I have also received the following in the post:

1) Small Claims Track from the Court - I've completed this and send copies to the court and UKPA with certificate of postage.  Said No to mediation and determination without a hearing.  Can scan and upload a copy if needed.  

2) CPR 31:14 Reply from UKPA - Copy attached in 2 parts due to size.  Note that they did not send details of planning permission for signage as requested.  They also didn't send a copy of the Landowner contract, only a witness statement.

3) Reply to Defence and Small Claims Track from UKPA - Copies attached

Is there anything else I need to do at this stage?

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of the registration .

The Claimant is not in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time.

2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant as stated in paragraphs 1 , 4 and 5 by the Claimant.

3. 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 car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by Defence Particulars the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.

4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. The Claimant
is also adding fictitious "Legal Representative" fees when not using a legal representative.

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.

Reply to Defence and Small Claims Track.pdf

Reply to CPR request.pdf

[dx100uk]

why did you use the form and not MCOL website to file a defence?

what is the status of the claim now, go look , does it says DQ's were sent out to you/claimant?
 

[wv600]

Hi dx100uk,

I used the MCOL website to file the defence. 

The form I uploaded is a printout after it was filed.

Attached is the status of the claim from the MCOL website - says DQ sent out to me...(does not mention claimant)

MCOL - MoneyClaim Online - Status Summary - details removed.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

How did your case go?

[dx100uk]

not over yet LFI..

awaiting allocation now .

dx

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry i thought it was mid September.

[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.

 

.

[brassnecked]

POFA will be a key to their undoing at court. That will be part of any WS.

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened.

HB

[wv600]

Thanks for reopening the thread HB.

My case has been allocated to Hertford Magistrates court for 16 May 2024.   The claimant (UKPC) has to pay the court fee by 18 April.

I have to provide copies of all documents to the court and other parties no later than 14 days before the hearing.

Could someone please point me in the right direction on where to find guidance for the next step?  I understand I have to compile a witness statement also.  Any help and guidance at this stage would be much appreciated.

Many thanks in advance!

Notice of Allocation.pdf

[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.

[wv600]

Thanks for the guidance FTMDave,  I'll start working on the Witness Statement.

I have also received an email for a mediation appointment on 25/04/2024..  I can't remember requesting this and not sure where to check either.

Do I reply and say that mediation IS NOT SUITABLE in my case?

Many thanks

[FTMDave]

Yes!

[brassnecked]

Definite NO to Mediation you either owe the invoice or you don't so nothing to argue on there.

[lookinforinfo]

Just to enlarge on Dave's great rundown of your case under Penalty. In the oft quoted case often seen on PCNs,  viz PE v Beavis while to Judges said there was a case for claiming that £100 was a penalty, this was overruled in this case because PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park free for other motorists which outweighed the penalty.

Here there is no legitimate interest since the premises were closed. Therefore the charge is a penalty and the case should be thrown out for that reason alone.

 

The Appeals dept need informing about what and what isn't a valid PCN. Dummies.

You should also mention that you were unable to pay by Iphone as there was no internet connection and there was a long  queue to pay on a very busy day . There was no facility for us to pay from the time of our arrival only the time from when we paid at the machine so we felt that was a bit of a scam since we were not parked until we paid. On top of that we had two children to load and unload in the car which should be taken into account since Consideration periods and Grace periods are minimum time.

If you weren't the driver and PoFA isn't compliant you are off scot free since only the driver is liable and they are saying it was you.