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]

Word files contain the writer's personal details, so I've converted the Word file in your post to PDF.

Here is a new version with suggested changes in red.  I've swapped stuff about.  I think it makes more sense if you argue (a) the signs weren't there, then (b) even if they had been there the driver would have complied with the T&Cs shown.

Supplemental WS with suggested changes.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

The Google Street view I saw was done in 2018. So they could have added them before your event. You could put them to strict proof of when they were erected .Are you sure those signs were not there on the day you were parked. 

The contract is not valid as there is no proof that it was actually signed and by whom as the signatory's have been redacted and there is no proof from Robert Irving Burns ltd that Portland could sign on their behalf. [The contract is between RIB and not Portland estates]

Some signs are prohibitory and cannot offer a contract. If the car park was closed any car there after hours was unauthorised.............

[wv600]

Thank you FTMDave.  I'm happy to make your suggested changes.  I'll wait a day or 2 to see if any of the team have any other suggestions or feedback.  Do I then just email a copies to both UKPC and the court?

Lookinforinfo - Unfortunately I am not sure if the signs have since been changed and cannot recall seeing any on the night as it was dark.   

[lookinforinfo]

Well you could say that you have pictures where the signs were not on the wall where you parked so would require strict proof of when they were erected .

But in any case it was dark so even if a sign was there you didn't see as it was not illuminated.

Little point in not having signs that can be seen at night though it obviously makes it easier to issue PCNs and pursue motorists claiming they have breached non contractual contracts whilst breaching those same motorist's GDPR.

[Nicky Boy]

Dave,

Section 12 seems to be a bit of a dangling limb on it's own, with no reference or explanation about the "breach" of parking out of hours.

Also, rather than draw any attention to the specific 22:00 to 08:00 wording on their "draft signage", how about a slight reshuffle ...?

11. The claimant provides 2 copies of the signage on this site. One of the signs shows a
time restriction of 2 hours, the other sign shows a parking restriction of 3 hours.

12. The driver stayed under 2 hours so even had the signs been visible the driver would
have respected the Claimant's terms & conditions.

Are the above strictly needed? The claimant has made no references to an overstay, just "out of hours".

13. The claimant also states in paragraph 8 of the witness statement:

"On 17 March 2023 a vehicle with registration number was recorded as having
breached the terms and conditions of parking. The driver of the aforementioned vehicle was
in breach by virtue of parking on site out of hours."

14. The claimants Exhibit BA/2 also does not specify any times for "out of hours parking". Breach of a non-existent terms is not possible.

 

Or something along those lines?

Screws up the the paragraph numberig a bit though...

 

[FTMDave]

Nick - point taken.  Thanks.  New version attached with changes in red.

wv600 - I would send it off ASAP, and yes by e-mail both to the court and to UKPC.  That's because the point is not really to convince the judge, in fact judges don't have to accept SWSs and may well disallow it.  The point is to turn the heat on UKPC.

The sooner UKPC get it the sooner they will wet their underclothes and the sooner they will discontinue and the sooner you will be able to plan your holiday activities ... well that's the idea anyway

Supplemental WS with suggested changes - version 2.pdf

[wv600]

Thanks all.

Just by way of an update, I've emailed the supplemental WS to both the court and UKPC on Sunday evening.  

Had the following autoreply from UKPC, so not sure if anyone would look at it before Thu, is it worth calling them to see if they have received it?

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your email. Please be advised that we aim to respond within 28 days. Please note that we cannot accept appeals against parking charges via this inbox and the opportunity to appeal this parking charge has expired.
Many Thanks,
Litigation Team
UK Parking Control Ltd

 

[dx100uk]

not your problem, you've sent it thats all you have to do.

dx

 

[wv600]

Couple of quick questions for the team please:

1)  How do I address the judge?

2) What do I say if asked who the driver was?  Note I have never admitted to being the driver.

3) Is there any way to check if the hearing is still going ahead?

I haven't heard from UKPC after sending the supplemental WS, so assuming I'm going to court tomorrow.   

Many thanks

Edited Wednesday at 18:04 by wv600

[jk2054]

1) You can call them judge

2) I would say something to the line of "The Claimant needs to prove I was driving. I don't accept or deny being driving."

3) Yes I will see if I can find out for you now

 

[jk2054]

If your case number ends D7T then yes your case is going ahead.

[dx100uk]

2 hours ago, wv600 said:

2) What do I say if asked who the driver was?  Note I have never admitted to being the driver.

you refer them to your defence and ws whenever asked direct questions.

dx

 

[wv600]

Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded.

Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure. 

I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal. They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!  Ended up having to change my flight, but the costs awarded softens the blow.

Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed.

Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made.

Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded.

Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures!

I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts.

All the best!

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

[dx100uk]

its typical by default if one party does not turn up they lose.

well done 

please consider a small donation

we are free

we don't get paid

but try telling the sites server hosters or ISP

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

They didn't turn up because they knew they would lose so they saved the cost of sending a brief saving them a couple of hundred pounds at least.

But still a big relief for you now that it's all over . So congratulations plus you can enjoy your trip that much more. 

[jk2054]

How much costs did you get?

[Nicky Boy]

Congratulations on your well deserved victory ✌ 

[brassnecked]

Congratulations a well deserved win.