UKCPM/gladstone 2*MNPR vanishing windscreen PCN's claimform - Ltd business hire out of our vehicle - PHOENIX AVENUE, GREENWICH PENINSULA (PATROL) SE10 0ER, - WS Stage

[citroenberlingo]

Hi,

Our van was leased to a subcontractor (contract present, if needed) at the time when he was allegedly accused of breaching UK CPM parking rule at Phoenix Avenue, London, SE10 0ER twice in October 2021. The Parking charge notices were not affixed to the vehicle at the time of incidents and we were not sent any of the letters to our address which is the same as the DVLA registered keeper address.

We received a letter from MCOL claiming the charges on behalf of UK CPM in February 2023 for these 2 contraventions.

Our reply to that claim was, see Exhibit 1.

Now the MCOL has sent the claim to a small claim court for a hearing on the 30^th August 2023. I have received the other party’s defence via email and I am preparing my defence which must be served at court and to the other party by the 2^nd August 2023.

I will include the other party’s defence in attachment.

 

Here what I believe this contravention did not take place and the claim to be set aside.

1.      We were only made aware of the alleged contravention in February 2023 by MCOL. Prior to this we were oblivious to this.

2.      No PCN was issued and affixed to the vehicle – even though the evidence provided by the UK PCM shows 2 pictures taken from the back of the vehicle. No picture taken of any PCN being attached to the windscreen. UK CPM claims we did not have e-permit to enter their regulated area.

3.      The subcontractor had no clue of the pictures being taken and that he was in breach of loading bay rules.

4.      Subcontractor was carrying COVID-19 urgent samples and delivered to the Laboratory based at Phoenix Avenue, which were marked timely and urgent.

5.      We were not given any instruction by the customer of the parking restrictions at the time of booking.

6.      We have evidence of delivery being made with proof of delivery and the booking confirmation.

7.      Pictures of the sample’s box clearing showing “Urgent”, the reason we have to mentioned this as this had a cut off time of 8pm with the lab for the customers to receive their results for the promise they were made at the time of booking.

8.      It was 8pm in October, and the signage were not clearly displayed at the entrance or at the loading bays.

9.      No grace period was given for the above, as no mention of this in their letter either, we have proof of driver leaving the lab within 10 minutes of arriving at the lab, shown in proof of delivery note.

10.  The company has taken nearly 2 years to get in touch with us to claim the money via MCOL, though they claim they had posted letters to us. Had we received the PCN affixed at windscreen or in post we would have asked the subcontractor to deal with the charges who was responsible as per terms and conditions of the contract (Exhibit 2).

11.  We are not liable if their letters did not reach us as we do get mail posted in our letterbox for other similar addresses as ours to our address and likewise our mail goes to the similar address (Ours is Salt Hill way and the other street next to ours are Salt Hill Drive and Salt Hill Avenue) please see attached Exhibit PUL2.

12.  The subcontractor left the company in May 2022 and we do not have his current address or contact details with us. But happy to provide his details at the time of leasing the vehicle if asked.

13.  The initial PCN was £100 each and now they are claiming £479.97.

The claimant wrote in their claim that we got to know the contravention in 2021 yet in response to our reply where I mentioned that “We have only come to know now after receiving this notice that the claimant has issued such notice to our drivers in 2021! There was no correspondence received from the claimant during this period which would have allowed us to defend our case and in an instance of rejection could have benefitted from paying a lower amount” this is a clear misrepresentation of our statement.

What would you kindly suggest?

Many thanks in advance.

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

put everything in one mass PDF please

read upload use the  pdfmerge site 

please complete this:

 

9 minutes ago, citroenberlingo said:

I will include the other party’s defence in attachment.

a claimant doesnt file a defence and you have already filed your defence weeks ago.

you are both now at the witness statement stage.

just to clarify we need EVERY COMMUNICATION in or out (bothsides of each letter where applicable) and ALL emails in/out. in DATE ORDER in one mass PDF.

you cant set aside as there is no judgement yet..you mean dismissed.

sadly all your points for you WS are totally irrelevant...sorry.

[FTMDave]

Good grief, you've come here a bit late, haven't you?

A Witness Statement is a document that needs a bit of work doing - you can't just magic one up in 48 hours.

Anyway, we can do what we can do, so please get on with dx's suggestions above.  IMMEDIATELY.

 

 

[dx100uk]

business to business claim??....urm...ltd ....sole trader???

love to see the claimform page 1...need the defence you filed too.

and of course no CPR sent so you have allowed UKPC to call all the shots here...

you've obviously been reading cag for a good while ...shot yourself in the foot big time by not coming here MONTHS ago.

dx

[lookinforinfo]

It does seem strange that none of those letters except the last legal ones were delivered to your office. You probably know hat under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that provided you supplied UKPCM with the details of the lessee at the time, you would not have been held liable for the charges even if the van driver didn't pay.

However it is difficult to reply when you didn't receive any correspondence from UKPC. But you are where you are and have to defend yourself against something that should have been the responsibility of the van driver, had the PCNs been delivered to you.

So thank you for posting all their WS so we can build your defence.

The first thing are the PCNs-neither of them are compliant with the Act.

Under Schedule 4 Section 9 [2] (2)The notice must (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

No period of parking is mentioned. There is an incident time which is just one time.  For there to be a parking period there is a requirement for  a starting and finishing time. There is neither on the PCNs. There are times on the photographs but there is not a parking period mentioned on either PCN which there should be. Also the times on the photos show the arrival and departure times of the van but as they include driving from the arrival area to where the van stopped then driven from that spot to the exit cannot be described as a parking period.

The second reason the PCNs are not compliant is by virtue of Schedule 4 section 9 [e] 

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; 

If you read both PCNs you will see that nowhere do they ask the keeper to pay the charge.

That means that as they have failed to comply with the Act the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is responsible for the debt and you do not have to tell them who was driving.

Another reason to dispute paying is that the van was not parked as it was a delivery van unloading medical supplies and had the UKPCM guy stayed longer than three minutes they would have seen the unloading occurring. 

if all that was photographed was of three minutes duration, that is well within the five minute grace period that drivers are allowed to read the T&Cs and leave if they don't want to be bound by them.

Interesting too that not a single photo has been shown of the parking signs near the van-perhaps they are not so easily read at night . I would certainly make the point that the signage visibility is still in doubt and give the driver the benefit of that doubt. If it was clearly visible, UKPC would have shown it.

If you look at the agreement with the landowner-under Schedule 2 the last line states the vehicles loading or unloading are exempt from the parking rules.

If you include all those arguments they should be more than enough for you to win in court should they be so stupid as to take you there.

Lastly I haven't read it but I understand that delivery vehicles should be  treated rather better by traffic wardens than ordinary motorists according to the following-

https://logistics.org.uk/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=869378c6-05b5-432f-bb87-3d4adb9ab2a5&lang=en-GB

PS Were there postal strikes or some other reason why your mail wasn't getting through.

 

[citroenberlingo]

Thanks for your swift replies.

Which Court have you received the claim from? MCOL Northampton N1 ? YES

Claimants Solicitors: Gladstones

 Date of issue – 16/01/2023 

 Date for AOS - 31/01/2023

Date to submit Defence - 15/02/2023

What is the claim for – 

1.The vehicle parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the Contract) at PHOENIX AVENUE, GREENWICH PENINSULA (PATROL) SE10 0ER, on 26/10/2021 and 20/10/2021, thus incurring the parking charges (the PCNs).

2.The PCNs were not paid within 28 days of issue.

3. The claimant claims the unpaid PCNs from the Defendant as the Keeper of the vehicle.

4. Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

5.The CLAIMANT CLAIMS

£100 per PCN,

£70 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions,

together with Statutory interest of £39.97 pursuant to s69 of the county court Act of 1984 at 10.25% per annum, continuing at £0.10 per day.

What is the value of the claim? £479.97

Amount Claimed £379.97

court fees £50

legal rep fees £50

Total Amount £479.97

Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? No

Did you receive a letter of Claim with A reply Pack wanting I&E etc about 1mth before the claimform? No

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

It is my 1st time on this website and found it amazing otherwise I had decided Sunday morning to file my evidence if it wasn't for a video I was watching on youtube on appealing parking charge notice on a private land that led me to google a template. 

 I am new on this so please bear with me if things requested are not in the right order. 

I have attached the Claim Form page 1.

I have also merged the pdf files together previously uploaded separately.  (Page 1-51 is the bundle from Claimant sent to me by email on Friday 28/07/2023,

Page 52 was my defence to Claim Form on 15/02/2023,

Page 53 is excerpt from subcontractor's contract that they are responsible for any tickets and motor offences,

Page 54 Google map of the area of similar roads as ours for missing posts,

Page 55-57 proof of delivery from the driver showing urgent medical goods being delivered).

@lookinginforinfo we get a lot of our mail goes missing due to having similar address as 2 more streets next to ours in the area, I have attached the google map highlighted that.

Also all this happened during COVID days in 2021. We get their deliveries come to our address too which we return back to the drivers.)

Hope this is sufficient or if you guys need more information then do let me please.

Thanks

 

CLAIM FORM PAGE1.pdf

CRT ws bundle claimant-merged.pdf

[brassnecked]

As LFI suggests the vehicle was not parked it was delivering, so Jopson V Homeguard might well apply also.

[dx100uk]

one point with your defence and mentioning your contract with the leasing co.

 

these are not parking fines nor are they an enforceable offence so your contract does not cover them. makes you as the rk potentially responsible.

the other fact is this is a rarity here, this is a business to business claim as both of you are ltd companies.

last point so where have the 100's of letters gone on both pcn's to date?

what address is on the vehicles V5C? 

 

[citroenberlingo]

The address on V5C is the same address that is shown on the PCN however the court letter to came to our new address which is the company registered address and different to the PCN address.

Some of the letters and our deliveries went to the other address (salt hill drive and we live at salt hill way), those neighbours used to throw it away. Not sure if they even posted it to us in first place!

[dx100uk]

speak english, so the vehicle is not registered at your Ltd co's current address...?

thats why youi got nothing prior then.?

[citroenberlingo]

Correct the vehicle is not registered at the company's address rather at my residential address. 

 

 

[dx100uk]

which you live at ?

wheres all the previous paperwork about these two speculative invoices then prior to court claim? believe me there would have been dozens of letters for each one

you ignored everything?

story is not right here.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Well you obviously need to draft a Witness Statement, sharpish.  If you can get something done by 10pm UK time this evening, I'll try to help out.

Ideas might include.

LOADING IS NOT PARKING, as Brassnecked, said, Jopson v Homeguard

CONSIDERATION & GRACE PERIODS, the short time the vehicles were there

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE, the fleecers have included a close up of a sign, do you have your own photos of how the signs really appeared at night?

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE, have you checked if the fleecers have planning permission for their signs?

UNFAIR TERM, the sign says nothing about how you would get this e-permit, have you looked into this?

NO KEEPER LIABILITY, you were not the driver, the fleecers mention the Protection of Freedoms Act in their WS para 27, but they have not established keeper liability under the Act as LFI explains in post 5

NO LOCUS STANDI, I haven''t got time to read through their contract with the landowner, but you need to to see if it gives them the right to bring claims under their own name as they claim in their WS para 5

DOUBLE RECOVERY, as well as allowed solicitors' costs, they have invented £70 per ticket

INTEREST, it is unreasonable for them to have delayed litigation so long and to be claiming so much interest ( @Andyorch they have gone for 10.25% interest, isn't it normally 8%?)

Edited July 31, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[Nicky Boy]

And a big one already spotted by LFI...

If you look at the agreement with the landowner-under Schedule 2 the last line states the vehicles loading or unloading are exempt from the parking rules.

BREACH OF CONTRACT BETWEEN PPC AND LANDOWNER

(You have ample evidence that this was indeed a delivery).

[AndyOrch]

43 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

INTEREST, it is unreasonable for them to have delayed litigation so long and to be claiming so much interest ( @Andyorch they have gone for 10.25% interest, isn't it normally 8%?)

Pursuant to The County Courts Act 1984 simple interest awarded at 8% Dave and that's at the discretion of the curt may be lower.

[FTMDave]

Thanks Andy.  So that's a further abuse by them.

20 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

If you look at the agreement with the landowner-under Schedule 2 the last line states the vehicles loading or unloading are exempt from the parking rules.

Indeed!

Motorists loading / unloading their vehicle are exempt from the parking rules

20 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Interesting too that not a single photo has been shown of the parking signs near the van-perhaps they are not so easily read at night . I would certainly make the point that the signage visibility is still in doubt and give the driver the benefit of that doubt. If it was clearly visible, UKPC would have shown it.

I was thinking the same.  They've taken about 500,000 other photos, so why not of the signage?

As we are helping a company here, methinks it would be a good idea if someone got on with the Witness Statement this evening while someone else got themselves down to the area to photograph the signage.

The more I think about it, the more I reckon UKCPM's case is pants and the OP has a great chance of winning, however they have left everything extremely late and need to get a move on.

[brassnecked]

So long as its made clear that the vehicle was delivering therefore not parked in a manner to ground any contract o breach their greed will be their undoing  Just as a matter of interest was the van plain or liveried not that it makes any difference if you have proof it was delivering..

[Nicky Boy]

Looks plain on the pics BN.

[citroenberlingo]

2 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Just as a matter of interest was the van plain or liveried not that it makes any difference if you have proof it was delivering..

Its a plain van and have attached the pictures of the delivery and proof of delivery note also.

[AndyOrch]

4 hours ago, FTMDave said:

Thanks Andy.  So that's a further abuse by them.

Or pure incompetency 

[FTMDave]

@citroenberlingo I've just knocked off work and am available to do some work on the WS, if you have managed to draft some sections.

[citroenberlingo]

Just drafting it and should be posting it to you within 30 minutes. Is there a way I can send it to you privately as the draft has my personal information.

[FTMDave]

CAG discourages the use of PM, as a huge part of the forum is based on users learning from others' past experiences.

Plus if you send it to me that means dx, LFI, Nicky Boy, BN, HB and the other experts are excluded.

Can you just not redact the personal info?

[citroenberlingo]

Sure I understand and will be posting it here.

Many thanks

[FTMDave]

If anything slips through the redacting, we will make sure it is removed.