UKPC 2x windscreen PNC's claimform - - forgot permit - appealed - res parking my own space - East Croft House, 86 Northolt Road, South Harrow, HA2 0ES - *** Claim Dismissed ***

[FTMDave]

The claim form was issued in January 2022.  It has taken two years and three months to get to a hearing.  Are you sure it's the same case?

[FTMDave]

You've left this late - but not too late.

I'll have a read through both threads this evening when I knock off work and will try to help.

However, we need to see the PCNs and what you wrote in the appeals.  Until then we'll have no idea if they respected POFA times, whether you outed yourself as the driver, etc.

We also need to see their WS.

I've just got to the end of page two of your other thread and it's damn confusing with so many tickets.

Please be clear with us for each ticket. 

When you got the windscreen ticket. 

When you got the PCN. 

What you wrote in the appeal. 

Uploads of both the windscreen ticket and the PCN.

It would be helpful if you would do these things without having to be asked all the time. 

You've come to us at the last minute for help before a court hearing regarding two disputed invoices, yet you haven't shown us the invoices or what your opponent is arguing in their WS.

Ok, I've read through both threads.

1.  Sequence of Events.  A brief description of how you got the tickets.

2.  Supremacy of Contract.  Your ace.  You show your lease.  You did a lot of good work on this in your original thread.  You can use the info in these links and quote the persuasive cases

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/link-parking-lose-in-wrexham-flat-owner.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/ukpc-lose-residential-case-will-vicim.html?m=0

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html

3.  Interest.  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for nearly six years and accrue so much interest.

4.  Double recovery.  You can copy this section virtually verbatim from Mystic Bertie's thread as the PPCs always do the same thing.  Mystic Bertie's WS is on this page  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/459507-ukpcdcbl-anpr-pcn-appealed-paploc-now-claimform-mcdonalds-bristol-patchway-562-bs34-5tq/page/5/#comments  Mystic Bertie quotes a persuasive case which is attached.

Unfortunately that's it. 

There is probably stuff about UKPC's contract with the landowner being rubbish, about their PCNs not respecting POFA, about rubbish arguments they've made in their their WS, but you've shown us none of that so we can't just guess.

G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf

[FTMDave]

Thank you for all this.  You've uploaded a huge amount which must have taken some doing.

I'm slowly reading through it.

Regarding both appeals, UKPC have logged you as "Driver and Registered Keeper".  It seems that you outed yourself as the driver.  Can you remember if you clicked some box with "Driver and Registered Keeper"? 

If you can't - it was six flippin' years ago! - are any of these tickets outstanding?  If so, can you start a mock appeal, without actually finishing the appeal, and see if such a box flashes up?

Forget what I wrote above.  Even a mock appeal won't work as more than the 28 days or whatever UKPC allow for appeal have passed.  However, can you remember admitting to being the "driver and registered keeper"?

[FTMDave]

OK, having read everything, the main points of the WS are suggested below.

You have until Monday to file, and even then a short delay as you are a LiP would be accepted by the court.  So -

1.  Sequence of Events.  A brief description of how you got the tickets.

2.  Supremacy of Contract.  Your ace.  You show your lease.  You did a lot of good work on this in your original thread.  You can use the info in these links and quote the persuasive cases

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/link-parking-lose-in-wrexham-flat-owner.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/ukpc-lose-residential-case-will-vicim.html?m=0

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html

Ridicule their para 24 ii "If the Defendant did not understand the Terms on the signs, they should have exited the land and found alternative parking" and point out that you were on your own land!

Ridicule their para 33 and point out that it is not unreasonable behaviour to have the temerity to park on your own land.

3.  Prohibition.  The signs are wholly prohibitive and cannot form a contract.

4.  No locus standi.  I'm carp with contracts.  However, forum regular LFI is an expert.  I'm sure he'll be on tomorrow to weave his magic.

5.  No keeper liability.  UKPC have not written anything about you outing yourself as the driver.  Forget my posts above.  They've done your work for you with their lazy copy & paste WS!  Ho!  Ho!  Ho!  Therefore point out where they have not respected POFA, and ridicule their para 21 where they state "My Company reasonably believes that the Defendant was the Driver because they would otherwise have nominated a driver, and therefore the Defendant is pursued on that basis" which is laughable. 

You can tweak paras 14, 15 & 19 of Mystic Bertie's WS which is on this page  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/459507-ukpcdcbl-anpr-pcn-appealed-paploc-now-claimform-mcdonalds-bristol-patchway-562-bs34-5tq/page/5/#comments is

I'm sure LFI will have other POFA comments.

6.  Interest.  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for nearly six years and accrue so much interest.

7.  Double recovery.  You can copy this section virtually verbatim from Mystic Bertie's thread as the PPCs always do the same thing.    Mystic Bertie quotes a persuasive case which is attached.

G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf

[FTMDave]

Willesden County Court and Family Court - Find a Court or Tribunal - GOV.UK

WWW.FIND-COURT-TRIBUNAL.SERVICE.GOV.UK

---

Willesden County Court and Family Court - Find contact details, opening times, how to get to here, types of cases managed, disabled access to the...

 

[FTMDave]

Very quickly as I'm in a rush at work.

On 04/04/2024 at 02:24, dbuk2000 said:

5) Double Recovery - I have checked the signage from the claimants witness statement and it does state on the signage that £60 will be added if this gets passed onto the debt collectors.

So what?  If it were written on the signs that, should you not pay, you authorise them to smash in your car windows with baseball bats, could they legally do so?  Of course not. 

The law is quite clear.  Both the Beavis judgment at the High Court and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 state that the original £100 is the maximum that can be charged.  All you have to do here is copy from Mystic Bertie's WS.

On 04/04/2024 at 02:24, dbuk2000 said:

4) No Keeper Liability - Is there a reason this is needed? I did initially appeal one of the tickets so at this point I would have admitted that it was my vehicle. I am just struggling on what to put here.

But UKPC haven't realised you outed yourself as the driver!

They have just copied & pasted their generic WS.  Your mistake wasn't noticed.  So you can turn that to your advantage.  Tweak the below to make it relevant to your case.

Mush rush.

No keeper liability

14. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requires the parking
company to quote the parking period. Schedule 4 S9[2][a] states -
“(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”.

15. There is no period of parking mentioned on the PCN at all.

16. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur -
Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the
judge dismissed this claim.

19. All this means that the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to
the keeper. Only the driver is responsible for the charge.

So ...

1.  Sequence of Events.  Done.  Good.

2.  Supremacy of Contract.  Done.  Good.  After your current (9) add a paragraph to make it crystal clear.

"I enjoy Supremacy of Contract as, when I purchased the property in 2016, the contract did not include any mention of a parking company or need to show a permit to park on my own property" .

3.  Prohibition.  You can use some of these arguments I found in another WS -

7. The Claimant claims Breach of Contract. For there to be a contract with the
driver there must be an offer, consideration and acceptance .
In this situation the vehicle was parked in a bay with signage stating “Permit
Holders Only. All vehicles must clearly display and valid permit within the
windscreen of the vehicle” There is no offer to accept other than to display a
permit for the bay the vehicle was parked in, and the signage for that bay is
therefore ‘forbidding signage’, not an invitation to park on certain terms. It
disallows other parking and could be construed as only applying to permit
holders, not others who are forbidden from parking. If this is the case, it only
offers to permit holders. This notice forbids any parking at all except by permit
holders and is not an offer at all. It does not make a contractual offer, so
there can be no breach of contract. This therefore means this is a landowner
issue for trespass, and the agreement between PPC and landowner does not
allow for the Claimant to collect for trespass issues.

8. In the case of C5GF17X2 Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford 23/11/2016 where
the defendant was parked in an area for permit holders only District Judge
Glen dismissed the claim “because the notice is a prohibition and claimants
are not entitled to pursue for trespass, they are not the landowner.”

9. In the case of C8GF4C12 ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester
29/11/2016 District Judge Iyer stated that the signage was forbidding, there
was no mention of the word 'contract' on them. The word 'breach' was on the
signage. As a result of this, the only person that could bring a claim was the
landowner for trespass.

10. In the case of B4GGF26K6 – PCM(UK) -v- Mr Bull (& 2 others) 21/4/16 District
Judge Glen stated in reference to the “ No Parking at any time” sign that
“This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any
period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way,
either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to
park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on
the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in
the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really
would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had
any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.

4.  No locus standi.  Use LFI's arguments.

5.  No keeper liability.  Explained above.

6.  Interest.  Done.  Good.

7.  Double recovery.  You have all this in Mystic Bertie's WS as explained above.  Plus, add that they are claiming for damages which is not permitted.

[FTMDave]

The WS is very good and likely to win as it is.  But if it can be tweaked and improved, why not?

In Supremacy of Contract I would expand your (11) and make it into a summary/conclusion of the section. 

11.  I enjoy Supremacy of Contract as, when I purchased the property in 2016, the contract did not include any mention of a parking company or need to show a permit to park on my own property.  i invite the court to dismiss the claim in it's entirety.

In Prohibition your (12) really makes various points so the para needs to be split up and some persuasive cases added. 

The matter of the £90/£100 is a separate legal point.  How about -

12.  The PCNs state they were issued because the car was not displaying a valid permit.  Yet when the Claimant shows their signage around the area of Eastcroft House all the signs state "No Unauthorised Parking" which is incapable of forming a contract because being prohibitory it offers nothing contractually to the motorist. 

13.  The signs make no mention of the need to display permits.

14. In the case of C5GF17X2 Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford 23/11/2016 where the defendant was parked in an area for permit holders only, District Judge Glen dismissed the claim “because the notice is a prohibition and claimants are not entitled to pursue for trespass, they are not the landowner.”

15.  In the case of C8GF4C12 ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester 29/11/2016 District Judge Iyer stated that the signage was forbidding, there was no mention of the word 'contract' on them. The word 'breach' was on the signage. As a result of this, the only person that could bring a claim was the landowner for trespass.

The PCN

16.  The Claimant's signage refers to "a £90 parking charge" yet both PCNs demand £100.

17.  A charge of £100 per PCN is also the basis of the Claimant's Particulars of Claim (to which they have added a further £60 which i refer to below).

[FTMDave]

Are you sure about?

1.  The signs make no mention of the need to display permits - UKPC's WS is of such poor quality that I can't make the signs out.  However, on the close-up of the standard sign there is a mention of permits half.way down where they have the four little pictures.

2.  There is no location of the relevant land mentioned on the PCN at all - again, it's impossible to read what is written on the NTD or the PCN.  Do they really make no mention of Eastcroft House or similar?

You have to be sure about this, you don't want to undermine your own case with inaccuracies.

There are some other small points re the rest of the WS but I don't want us to get lost in minutiae.  Please come back to us about this, then we can add the finishing touches.

In fact if you are comfortable with the changes I suggested in the last post, then please make them and then upload a new version of the WS, to avoid confusion.

Edited April 5 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

LFI, both of the NTDs and both of the NTKs are in UKPC's WS.

The former are legible, the latter no.

I see the OP has disappeared - again - for 24 hours despite the imminent deadline for the WS.

It's pretty ridiculous Caggers posting during their work breaks to try to help given the strict deadline when the person in legal dispute is not even here.

[FTMDave]

7 hours ago, dbuk2000 said:

It may look like I don't care with the long gaps in responding but nothing is further from the truth.

However, the result of your absences is that a near-perfect WS at the point of post 24 that needed just the tiniest of tweaks has now morphed into an incomprehensible mess with lots of repetition and legal arguments strewn across the wrong sections.

You've added stuff I suggested early on in the discussion and ignored stuff suggested in post 24 which was much better as it included LFI's insights.

Can you please upload a version in Word?  This will have your personal details embedded but we can immediately delete at this end and just keep it for Site Team.  With a version in Word it's just much easier to move the arguments around to the right sections and delete the repetition.

 

[FTMDave]

Thanks!

Onto it.

I've hidden your post from spying eyes so no-one can see your personal details on the Word version.

Edited April 6 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

See if you're happy with this version.

I've tried to cut out repetition, put the legal arguments in the right sections, and also cut out some stuff critical of UKPC but really of little bearing on whether you owe the money or not.

I'd love to know how you get the paras to automatically number themselves - it would have saved me a load of work on other WSs in the past!!!

Some final points.

Paras 12 and 14 are in contradiction.  in (12) you say the signs say "Permit Holders Only" while in (14) "The signs make no mention of the need to display permits".  So which is it?  We can't make out the signs apart from one which is not on your property but rather just a blow-up of a standard sign.  Please address this issue.

In (31) you need a new exhibit F which is attached here.

If you can clear up the matter of the signs then we will be good to go.

G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf Witness Statement 06042024a.pdf

Edited April 6 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

dx, the Word document was my fault, I requested it.

The OP's PDFs are scanned document and that makes it impossible to copy, paste or delete sentences or paragraphs.

[FTMDave]

See what you think of this version.

I've tidied up the Prohibition section.

I've added a new (11).

Remember to add the Exhibit F which is mentioned in (32).

Above (23) and above (24) I've knackered the layout somewhat.  Sorry.  You'll have noticed this is not my forté.

Hilarious that they have included the £90 sign instead of the £100 one.  Hoisted by ...

Witness Statement 06042024b.pdf

[FTMDave]

For Excel v Wilkinson - the whole thing.

For your lease - just the extracts.

[FTMDave]

I was going to disagree with the other regulars and say to use e-mail tomorrow/Monday given the deadline.  After all, UKPC have your e-mail address and it's a bit late to tell them to stop using it.

However, I'm musing about the £90/£100 sign.  We've seen in other cases where the PPC has messed up with their lie mistake with signs, and when they cotton on when reading the Cagger's WS they try to rush a Supplemental Witness Statement to the court.

So the less time they have the better.

So up to you, but it might be an idea to e-mail the court tomorrow/Monday with their copy.  Make sure that in the subject line there is written - the claim number, the names of the parties, the hearing date, and the words "Witness Statement".  Obviously click on "Return Receipt".

Then on Monday send UKPC theirs by 2nd class post (all they are worth) and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

[FTMDave]

I don't think it makes a massive amount of difference either way.

The important thing is to prepare a strong WS - and you have done.

If you use e-mail there is a chance they will try to sneak in extra evidence at the last minute.

If you use Royal Mail there is a slight chance that the delay will be used against you, but it's unlikely as a Litigant-in-Person is allowed leeway.

Your call.

I won't be around for the rest of the day as I'm now off to the excitement of an Italian third division football relegation clash!

[FTMDave]

UKPC are too stupid to lose their own cases so they employ sixth-rate solicitors to lose their cases on their behalf.  So yes, send theirs to whichever solicitors are named on the claim form.

I would presume that is the right court address, but after sending it it might be an idea to ring them just to be sure.

[FTMDave]

I don't quite know how they've made the balance out to be £599, but anyway ...

Ho!  Ho!  Ho!  If their case for £600 is so good, why are they prepared to accept £200?  I think we can work that one out.

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

I also have to say well done to the other side's advocate for being honest with the court.

[FTMDave]

LFI is spot on.

In fact you could sue UKPC for breach of GDPR, as UKPC knew full well right from the start that their case was hopeless.  They should never have asked for your details from the DVLA.

Take some time to think if that is a road you want to go down.