Author Topic: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track  (Read 223 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2024, 11:04:44 am »
Also, please show us the other file photos that they have.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2024, 03:17:14 pm »
Initial observations re. the contract:

  • The page numbers suggest the document is 30 pages long, but they have only supplied 4. Schedules 5 and 6 may contain important provisions relating to this specific property, which they haven't shared
  • The contract started on 21st July 2015 for an initial period of 30 days. None of the bits they have shared outline the mechanism through which this period may be extended. On that basis, it's not clear that this contract was still in effect on the material date.

Hmmm, I did not even pick this up.

Good observation! Should I say this somewhere in my Defence Statement?

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2024, 03:45:59 pm »
Also, please show us the other file photos that they have.

I will link it all here so that it is in one place:

1. Sign of Car Park - https://imgur.com/MjzRaZn

2. NtK - https://postimg.cc/8jNmqmxK - Can't tell by picture angles if I am displaying a badge or not

3. Final Notice - https://imgur.com/a/hQIIIHP

4. Landowner Agreement - https://fuchsia-marcellina-40.tiiny.site/

5. Pictures Taken at another location in 2022 not 2023 - https://imgur.com/a/a51eu7k

This is all I have been sent.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2024, 04:03:58 pm »
Paragraph #1 is OK. Next should be the ďPreliminary MatterĒ sub-heading with your paras #4 and #5 which now become #2 and #3.

Next should be sub-heading ďThe facts known to the defendantĒ with what are your para #2 and #3 which then become #4 and #5 followed by the rest of the template.

Maybe reword your para #3 which becomes para #5 along these lines:

5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls displaying a disabled badge but it is possible that this may have fallen when placed. Due to the images provided, it is not clear whether or not there was or was not a badge on the vehicle

5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls placing and displaying the disabled persons badge on the vehicle dashboard. The claimant is put to strict proof that a disabled persons badge was not displayed as they have not provided any clear evidence to the contrary.

We still have not seen the contract with the landowner. Your link only shows the cover page. Is that the sum total of what they sent you?

You will also note that the PoC state that the PCN was issued on the 21st August but the NtK shows it was actually issued on the 23rd August.

Can we see all the other file photos that they have as their evidence? You are claiming that they have not shown any evidence that clearly shows no blue badge being displayed.

Thank you for this.

I will be sure to make the appropriate amendments.

I linked this above but as we split the threads it may have got lost, please see the landowner contract all 4 pages.

https://fuchsia-marcellina-40.tiiny.site/

1st NTK: https://postimg.cc/8jNmqmxK

Final Notice: https://imgur.com/a/hQIIIHP

Revised Draft:


1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim('the PoC').The facts as known to the Defendant:
Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out
2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4,               Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimantís attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimantís contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

3. Furthermore, the Claimant's interest calculation is based on the full £170, and they have not provided a breakdown of how the additional £70 "damages" was calculated. The Claimant has also failed to provide full and proper disclosure of all documents, evidence, and the precise calculation of the alleged debt. Even if the "damages" were allowed to have interest calculated on them, the calculation is wrong which puts the rest of the Claimants particulars in doubt.
Facts known to the Defendant
4.The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action".The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver.

5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls placing and displaying the disabled persons badge on the vehicle dashboard. The claimant is put to strict proof that a disabled person's badge was not displayed as the angle photographed does not properly show if in fact the badge was present but fell.

6. According to the PoC the claimant states that the PCN was issued on the 21st August but the NtK shows it was actually issued on the 23rd August. Contrary to what has been stated in their PoC.

7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines. The copy of the signs provided by the claimants solicitors DCB Legal could be any sign and is not adequate evidence these were the signs present on the day in question.


8. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by the UK Government.


9.The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of: (i) the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and requires further and better particulars, and (ii) a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the POC, including how interest was calculated, which looks to be improperly applied on the entire inflated sum, as if that was all overdue on the day of the alleged event. For example, the claimant avers


10.The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2024, 04:04:12 pm »
Have you gone onto their website as though to appeal? Normally, they would have other photos taken at the time available. It is copies of those photos we need to see. Did the attendant who took the photos show all the windows and clearly evidence no blue badge?

We know the only photo you've shown is the one of the NtK. Please check their website for other photos.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2024, 04:05:51 pm »
The revised draft layout is much better but you need to define the sub-headings in bold and spaced from the previous and next paragraphs.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2024, 04:27:37 pm »
Have you gone onto their website as though to appeal? Normally, they would have other photos taken at the time available. It is copies of those photos we need to see. Did the attendant who took the photos show all the windows and clearly evidence no blue badge?

We know the only photo you've shown is the one of the NtK. Please check their website for other photos.
I went on their website as though I wanted to appeal but it shows me this message:

This Parking Charge Notice is currently not eligible for appeal, due to the following reason:

Unfortunately we are unable to accept this Appeal as the Parking Charge Reference number has now been referred to our Litigation Team.

I cannot access any photos I can't tell if there is any more angles as they've only provided these.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2024, 04:39:37 pm »
The revised draft layout is much better but you need to define the sub-headings in bold and spaced from the previous and next paragraphs.
On my end its defined, underlined and Bold but for some reason when I try to add the formatting gets muddled.

https://imgur.com/a/PoJ4gYF - Pictures of what I can see on my end
« Last Edit: July 08, 2024, 04:42:28 pm by Khadz »

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2024, 04:43:57 pm »
Never mind. It's only POPLA. If they have additional photos, they'll provide them in their operators response pack. Even if the POPLA appeal is unsuccessful, it's only UKPC. Left to run its course, this will either be cancelled at POPLA or will end up as a county court claim where, once it has been defended robustly, will be discontinues before they have to pay the hearing fee.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2024, 05:54:22 pm »
Never mind. It's only POPLA. If they have additional photos, they'll provide them in their operators response pack. Even if the POPLA appeal is unsuccessful, it's only UKPC. Left to run its course, this will either be cancelled at POPLA or will end up as a county court claim where, once it has been defended robustly, will be discontinues before they have to pay the hearing fee.

Ah Okay.

Thank you.

Do you think my defence is ready to be sent? Or do you think I need to add the section about only sending part of a contract that has 30 pages? In addition to the fact that it states it was formed in 2015 for an initial 30days?

I have to submit this to the CNBC tomorrow by 4pm. I'll send this via email as a PDF attachment.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1097
  • Karma: +23/-9
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2024, 09:55:27 pm »
IMO, it is a waste of time referring to alleged breaches of PoFA if the defendant admits to being the driver, which in this thread they have.

OP, if you deny being the driver, then say so. If not, then PoFA is not relevant and the only thing which counts is the deemed contract which, as far as the driver is concerned in a disabled bay, MUST be conveyed by signs visible to the driver without need to leave their vehicle.

I cannot see anything in the claimant's evidence to show this.

IMO, the landowner's permission for the operator to exercise their right to pursue parking charges is contingent, inter alia, upon compliance with the BPA CoP, which unless they have photos to show the signs specific to disabled drivers in situ must cast doubt on their compliance.

Can I suggest we get away from the minutiae of court process and look at facts of the alleged breach pl.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2024, 01:16:52 am »
Please ignore my comment about ďitís only POPLAĒ because Iím getting confused between the two threads.

Just submit the defence as is. It matters not, at this stage whether the driver is identified.

Itís just a UKPC/DCB Legal sham claim which, with the defence as is will never get to a hearing. It will be discontinued. Iíd place money on it.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2024, 11:25:08 am »
IMO, it is a waste of time referring to alleged breaches of PoFA if the defendant admits to being the driver, which in this thread they have.

OP, if you deny being the driver, then say so. If not, then PoFA is not relevant and the only thing which counts is the deemed contract which, as far as the driver is concerned in a disabled bay, MUST be conveyed by signs visible to the driver without need to leave their vehicle.

I cannot see anything in the claimant's evidence to show this.

IMO, the landowner's permission for the operator to exercise their right to pursue parking charges is contingent, inter alia, upon compliance with the BPA CoP, which unless they have photos to show the signs specific to disabled drivers in situ must cast doubt on their compliance.

Can I suggest we get away from the minutiae of court process and look at facts of the alleged breach pl.

Okay, so remove all the paragraphs that relate to POFA

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2024, 12:31:38 pm »
Please ignore my comment about ďitís only POPLAĒ because Iím getting confused between the two threads.

Just submit the defence as is. It matters not, at this stage whether the driver is identified.

Itís just a UKPC/DCB Legal sham claim which, with the defence as is will never get to a hearing. It will be discontinued. Iíd place money on it.
Okay, no problem.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2024, 01:33:20 pm »
Is the driver unknown to the operator? What you, an anonymous user on a bulletin board have admitted to or not, is not relevant. If the driver is unknown to the operator and the PCN is not compliant with PoFA to hold the known keeper liable then you simply appeal as the known keeper and refuse to identify the unknown driver, as is your right.

The burden of proof then lies with the operator to show that the person they are pursuing was the driver. Unless the known keeper identifies the unknown driver, unintentionally or otherwise, the operator has no way of proving otherwise.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.