UKCPM Options

[Baoli]

HI,

Can somebody please have a look at following NTK from UKCPM and advise if it is compliant with POFA if not which on
points are not compliant? Many Thanks


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d7xCq4ixj...9eKZ-fvNJPAlaDu

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

It is not delivered within the relevant period of 14 days after the event
No period of parking
Invitation to keeper not in the prescribed format

[Jlc]

It is not delivered within the relevant period of 14 days after the event

It just scraped in?

[ostell]

No it didn't. assumed delivered 2 WORKING days after issue. Posted Thursday, assumed delivered Monday

[Baoli]

It is not delivered within the relevant period of 14 days after the event
No period of parking
Invitation to keeper not in the prescribed format

Hi Ostell, Thanks for quick reply. incident on 20/7/2018 and NTK issued on 01/08/2018 plus 2 working days that makes 14 days?


also in what format invitation to keeper should be?

many thanks

This post has been edited by Baoli: Sun, 24 May 2020 - 23:03

[Baoli]

Hi,

I am also writing a WS for a hearing on 12/06/2020 which i think should be in the court by 28/05/20.

Can somebody please have a look and advise?

Also can i hand deliver it to my local court as it not for and will give me extra 2 days to work on it. I was on holidays and got stuck due to corona and now do not have much time to look into it properly?[/b]

any help would be much appreciated

many thanks.

below is WS which i have drafted.



I am the defendant in this case.

The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court before.

1. It is admitted that I was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. However as I am not the only driver of this vehicle I cannot be presumed to be the driver in the absence of any evidence. The claimant has produced no evidence I was the driver. Just wrongly presumes that I was the driver.

2. I have no liability, as I am the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. (Exhibit A) in order to hold me responsible for the driver’s alleged breach Schedule 4 relies upon not just a Notice To Keeper being served but these pre-requisites which are absent from the evidence:
a) A relevant contract (with the driver, i.e. there MUST be a contract capable of being read and agreed, from clear signs)
b) A relevant obligation giving rise to a parking charge (i.e. there MUST be evidence that the driver had a clear obligation and didn't comply with it and so a charge arose)

3. POFA Schedule 4 (S4): 9.2(f) states “the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met i.e fully compliant) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid”

a) This makes it absolutely clear that if the claimant fails to meet any one of the conditions under S4 – no matter how minor or trivial that failing is – then the act cannot be relied upon to invoke keeper liability.

b) Non-compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) with POFA S4, 9.2 a, no keeper liability established under POFA 2012. The 'period of parking' is not shown on the NTK, only the time of issue of an alleged PCN. Therefore the wording makes this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4. According to Schedule 4 para 9.2a, “the Notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists. (EXHIBIT A)
c. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that a maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case GBP 100.
4. a. Claimant’s claim that the car was “overstayed”, yet the two pictures provided in the Notice to Keeper (NTK) shows one was taken at 15:13:56 and second at 15:14:15 with only difference of 19 seconds which cannot prove that the car was overstayed ( a visitor permit was on display) This also goes against the IPC Code of Practice Part B 15.1 which states ‘Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site’
b. Date and time stamp on NTK looks to have been photoshoped as picture originally taken with date and stamp with in camera feature are blended into the background. They are put to strict proof that these stamps are real as anybody can put these stamps using computer. (EXIBIT B)
c. UKCPM has recently been investigated by BBC for issuing fake tickets by putting fake sign on PCN when actually there was no sign on the land and they had to suspend their ticketing system. Hence their credibility for issuing camera tickets is in question. They cannot be trusted just by taking the photos at the site and putting dates on these photos in the office. (Exhibit C)
d. The other pictures which was sent through to us by email latter looks to have been taken on a different date and occasion as they are taken in different bay, date and time stamps have been put using a computer not by the in camera feature so they have to prove that it was taken on the same day. (EXHIBIT B)
5. The catch in the signage on land is “time limit” which should be clearly mentioned in big red writing so that it can be read easily but this “time limit” on the signs is not clearly readable when you are trying to read the sign from ground. (Exhibit D)
b. In this case the warning signs above the bay are so high up that only a person of above average height would be able to see. The wording for time limit looks like to have been added latter on the sign and they are not readable from the ground. The time limit should be written in big font with red ink as this is the main condition. (Exhibit D)
6. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist because It is barely legible, making it difficult to read the small print. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee (of which UKCPM is a member), clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.” (Exhibit E) As can be seen from the attached photographic evidence this is not the case. (Exhibit D)

7 a. There is only one sign on the entry which is on the side of the road and cannot be read when driving past. (Exhibit F)

8. They state on their website and signs on the land that they are members of British Parking Association (BPA) but going through BPA approved operator list cannot seem to find them that mean they are not members of BPA which in turn would invalidate any parking charges they impose as this is through false representation and essentially fraud. (EXHIBIT G)
9. The claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.” which in our case is time limit and is not clearly and prominently mentioned.
10. The claimant states that they believe the keeper was the driver at the material time based on “reasonable presumption”. I submit that there is no reasonable presumptionin law that the keeper was the driver. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, 'There is no that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort'(2015).” I enclose this statement from the POPLA annual report 2015 as (Exhibit H)

11. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton. The Judge wascritical of the claimant’s attempts to hold the keeper liable without being able to rely on POFA. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated “I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”.

12. The driver did not enter into any agreement. No consideration flowed between the two parties and no contract was established.

13. I deny that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions been properly displayed.

14. PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOL
Steps before issuing a claim at court
a. Where there is a relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should comply with that protocol before commencing proceedings. Where there is no relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should exchange correspondence and information to comply with the objectives in paragraph 3, bearing in mind that compliance should be proportionate. The steps will usually include—

(a) the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details of the claim (usually called Letter before Claim) The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated.

(b) the defendant responding within a reasonable time - 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed and whether the defendant is making a counterclaim as well as providing details of any counterclaim, and the parties disclosing key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
15. After receiving their Letter before Claim (LBC) issued date 4th June 2019 which was missing Annexe 1 document for reply form and Annexe 2 document for financial issues we have to request these again and there were no details about the charge.
16. They sent us the requested forms with a new LBC dated 8th July 2019 which was still missing details about charge, we responded on 11th July 2019 and requested the more information about the claim, to which they only sent an email containing some documents on 29th august 2019 when they should have sent all the required documents through post. The email went unnoticed and only found out after we have submitted defence that’s why we could not prepare defence properly.

17. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

18. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable me prepare a full and specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.

19. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
20. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160.


21. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 And ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

22. On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failed to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

23. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). (EXHIBIT I)

24 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.

25. I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor’s costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable

26. The claimant described the charge of £50 as ‘legal fees’ not ‘contractual costs’ CPR .14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.


27. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

28. A very similar type of case where a PCN was issued for overstay in same residential estate has been struck out by this court on 22/08/2018.
29. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth
I Defendant believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.’

[hcandersen]

Flak jacket on.

Waffle. So poorly constructed it's difficult to know where to start!

And as for:

The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

and then...

c. UKCPM has recently been investigated by BBC for issuing fake tickets by putting fake sign on PCN when actually there was no sign on the land and they had to suspend their ticketing system. Hence their credibility for issuing camera tickets is in question. They cannot be trusted

A nice, reasoned and measured rant! What is this, trial by television programme?


And what's going on? One thread, one case, not two.


And the first part relates to 2018 but posted in 2020 without explanation.

C'mon, pl.

[Jlc]

No it didn't. assumed delivered 2 WORKING days after issue. Posted Thursday, assumed delivered Monday

The 1 of August 2018 was a Wednesday though.

8. They state on their website and signs on the land that they are members of British Parking Association (BPA) but going through BPA approved operator list cannot seem to find them that mean they are not members of BPA which in turn would invalidate any parking charges they impose as this is through false representation and essentially fraud. (EXHIBIT G)

They can be members of the BPA but they get their AOS from the IPC. Be careful what you are claiming here...

25. I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor’s costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable

They are allowable fixed costs. But still worth challenging.

[ostell]

Sorry, I looked at 2019. forget that.

[Sheffield Dave]

That's not a witness statement. It reads more like a hybrid defence and skeleton argument. A WS is a narrative of what the witness (in this case you) personally saw, did etc. It's also your only mechanism to introduce exhibits such as photos, letters etc. What was the exact text of the defence which you have already submitted?

[Jlc]

Oh, I thought it was the defence...!

[Baoli]

Hi All,

this is what i could draft so please help to make it better and i have to send by tomorrow if posting as has to be in the court on 28/5/20 or can I hand deliver it to the court?

this was the defence we sent.


1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.

3. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant’s case.

4. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

5. It was not made clear that there was any restriction regarding Visitor Spaces and how long you could park there for. A valid permit was on display.

6. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle xxxxx when it was parked at xxxxxxxxxxx, Crawley. The PCN stated the contravention as “Over Stay”.


Rebuttal of Claim

7. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012.
f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
g. That the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.
8. It is further denied that the Defendant owes any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and vexatious.

9. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

10. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.



My Defence

11. My defence will reply principally upon the following points:

12. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

b. Further, Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ can be seen as applicable in this case, as the parking charge notice of £100 (being ‘out of all proportion’ with expectations of drivers in this car park and thus being an onerous term) should have been effectively: “In red letters with a red hand pointing to it” i.e. Very clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering. Lord Denning stated this in the case of Spurling vs Bradshaw Ltd; “The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient”.

c. The claimant is put to strict proof that the signage on the date in question clearly sets out the onerous terms of a parking charge notice, to sufficiently draw the attention of a visitor, as set out in the leading judgement of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
d. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

13. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

14. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:

2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code


15. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above

16. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.

b. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

c. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

d. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

17. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a residential car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis
Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves.

18. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (“POFA”). The claimant is put to strict proof.

19. If the Claimant seeks to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provisions. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strict limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

20. The case of Elliot v Loake (1982) is often cited by UK Car Park Management Ltd, however it is a criminal case with forensic evidence, whereby the keeper of the vehicle was also proved to be the driver at the time of an offence and thus has no basis upon this case or contract law. This is supported by the ruling of the Judge in Excel v M. X (Manchester) C8DP5C7T, who dismissed Elliot v Loake as it is a criminal case that doesn’t bear any weight in the small claims court.

21. Similarly CPS vs AJH Films (2015) is another case heavily relied upon by UK Car Park Management. However time and time again this gets thrown out of court. As recently as 22nd June 2017, DJ McKay dismissed Excel Parking Services Ltd v Mrs. L. Evans (Cardiff) C8DP79CC as the judge fully agreed with Mrs L. Evans witness statement which correctly pointed out that this case involved employer/employee liability. As this claim was not a comparable situation, it also had no relevance to Excel’s case.

22. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council, which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

23. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £251. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £251. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

c. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

24. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

25. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

26. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

27. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.

28. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.



This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Flak jacket on.

Waffle. So poorly constructed it's difficult to know where to start!

And as for:

The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

and then...

c. UKCPM has recently been investigated by BBC for issuing fake tickets by putting fake sign on PCN when actually there was no sign on the land and they had to suspend their ticketing system. Hence their credibility for issuing camera tickets is in question. They cannot be trusted

A nice, reasoned and measured rant! What is this, trial by television programme?


And what's going on? One thread, one case, not two.


And the first part relates to 2018 but posted in 2020 without explanation.

C'mon, pl.

hi Heanderson,

thanks for your reply.

I have printed from BBC website which have this news that they issued fake tickets and admitted it. Please check the following link

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47772305


This post has been edited by Baoli: Mon, 25 May 2020 - 11:37

[hcandersen]

Why 2 years later, you've not explained.

And you were parked in Wales then?

C'mon, please.

[Baoli]

Why 2 years later, you've not explained.

And you were parked in Wales then?

C'mon, please.

Hi Heandersen,

No it was not parked in Wales but its the same company, so if they can do in Wales whats stopping them doing any ever else

they have issued the court proceeding now that's why 2 year latter.

Would you be able to give any advice?

Thanks

[hcandersen]

Yes. Focus on issues and do not speculate... No it was not parked in Wales but its the same company, so if they can do in Wales whats stopping them doing any ever else....

...hardly supports your statement, does it! Facts, not opinion.

A judge can arbitrate on facts and the law. Personal opinion would not endear you to them. If you cannot find anything better to say than to attempt to smear the other party, then I wouldn't bother.

Focus and facts.

So, what is the timeline? Although claimants have up to 6 years, it is still worthwhile bringing to the court's attention at the start that they have been slow in pursuing this alleged debt.

You leapt straight in with can anyone find anything wrong with a NTK. But this misses the point. PoFA simply allows claimants to pursue keepers, and once that preliminary paperwork has been dealt with normal legal principles apply. You're looking at preliminary matters, but I want to know what happened between delivery of the NTK in 2018 and now.

[Baoli]

Yes. Focus on issues and do not speculate... No it was not parked in Wales but its the same company, so if they can do in Wales whats stopping them doing any ever else....

...hardly supports your statement, does it! Facts, not opinion.

A judge can arbitrate on facts and the law. Personal opinion would not endear you to them. If you cannot find anything better to say than to attempt to smear the other party, then I wouldn't bother.

Focus and facts.

So, what is the timeline? Although claimants have up to 6 years, it is still worthwhile bringing to the court's attention at the start that they have been slow in pursuing this alleged debt.

You leapt straight in with can anyone find anything wrong with a NTK. But this misses the point. PoFA simply allows claimants to pursue keepers, and once that preliminary paperwork has been dealt with normal legal principles apply. You're looking at preliminary matters, but I want to know what happened between delivery of the NTK in 2018 and now.

after ntk we received debt recovery letters which we never replied and then they issued LBC in july 2019 which we responded.Court Claim form was issued on 09 dec 2019.

I have to send the WS today as the hearing is on 12/06/2108. I will remove from WS about date and stamps argument. Do you think the rest is fine?
thanks

[nosferatu1001]

What evidence other than the WS are you going to submit?
Have you fuond other WS - youve clearly copied the defence -so you know what it must contain?

Emaio lto claimant
HAND DELIVER to court.

[Baoli]

What evidence other than the WS are you going to submit?
Have you fuond other WS - youve clearly copied the defence -so you know what it must contain?

Emaio lto claimant
HAND DELIVER to court.

Hi I am going to send
Copy of POFA
a copy of parkingeye v beavis Sign
picture of signs, entry sign also a pic to show how date and stamp look like with incamera feature
ipc code of practice
copy of CPR16.4 1 a
polpa report 2015

shall i email to gladstone?

yes we have received their ws

[nosferatu1001]

- no need to send a copy of the whole Act. The court has access to it. Just send the elements that support your defence. Have you detailed in your WS the factual elements missing from their NTK? Yes or no. Im not going to read back - far too long!

- put a copy of their sign next to the PE sign, and highlight the deficiencies. Literally side by side. Include the elements of the BEAVIS judgement that talks about how clear the signage must be.

MSE forum -> abuse of process. Yo umsut give it a read.

IPC CoP - only include the elements you rely upon.
No need to provide the court a copy of the CPRs. Just refefnce and a quote will do.

Well yo uHAVE to email their solicitor, so yes you MUST serve on them. Did they email you theirs? Or Post?
Howmuch of their WS is rubbish?

Youve left this far, far too late for any real help.

[Baoli]

- no need to send a copy of the whole Act. The court has access to it. Just send the elements that support your defence. Have you detailed in your WS the factual elements missing from their NTK? Yes or no. Im not going to read back - far too long!

- put a copy of their sign next to the PE sign, and highlight the deficiencies. Literally side by side. Include the elements of the BEAVIS judgement that talks about how clear the signage must be.

MSE forum -> abuse of process. Yo umsut give it a read.

IPC CoP - only include the elements you rely upon.
No need to provide the court a copy of the CPRs. Just refefnce and a quote will do.

Well yo uHAVE to email their solicitor, so yes you MUST serve on them. Did they email you theirs? Or Post?
Howmuch of their WS is rubbish?

Youve left this far, far too late for any real help.

Hi,
Yes i pioted out about pofa as below

2. I have no liability, as I am the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. (Exhibit A) in order to hold me responsible for the driver’s alleged breach Schedule 4 relies upon not just a Notice To Keeper being served but these pre-requisites which are absent from the evidence:
a) A relevant contract (with the driver, i.e. there MUST be a contract capable of being read and agreed, from clear signs)
b) A relevant obligation giving rise to a parking charge (i.e. there MUST be evidence that the driver had a clear obligation and didn't comply with it and so a charge arose)

3. POFA Schedule 4 (S4): 9.2(f) states “the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met i.e fully compliant) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid”

a) This makes it absolutely clear that if the claimant fails to meet any one of the conditions under S4 – no matter how minor or trivial that failing is – then the act cannot be relied upon to invoke keeper liability.

b) Non-compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) with POFA S4, 9.2 a, no keeper liability established under POFA 2012. The 'period of parking' is not shown on the NTK, only the time of issue of an alleged PCN. Therefore the wording makes this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4. According to Schedule 4 para 9.2a, “the Notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists. (EXHIBIT A)

c. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that a maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case GBP 100.

and about beavis sign as below

4. a The claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”
b. Attached to this Witness statement (EXHIBIT B ) is a copy of the sign which was considered by the supreme court in ParkingEye V Beavis case which states very clearly about time limit and all other condition are in font that can be read easily but the signs on land in our case are barely legible (EXHIBIT C)

they sent WS by post and iits 4 pages on both sides shall i upload a copy?

Shall i email to enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk?

i know its late to ask for help here i tried to get help online adnn any help you can give now will be appreciated.
thanks