PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

UKCPS PCN Centertainment Sheffield
john_now
post Tue, 25 Jul 2017 - 19:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 3 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,602



Another UKCPS at Sheffield, no parking spaces available that the driver could see so he parked in a small one with a wheel on the pavement.

This is day 6 of 14 of the discount period, driver has struggled to find templates but has taken this one from a court case and amended it , underlining the parts he would remove - assuming they should appeal to theIAS?

Please advise, thanks.




I am XXXXXXX, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXXX. I currently reside at XXXXXX.

The defendant denies the Claim in its entirety, asserts that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any other amount.

1.The defendant denies any liability whatsoever to UKCPS Limited for all of the following reasons, any of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:

i) UKCPS Limited has no legal capacity to bring the claim.

ii) UKCPS Limited had no capacity to offer a contract to the motorist.

iii) The signage did not form a contract with the motorist.

iv) No consideration passed from either UKCPS Limited or the motorist.

v) UKCPS Limited has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

vi) Disproportionate and unconscionable collection fees.


vii) There was no legitimate interest in enforcing the charge.

viii) As the vehicle keeper and not the driver, UKCPS Limited have neither proven the defendant to be the driver, the car could have been driven by another driver under the insurance (or under any driver’s own fully-comprehensive insurance).

UKCPS Limited need to provide strict proof of liability under the POFA or with evidence of who was driving the vehicle at the time.

2. The case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was entirely dependent upon an undeniable contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the land owner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practise (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park for free. None of this applies in this material case.

3. The IPC code of practise states: Entrance signs should:

i) Make it clear that the motorist has entering on to private land.

ii) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.

iii) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).

4. The defendant states that any signage present on the site even if seen by a motorist is not clear or legible in its construction, and therefore is not able to form a contract with the motorist. The defendant brings to the attention of the Court, case A0QZ7658 UKCPS v Anonymous 04/07/2014 at Bradford, and case A3QZ1305 UKCPS v Anonymous 02/07/2014 at Sheffield. The Judges in these cases found that UKCPS Limited signs were ‘gibberish, too wordy and with conflicting terms’. The defendant states that the signs on this site fall into the same description and are therefore unable to form a contract with the motorist even if seen.

i) It is believed the signage was not lit, and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as ‘compensation’ from an authorised party using the premises as intended.

ii) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the claimant.

iii) The site does not have entry signs on all access roads leading to the car park stating that you are entering private land, or none that can be easily read from a moving vehicle or in poor lighting as would have been the case on the alleged contravention date.

5. UKCPS Limited has not complied with pre-court protocol:

i) This is speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical ‘draft particulars’. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.

ii) The claim form particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about – why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.


6. I put UKCPS Limited to strict proof that it is issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. They failed to meet the strict compliance requirements of PoFA to invoke Keeper Liability by not serving the Notice to Keeper in the time allowed, because a notice to driver was not issued. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording., UKCPS Limited is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

i) Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Driver is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. There was no Notice to Driver issued however the Claimant is claiming there was, between the dates of 13th October 2016 and 20th December 2016 UKCPS Limited were suspended by the IPC for ‘Ghost ticketing’ where an operator would place a ticket on the windscreen, photograph it, then remove it, leaving the driver unaware that they have been ticketed and thus unable to pay the reduced rate, however no photographs of the alleged offence have been sent to the defendant and therefore the Notice to Keeper should have been sent within 14 days, but was received 34 days after the ticket was allegedly issued.

ii) Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for is the sum on the Notice to Keeper (which was not delivered, see point 10). They cannot fabricate another sum from thin air and add that on as well when neither the signs, nor the permit information mentioned a possible additional penalty for outstanding debts and damages.

7. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

8. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of the case, which do not resemble this claim.

9. The sign was not an offer but a threat of a punitive sanction to dissuade drivers from parking and was therefore not a penalty clause.

10. It is asserted that no reasonable person, of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of £100 as a consequence of parking on private land.

11. The defendant had no idea what terms and conditions were stated on the signs but disputes UKCPS Limited’s statement that such an amount would have constituted an offer and submits that in fact threatening punitive sanctions discourage the undisclosed conduct.

12. The court is invited to consider whether a document titled Parking Contravention Notice would ever be sent between the parties to form a genuine contract. UKCPS Limited claim for Breach of Contract and Damages further confirm that the sum is neither a contractual term nor a genuine assessment of pre-liquidated damages but a penalty. It cannot therefore be recovered under contract law. UKCPS Limited has no legal capacity to bring a claim; The Claimant has never had any legal capacity to offer a contract to the motorist. No contract was ever formed between the Claimant and the defendant.

In this case UKCPS Limited have no cause of action in any case due to their choice not to use POFA Schedule 4 wording, and unlike some other parking firms this means I am not liable in law. The vague Particulars of the Claim disclose no clear cause of action.

The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.






This post has been edited by john_now: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 - 19:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Tue, 25 Jul 2017 - 19:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Gan
post Tue, 25 Jul 2017 - 20:18
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



Unless it's a hire, lease or company car, don't appeal a windscreen ticket

Wait for the Notice to Keeper

Appealing within the discount period is in any case pointless
UKCPS doesn't accept appeals

Never appeal to the IAS
It guarantees to reject at least 85% of appeals

You also seriously damage your chances in the event of a court claim
You can't appeal to the IAS without identifying yourself as the driver and all you achieve is hand UKCPS an "independent" assessment to wave in court

You're then not only fighting an uphill battle but appearing unreasonable by putting UKCPS to the cost and effort of the IAS appeal with no intention to accept the result
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
john_now
post Tue, 25 Jul 2017 - 22:16
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 3 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,602



QUOTE
Wait for the Notice to Keeper


At that point I would have lost the discount for good, I didn't think it was re-offered like council ones?

I'm guessing what you're saying is that with luck there might be an error on the Notice to Keeper and it would be invalid? However this is at a cost of losing the discount should all the paperwork stack up?

Else, unless I have misunderstood - unless I am willing to put a mountain of time and effort in and risk it at court, the battle is already lost?

This post has been edited by john_now: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 - 22:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 25 Jul 2017 - 22:54
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,682
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You appear to have misunderstood everything...

The discount is irrelevant to anyone here, no-one pays UKCPS a penny. Twice you have mentioned what you have called a ''discount'' in the above post, and in your opening post it's in bold. It means NOTHING, it is a bribe to make you feel you have to rush a decision and that it might be ''easier'' to pay then sixty quid! No-one here pays this bunch.

QUOTE
I'm guessing what you're saying is that with luck there might be an error on the Notice to Keeper and it would be invalid

Nope.

QUOTE
unless I am willing to put a mountain of time and effort in and risk it at court, the battle is already lost?

No, you can ignore it, or send an appeal when you get the NTK, and/or complain to the landowner. None of those options are an effort.

No battles have been lost v UKPCS on here in years, AFAIK, they rarely try court and if people actually PAY them after being on a forum like this then some would view that as sponsoring a scam and funding the next few fake charges against more vulnerable people.

Ignore them and come back of they try a claim - not if they send letters/debt letters, please...no need to take any action if you don't want to, stop falling for it - the rush to decide, the ''discount''...none of it means anything.

It's not a fine. No effort needed to ignore it. Effort would be needed if they try a claim but that is why we are here, and we help people win almost all cases.

What happened when you complained to Centertainment's Managers?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Porcupine
post Wed, 26 Jul 2017 - 00:13
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 2 Sep 2016
Member No.: 86,846



First of all please edit your post (first line) to say the driver parked with one wheel on the pavement. You should never give any information in your posts that might identify who was driving. Just refer to the driver did this, the driver did that etc.

Please listen to SchoolRunMum post #4. There's no need to panic into paying these scammers any reduced amount, it's just a bribe to get you to cough up. Would you really feel good about paying these scum £60 of your hard earned.

They have to follow up the 'notice to driver' by sending you a 'notice to keeper' between 28 days and 56 days beginning the day after the the 'event' day, 19th July.

If it makes you feel any better UKCPS still have to offer you a 'discount' period to pay at the reduced rate in the NTK and the right to appeal. Although an appeal to UKCPS will certainly fail as will an appeal to the IAS which is not recommended.

As SRM says have you complained to the Manager of Centertainment?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
john_now
post Thu, 27 Jul 2017 - 19:23
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 3 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,602



The keeper is used to fighting council PCN's, everything I've said / assumed was in line with council issued notices.
The keeper has read a relevant sticky thread now, btw he did try this first time before first post but the flowcharts and PPC Wizard links are down?

An interesting scenario exists where the keeper has recently changed addresses and not yet updated with the DVLA. Would it be advantageous or disadvantageous to make sure they have my new address for the NtK to be issued to the correct place?

He hasn't complained to the manager as the keeper didn't notice the sticker until he returned home.

This post has been edited by john_now: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 18:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 27 Jul 2017 - 21:49
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,118
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Council PCNs are a different game, they have a set of rules and in the main the councils abide by them. Private parking supposedly has some rules but the companies ignore them and bend them to suit themselves, and even make up their own versions.

Notify the parking company about the change of address. You don't want to be on the receiving end of a default judgment. Can you receive correspondence from your old address? If so then wait until the NTK is issued to the old address. It means that the have to apply to the DVLA for your details and this could come in handy later.

Naughty company, telling you that unauthorised removal of the windscreen sticky is an offence. What power do they think they have?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 06:20
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,596
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



In post 6 you identify the driver. Don't do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
john_now
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 16:21
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 3 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,602



QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 27 Jul 2017 - 22:49) *
Council PCNs are a different game, they have a set of rules and in the main the councils abide by them. Private parking supposedly has some rules but the companies ignore them and bend them to suit themselves, and even make up their own versions.

Notify the parking company about the change of address. You don't want to be on the receiving end of a default judgment. Can you receive correspondence from your old address? If so then wait until the NTK is issued to the old address. It means that the have to apply to the DVLA for your details and this could come in handy later.

Naughty company, telling you that unauthorised removal of the windscreen sticky is an offence. What power do they think they have?


Unfortunately the driver can't receive correspondence at the old address. So he should ring up UKCPS and give his name and new address?
He asks as he has read many posts saying not to contact and give information away.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Porcupine
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 16:50
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 2 Sep 2016
Member No.: 86,846



Post #6 replace any words 'driver' with 'keeper'.

Have you arranged mail forwarding with Royal Mail or is there no way to retrieve mail from your previous address?

This post has been edited by Porcupine: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 16:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Porcupine
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 18:02
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 2 Sep 2016
Member No.: 86,846



Sorry to keep banging on about 'keeper' and 'driver' but it's important to be aware of the difference and not give any hints as to who was driving as parking companies monitor forums


Apologies if you already know all of this from the Newbies sticky threads but I'll try and explain the situation just in case it's not clear.

The PCN placed on the vehicle is a 'Notice to Driver" (NTD), asking the driver to pay the charge. The parking company do not know who was driving and they shouldn't be told who was. The keeper (you) might not know who was driving it could have been a relative or a friend, on of many people.

If they don't know the name and address of the driver they can under the provision of the 'Protection of Freedom Act 2012' transfer the liability for the 'parking charge' from the driver to the registered keeper.

But to be able to do this the parking company has to meet several conditions as described in the POFA. The good thing is that many parking companies fail to comply with all of these conditions so are unable to claim the charge from the keeper.

One of the conditions is that they have to give the registered keeper of the vehicle a valid and compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK) by post. In cases like yours when a windscreen ticket (NTD) is given the follow up NTK has to be sent in the period of 28 days to 56 days beginning the day after the parking event.

When you receive the NTK you can decide on your next move.

In the meantime it might be worth contacting the manager of the centre and tell them to get the PCN cancelled.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 18:04
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



Never ring a parking company

Tell UKCPS that the address for the registered keeper that is held by the DVLA is no longer current.
The correct address is ***

Add that, if they issue a claim to the old address and obtain a default judgment as a result, the letter will be relied on to hold them liable for the full cost of a set-aside as well as any damages that may result.

Question : Is it an actionable breach of the Data Protection Act to knowingly send demands for payment to the wrong address ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Porcupine
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 18:18
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 2 Sep 2016
Member No.: 86,846



QUOTE
Unfortunately the Keeper can't receive correspondence at the old address. So he should ring up UKCPS and give his name and new address?
He asks as he has read many posts saying not to contact and give information away.


As Gan says in his post above, write to UKCPS as keeper to tell them your new address and obtain proof of postage. Do not discuss anything else with them. Definitely do not phone them. Also I would tell the DVLA of your change of address ASAP.

This post has been edited by Porcupine: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 18:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
john_now
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 18:20
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 3 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,602



Thanks for the info, does the manager have control to directly cancel PCN's then?

Would the easier way be for the keeper to tell DVLA asap and wait 28 days to see if they use the amended address, and if not then write to them?

This post has been edited by john_now: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 18:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 20:31
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,118
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



If the company hired the parking company then yes they can tell them to cancel. Worth a try.

Tell the Dvla the new address and hope it gets updated before day 28. They can be a bit tardy.

I would suggest wait till a few days past day 28 and if you do not get the NTK through the post then write saying that you, the keeper, have been handed a PCN by the driver and you wish to notify them of your new address. Add the info Gan suggested.

See what others think of the plan
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Porcupine
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 21:09
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 2 Sep 2016
Member No.: 86,846



[attachment=49907:003__2_.jpg]

The signs there are abysmal and I don't think they even meet the low standards deemed necessary by the IPC.

They are all about 8 ft above the ground and the text is so small it's impossible to read from inside a car.

The text regarding a £100 parking charge for breaking the terms and conditions is tiny. Not the bold text it should be to bring the charge to the attention of motorists.

Also none are illuminated and the lighting at the centre is not very bright making the signs impossible to read in the dark.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Porcupine
post Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 21:33
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 2 Sep 2016
Member No.: 86,846



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 21:31) *
If the company hired the parking company then yes they can tell them to cancel. Worth a try.

Tell the Dvla the new address and hope it gets updated before day 28. They can be a bit tardy.

I would suggest wait till a few days past day 28 and if you do not get the NTK through the post then write saying that you, the keeper, have been handed a PCN by the driver and you wish to notify them of your new address. Add the info Gan suggested.

See what others think of the plan


Sounds a good plan.

The email address for the Centre management given on the website is : management@valley-leisure.co.uk

The property is managed by Savills and is owned by Legal & General Investment Management

I think to find the on site manager will require a visit, the phone number given on the website is 0161 277 7242 (Manchester number) which I guess is Savills.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 18th September 2018 - 20:27
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.