Hello guys,

I am looking for some advice how to defend a parking ticket.

The ticket was received in Nov 2015. I have received NTK and one more letter in Dec 2015 and Jan 2016. I ignored them.

I have received a Court Claim Form dated 15.06.16. Did acknowledge it.


The ground for the fine is Driver- Passengers observed leaving site.
It is 1 hour free parking and the car was there less than an hour.

I can upload picture of the signage if I am allowed.
:Click to view attachment


I am planning to defend on those reasons:
1. The sum sought is not representative of any genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from any breach of terms and conditions.( It was Sunday 3.08pm and car park almost empty)
2. You allege 'Driver - Passengers observed leaving site' however you have provided no evidence of this nor, if this was the case did your employee/representative take any steps to mitigate the loss.
3. Signage at Site ( no proper sing at the entrance)

Any info and advice will be much appreciated.

Thank you very much in advance.

Gily

They operate a contractual charge (badly) rather than breach model so the GPEOL doesn't apply. You may wish to research ParkingEye v Beavis too. (And distance yourself from it)

The signs only state the driver must stay on site.

1) post the claim form. Minus password barcode etc. Tiny pic / photo bucket IMG tags. Nothing more.

2) the sign states only the driver has to stay on site. As "site" is not defined AND they haven't claimed the driver left , just they may have left

Did you ID the driver in any appeal? Yes or no, if NO then you MUST attack pofa compliance. Post the ntk here.

3) as stated GPEOL is dead. Do not use it! State any difference to Beavis instead - conditions in tiny print, especially the amount.

4) attack their standing to offer contracts.

What defences on THIS SOTE have you already found?

Hello.
That is the claim form
Click to view attachment

I have not appealed up to now.

I have been reading and searching last few days and up to now haven't found much relevant defence. I continue to read as I don't want to leave it for the last moment.

And this is NTK
Click to view attachment

Thank you.

You haven't searched this site or MSE then. There are a lot of defences on the three core items alone - standing, signage, amount a penalty not saved by Beavis.

Don't look for,an exact match of the circumstance. You're looking for the legal arguments, which remain the same.

Lookup Gan generic defence to get an idea of the LAYOUT and ONLY the layout. It's s series of even if.... Statements.

Search for Ibbitson v VCS toothbrush case. It applies equally here where to ticket someone for leaving site means the parking troll should have warned the driver.
Core terms for leaving site aren't defined sufficiently either. The terms are too small text in comparison to all the other things.

Here it is. Well worth boning up on this should you ever get to court. Since Ibbotson I'm not aware of any PPC who has got to court on a 'leaving the site' case. If it comes to court you should include the Ibbotson transcript in your bundle.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...t&id=16231)

Hi guys,
I would like your opinion on my defence please.
Thank you.

Claim No: xxxxxx

Claimant: UKCPS Ltd

Defendant: xxxx
I wish to defend this claim in its entirety on the following grounds:

1. No Contractual Authority
The respondent has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver/registered keeper of the vehicle. That is to say, that it has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park; it is the properly appointed agent of the landowner or has been properly authorised by the landowner to recover unpaid parking charges from the driver/registered keeper. Accordingly, the respondent should be required to provide a copy of its contract with the owner of the land on which the car park is situated and evidence of the land ownership of the party with whom the respondent is contracted.

2. Signage at Site
The signage at the site fails to meet the standard required by Regulation 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and as such it cannot be relied upon to demand a parking charge.
The signage is an invitation to treat and not an offer of a contract.
The signage is contradictory and confusing so cannot be said to be a unilateral contract.
The boundaries of the car park are not clearly defined.

3. Failure to mitigate loss
It is the respondent’s responsibility to avoid avoidable losses by taking reasonable steps to do so. The respondent is not permitted to stand aside and let damages accrue with a view it will simply be recovered in due course.
It is asserted that the respondent’s representative had a duty (and failed in that duty) to take reasonable steps to prevent avoidable losses occurring, which, as with the case of VCS vs. Ibbotson, if as alleged the driver of the vehicle was observed leaving the site would have been to advise the driver of the vehicle in question that to step off the site would incur a punitive penalty charge.
I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Name & Signature
Date

UTCCR was defunct October 2015 and replaced with the CRA2015. Was your parking date before or after this?

Too short. No summary of the key points in your defence, and youre missing that te amount is a penalty and clearly differentiated by Beavis.

Which defences did you find when reseasrching this?

The ticket is from Nov 2015.
I have read more than 10 defences and used points from a few of them. Some of them been simple, some been too professional.
I am struggling with all these terminologies and writing in a language which is not my native one.

Can I have a link to something similar if you know or bit more help please. I don't want to wait till the deadline.

Thank you.

Then you need to reference the new CRA2015 instead.

Have you tried contacting the BMPA (note not BPA!) over this!

I have not a clue about all these abbreviations

I have just googled CPR 31.14 about requesting some more info. Do I need to send this to UKCPS ?
Can I just write a defence or I need more information?
And what about BMPA? Whai is that?

I am more confused now...

Please help me

Thanks

You are on MSE as well and have been advised to search & find other defences - both forums have defences written within the last ten days for you to copy the format from.

'BMPA defence' is easy to Google and will assist as well.

Actually I have posted on 3 forums and all I get is search for info and other cases.
I have been doing this for the past 1 week and I am up to nowhere.
Now I got advice to request more info under some CPR 31.14 which I was not aware half and hour ago. I don't know if I got that time.
If I was able to do better I would not be crying for help. I do want to defend that stupid ticket but I feel helpless.

So you Googled 'BMPA defence' and found no help?

and you serached for the word 'defence' on MSE and here and found no examples from recent weeks, even though I can recall some from this week on both forums?

The problem is no-one will have time to write one from scratch but when you see what others have put, in your shoes, it becomes relatively easy.

Just do NOT respond to any private mesage offering to 'help' because that would likely be someone reading this with a vested intest. UKCPS read this forum sometimes, we know.

I have just realized there is no bar code on the claim form at the bottom of the page. Is it required to have a bar code?

If you were able to login to MCOL to,acknowledge the defence, barcode is irrelevant.

CRA= consumer rights act.

BMPA = charity that helps motorists

Google them. Email them.

What about reading lfef's thread, that's about a defence re UKCPS and is near the top today.

But there are loads more here and on MSE.

...and post something up

You'll get much better and direct feedback.

Hi guys,

that is my defence. Any advice please?
Thank you.


I wish to defend this claim in its entirety on the following grounds:

1. The terms at the car park are not clear at all. The signage at the
car park is contradictory and confusing so cannot form a contract.
The defendant refers to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which
supports a consumer’s position in that the signage failed to make
any obligation and/or risk of penalty prominent.

2. A clear sign stating the terms and conditions at the entrance
to the car park is a specific requirement that the claimant is
required to follow. This was absent.

3. 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. It follows therefore that if a
debt exists it is owed to the landowner not the claimant.

4. I have reasonable belief that the claimant’s intention was not
to offer a genuine contract to park and that the main purpose was
to deter to enforce a penalty.

5. The defendant has no recollection if they were the driver or a
passenger on the day and puts the claimant to strict proof.
The signs on site show the driver may be bound by certain conditions,
if brought to their attention. However the claimant appears to want
to bind the passengers too though offers no consideration to them
nor is able to offer a contractual benefit to them either.

6.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 £150.

7. There is no evidence of any contravention at all.

The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of
success. In the case of VCS v Ibbotson at Scunthorpe County Court,
District Judge McIlwaine ordered the cessation of other cases and
made further directions to the claimant as a result of contempt of court.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

That's more like it - although hold fire for other comments.

I didn't see any version of Gan's suggestion in post #6 here in lfef's thread, though:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0

and I didn't see anything about 'No keeper liability because the claimant chooses not to use the statutory provision for keeper liability as laid down in the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and can only hold a known driver (and no other party) liable to their alleged contract, if one exists.

And you have nothing about disproportionate added fees (legal or admin fees) which lfef's first draft defence does. It is worth including because even if you lose you could at least have the Judge agree that no added costs are allowable.

Its a good start!

One thing to note; there is a principle that if you dont object to something, specifically, you are deemed to have accepted it. So my suggestion would be to go through their particulars of claim one by one, and refute or explicitly accept each and every item.

For 3 you have started with what youre asking the claimant to do - not the right way round!

A defence is a series of legal arguments. So for this one you state you have a good faith belief that the claimant has no interest in the land, and is unable to offer any contracts for parking at all.

As SRM states, you MUST talk about Keeper liability. They utterly fail to invoke it, so it is your FIRST POINT - that they have the wrong defendant!

Thank you for your replies.
Here is the new version. Number 7 is a bit lonely. Should I add it to another line or what info can I add to make it look better.
I am still not sure how long needs to be the first defence and the difference with the full defence. I left some references out which will go in the full one if I come to that point.
Any critics and advice are welcomed.
Thank you.

Statement of Defence

1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:
I) The Claimant has not identified the driver.
II) The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring the claim
III) The Claimant had no capacity to offer a contract to the motorist
IV) The signage did not form a contract with the motorist
V) No Consideration Passed from either the Claimant or the motorist
VI) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt
VII) The Claimant did not offer a genuine contract and the amount claimed was intended as a penalty.
VIII) Disproportionate and unconscionable Legal fees
IX) There was no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge

2. If the claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the
defendant on the basis that the defendant is the registered keeper
then the claimant has failed to show that the conditions for
recovering the charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 have been met.

3. The defendant has no recollection if they were the driver or a passenger on the day and puts the claimant to strict proof. The signs on site show the driver may be bound by certain conditions, if brought to their attention. However the claimant appears to want to bind the passengers too though offers no consideration to them nor is able to offer a contractual benefit to them either.

4. The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring the claim. The claim form states that the private land is ‘managed by the Claimant’. The Operator was not therefore the Land-owner. Neither has it claimed to be an Agent. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that it was merely a contractor. The Claimant has not explained what authority the Operator had to acquire a chose in action to assign to the Claimant.

5. The Claimant had no capacity to offer a contract to the motorist. The claimant is put to strict proof they are entitled to enter in to a contract. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from The Claimant to the motorist; the gift of parking is the landowner’s, not that of the Claimant. There is no consideration from motorist to The Claimant.

6. The terms at the car park are not clear at all. The signage at the
car park is contradictory and confusing so cannot form a contract. The defendant refers to the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 which supports a consumer’s position in
that the signage failed to make any obligation and/or risk of
penalty prominent.

7. The boundaries of the car park are not clearly defined.

8. The signs were not visible from a reasonable distance and the words were unreadable. There being no clear signage at the entrance to the car park clearly indicating such conditions and contract to the driver of a moving vehicle..

9. The Particulars of Claim state that ‘By parking on this land the driver contractually agrees to pay a charge of £100.’ No Consideration Passed from either the Claimant or the motorist. The Operator had no standing to offer a contract; there was no meeting of minds nor any consideration passed. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways that are fundamental to a contract were not present and therefore no contract could possibly have existed. The Defendant was, at the most, granted a licence to park. Whatever the conduct was that the Claimant alleges, a breach of a licence would be trespass, not a breach of contract. It could only be pursued by the land-owner.

10. It is the responsibility of the claimant to mitigate their losses, in this instance they failed to do so and thus invalidated their claim, (VCS v Ibbotson).

11. Disproportionate and unconscionable Legal fees. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant incurred £50 in collection fees. The judgment in VCS v Ibbotson (2012) makes clear that only the costs that directly result from the parking may be included, not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. I therefore request that the Claimant justify these fees.

The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. In the case of VCS v Ibbotson at Scunthorpe County Court, District Judge McIlwaine ordered the cessation of other cases and made further directions to the claimant as a result of contempt of court.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Can somebody comment please. I need to submit it tomorrow. Thank you .

Hello. I submitted my defence on 14.07.16 and today I received Notice of Proposed allocation to the Small Claims Tract and the form N180. I think not to tick mediation.
Does this notice mean that PPC paid the hearing fee or that will happen after submission of this form?
It says to serve copies on all other parties. Does this mean to send a photocopy to UKCPS LTD?
Any advice please.
Thank you.

I've answered you on MsE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5487410

QUOTE

Does this notice mean that PPC paid the hearing fee or that will happen after submission of this form?

That happens after this form, which moves it to your local court and it is the claimant's move, if they pay the hearing fee. You will then hear from the court with a hearing date and directing you when to submit any detailed defence/your witness statement.

QUOTE

It says to serve copies on all other parties. Does this mean to send a photocopy to UKCPS LTD?

Yes. You have to send them a copy or their solicitor if they are using one (whoever completed the claim form).

You should read Bargepole's post about what to do when and which boxes to tick on the court forms. It's linked in the MSE NEWBIES thread under 'Small claim?'


HTH

Hello people.

I have a hearing date next month and I need to post my skeleton defence and a witness statement next Monday.
I would much appreciate any help, critics and advice.
I cannot find any completed cases with examples of witness statement. Could somebody post a link please.

DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:
I) The Claimant has not identified the driver.
II) The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring the claim
III) The Claimant had no capacity to offer a contract to the motorist
IV) The signage did not form a contract with the motorist
V) No Consideration Passed from either the Claimant or the motorist
VI) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt
VII) The Claimant did not offer a genuine contract and the amount claimed was intended as a penalty.
VIII) Disproportionate and unconscionable Legal fees
IX) There was no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge

2. The Claimant has provided insufficient details in the Particulars to enable the defender to file a complete defence. In particular, no photographic evidence of the alleged contravention has been provided; and full details of the contract which alleged was broken have never been provided.
3. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alledged breach. The Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant does not follow the requirements of POFA Schedule 4 and in particular; Para 8 (2) (a) and (b) where the period of parking is not specified. The notice to Keeper continuously states that the liability for the charge lies with the keeper. The claimant is put to strict proof that the keeper is liable under the POFA schedule 4.

4. The defendant has no recollection if they were the driver or a passenger on the day and puts the claimant to strict proof. The signs on site show the driver may be bound by certain conditions, if brought to their attention. However the claimant appears to want to bind the passengers too though offers no consideration to them nor is able to offer a contractual benefit to them either.

5. The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring the claim. The claim form states that the private land is ‘managed by the Claimant’. The Claimant was not therefore the Land-owner. Neither has it claimed to be an Agent. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that it was merely a contractor. The Claimant has not explained what authority the Operator had to acquire a chose in action to assign to the Claimant. ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name. The claimant is put to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowners. If they do not have a proprietary interest in the land they have no basis to demand money. Despite a request to the claimant no evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that The Claimant are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right. I require the Claimant to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner.
6. The Claimant had no capacity to offer a contract to the motorist. The claimant is put to strict proof they are entitled to enter in to a contract. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from The Claimant to the motorist; the gift of parking is the landowner’s, not that of the Claimant. There is no consideration from motorist to The Claimant.
7. The terms at the car park are not clear at all. The signage at the car park is contradictory and confusing so cannot form a contract. The defendant refers to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which supports a consumer’s position in that the signage failed to make any obligation and/or risk of penalty prominent.
Precedent for such an implied contract being improperly formed on the basis of UKCPS’s inadequate signage has been clearly judged upon previously. The Defendent cites the 14/4/2014 UKCPS -v- Gaskell case (3QZ55265) at Cardiff where at #43 the Judge states "As to the first question posed [under paragraph 16 above] "(a) was this defendant contractually bound?" therefore repeat my conclusion that the signs in this case were not sufficiently prominently and clearly positioned and displayed to sustain the contention that the defendant consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of his attracting the parking charge levied. Therefore the defendant in the particular circumstances was not contractually bound.” UKCPS have continued to use similar small and confusing signs since this ruling in 2014.
Another case the Defendant would like to refer to is A0QZ7658 UKCPS v Mr X (04/07/2014 Bradford) where the Claim was dismissed. The judge concluded the Signage was gibberish.

8. The boundaries of the car park are not clearly defined. The 'site' is not clearly demarcated by signs or by prominently displayed maps.
9. There is no consideration from the Defendant to the Claimant in a free car park. Even if it were not free, any consideration would be due to the land-owner with whom the motorist would have intended to deal.

9. The signs were not visible from a reasonable distance and the words were unreadable. There being no clear signage at the entrance to the car park clearly indicating such conditions and contract to the driver of a moving vehicle.
10. The Particulars of Claim state that ‘By parking on this land the driver contractually agrees to pay a charge of £100.’ No Consideration Passed from either the Claimant or the motorist. The Operator had no standing to offer a contract; there was no meeting of minds nor any consideration passed. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways that are fundamental to a contract were not present and therefore no contract could possibly have existed. The Defendant was, at the most, granted a licence to park. Whatever the conduct was that the Claimant alleges, a breach of a licence would be trespass, not a breach of contract. It could only be pursued by the land-owner.
11. It is the responsibility of the claimant to mitigate their losses, in this instance they failed to do so and thus invalidated their claim, (as in VCS v Ibbotson ( 2012). The judge made it clear that by watching someone leave the site, the parking company is not mitigating any alleged losses, and cannot claim for damages.

12. Disproportionate and unconscionable Legal fees. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable. The Protection of Freedoms 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. The Claimant has also described the charge in a previous letter as "collection fees" not "debt recovery charges". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The judgment in VCS v Ibbotson (2012) makes clear that only the costs that directly result from the parking may be included, not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. I therefore request that the Claimant justify these fees.
The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. In the case of VCS v Ibbotson at Scunthorpe County Court, District Judge McIlwaine ordered the cessation of other cases and made further directions to the claimant as a result of contempt of court.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

You arent posting your skeleton defence, youre posting your full defence, with all legal references included

DId you search on here for "witness statement"? Not all will be in the completed cases section....

You also need to include any exhibits, e.g. photograpsh.