UKPC/PARKING PATROL LTD UK/BW windscreen PCN PAPLOC now claimform - appeal+IPC both refused - Private car park 325 Greenford Rd, Greenford

[dx100uk]

just send it as is.

they rarely comply anyway.

but must ofcourse produce all paperwork later at disclosures stage.

 

[dx100uk]

15 hours ago, BUNNY36 said:

1. The claim is for the sum of £107 being due from the defendant in respect of a penalty charge notice (PCN)

can you also check the above is correct?

if not we need the full POC AS WRITTEN, not your interpretation bunny!! very very important.

[FTMDave]

On 26/06/2023 at 03:03, BUNNY36 said:

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  i presume this is applicable as they are charging £50 legal representative fees ?

No, they are entitled to claim the £50 legal representative's fees.

They are not entitled to the £60 Unicorn Food Tax they have added to the original "debt".

Can you please answer dx's point about the £107?  It is important.

[BUNNY36]

Hi all, apologies for the delay in responding. 

Thanks for your replies. Please see the exact figures below. The instructions on the claim form thread shared above advised numbers to be rounded up/down. 

 

Amount Claimed - £166.90

court fees  - £35

legal rep fees  - £50

Total Amount - £ 251.90

 

I have sent the CPR 31.14  request. The deadline to submit my defence is 4pm on July 21st, I plan to do this well in advance by the end of this week. My understanding is that this should not be done online but instead by post on the form received? 

@FTMDave the parking ticket was for £100 but would have been £60 if paid within the discount period. It seems a little excessive to me but would this still count as double recovery?

 

[dx100uk]

1 hour ago, BUNNY36 said:

I have sent the CPR 31.14  request. The deadline to submit my defence is 4pm on July 21st, I plan to do this well in advance by the end of this week. My understanding is that this should not be done online but instead by post on the form received? 

NO!!

dont file early!!

use the defence further down in the Q&A sticky we sent 

can you please! clarify the FIRST line of he Particular of claim you typed out.

you state it saying Penalty Charge Notice. bunny it does NOT.

type out the full POC again PLEASE!!

dx

 

[BUNNY36]

Here is a copy of the POC

Claim form _redacted .pdf

[dx100uk]

 

Quote

 

  On 25/06/2023 at 22:55, BUNNY36 said:

1. The claim is for the sum of £107 being due from the defendant in respect of a penalty charge notice (PCN)

 

 

the claimform  says PARKING charge notice not PENALTY .....very big Diff you need to fully understand. it is NOT a FINE its a speculative invoice for the driver breaking some imaginary contract by driving onto the land. which may or may not exist with the landowner and UKPC.

[BUNNY36]

thank you for clarifying @dx100uk

[FTMDave]

On 28/06/2023 at 00:00, BUNNY36 said:

@FTMDave the parking ticket was for £100 but would have been £60 if paid within the discount period. It seems a little excessive to me but would this still count as double recovery?

The best thing you can do is read threads by others in the same position so you gen up on the court process.

The fleecers, sadly, have won a legal precedent that they are allowed to charge £100.  That is discounted to £60 if a motorist gives in and pays promptly.  If they don't pay promptly the sum returns to £100.  This is all legit.

The charlatans then routinely put up the amount to £160 and this is what is not legit, in fact it is expressly forbidden by Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.  This is the double recovery.  They are claiming £50 legal costs (allowed) and then just inventing another £60 load of costs (not allowed).  We generally ridicule them and refer to this £60 as the Unicorn Food Tax.

[BUNNY36]

Hi Everyone,

The deadline for filing is this Friday!

How early is early in terms of filing? I don't want to miss it! Is it fine to file today?

As advised I'm sticking to the 6 bullet points below.

Can I check that there will definitely be the opportunity for me to expand on these points before a hearing?

Will UKPP at some point have to turn over any evidence they plan to use and will I have the opportunity to respond?

I've tried to read as much as I can about the 'legality' of the additional recovery fees being charged.

I've decided to keep point 5 in as I can’t see anything that legally prescribes that they are allowed to add recovery costs at this stage.

As the claimant has pointed out the £60 fee has been added based on their own ATA AOS (IPC) code of conduct and ‘the terms and conditions’ of presumably the contract that I did not enter into!

defence

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [vehicle registration]

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.   

6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

Lastly I just wanted to clarify if my understanding of the following is correct (this won't be included in my defence  - I'm just trying to think a few steps ahead):

 

I believe that unless the claimant can produce a contract demonstrating that they have the authority to form a contract with the public on the landowner’s behalf, they cannot legally bring a claim against me. I have proof that a request for a copy of any contract between UKPP and the landowner was posted on the 27th June 2023 but has been ignored. Should I mention for the purpose of the court that my CPR 31.14 request has not been responded to?

I also note that in order for any contract to be deemed legal, the signage would have to meet certain requirements. I have taken photos of the signage (previously shared) which is appears inadequate, mainly in terms of positioning, ambiguity. 

I have recently been to the location to purchase something from BJ plumbing ‘the landowners.’ I was told verbally by the person who issues the tickets behind the counter that it’s fine for customers to park there and “they won’t get a ticket” if he knows they are in the shop. However the signage says that parking is for “parking is restricted to vehicles displaying a valid parking patrol permit only”. As no permits seem to exist and the stated terms and conditions are not consistently enforced, is there anything I could or should do to highlight this in advance of a court hearing? Note the landowner is still not co-operating. I have been told multiple times he is away and unable to deal with any requests relating to parking disputes?

Apologies for the long one today! Just trying to make sure I don't give these fleecers any opportunity to win!

Thanks in advance  

[dx100uk]

yes in your witness statement.. if it goes that far..after you have theirs with no signed contract at all i bet.

 

dx

[BUNNY36]

Ok brilliant thank you. So I can file defence as is today?

[FTMDave]

Yes, the defence is fine, file it when you want.

[BUNNY36]

Thanks guys, defence submitted.

[BUNNY36]

Hi there, 

BW legal have responded to my CPR 31.14 request!  -  Please see attached, which includes "all PCN evidence"

They have since sent me a letter advising the will proceed to court, feel things will not go in my favour and have given me one more opportunity to pay 

I wanted to start preparing for this. I've noticed a few inconsistencies in the evidence they've sent through.

The NTK   -  1719 325 Greenford Rd but the camera's showing the vehicle state 327 A Greenford Rd

Along with the difference in time on the NTK versus the original PCN (15:45 vs. 03:45) and again ("illegally parked" vs. unauthorised parking)

I wondered If anyone can spot anything else that might be useful in my defence as the registered keeper? 

Thanks,

Bunny 

BW legal evidence 2-compressed.pdf

 

On 08/11/2022 at 12:36, Nicky Boy said:

Just out of interest, the address on their paperwork "325 Greenford Road" doesn't seem to actually exist?

Even the OP's own photograph shows this.

323 > GAP > 327

And Google can't seem to find it...

So, the "No Unauthorised Parking" sign looks like an entry sign, for what appears to be a car park at the rear, through the "gap".

I also remember this post from @Nicky Boy who spotted this a while ago! 

Is there anything I could/should get from the local council records to highlight that 325 doesn't exist?

[dx100uk]

you have already filed your defence....the next doc you will write will be...??

as for that bw letter, as you'll see its a std one sent in every bw involved pcn claimform thread...

 

[BUNNY36]

thanks @dx100uk

I was advised i'll be able to flesh out my points in the witness statement. Is that correct? I hope i'll have the opportunity to at least challenge their defence.

[brassnecked]

Yes the Witness Statement is where you destroy their case,.

[FTMDave]

Your Witness Statement is months away but it's to your great credit that you want to draft something now.

[lookinforinfo]

The Windscreen notice [the Notice to Driver ] is supposed to specify the parking period as per the Protection of freedoms Act 2012. It doesn't it only tells the time the ticket was written.

This should be followed  by A PCN often called the Notice to keeper. It  doesn't as it calls itself a Reminder which it isn't. But it is written up as a Notice to keeper without apparently showing the pictures of the car.It also does not specify the parking period which it should. In addition the time quoted  does not agree with the Notice to Driver and you were certainly not there at 3.45 am as the driver was shopping at the time.

The NTD states the car was parked at B7J Plumbing which is listed as 331-331 Greenford road, the Reminder states  325 Greenford road so they cannot get the address where you parked right or when.

Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][e] states-

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

So they have failed to specify the time and they have missed off the statement within the brackets therefore they have not complied with the Act which means they cannot pursue the keeper. Only the driver is liable.

On top of that the Signs in the car park are prohibitory and therefore it is not possible to form a contract between the motorist ad the parking company.And nor can they add £60 on to the PCN since the Act is quite clear only the amount  on the signage can be pursued in Court.

The Judge should throw this case out of Court because of the errors in the PCNs and you could argue that you never received a proper Notice to keeper as all you got was a Reminder. A catalog of mistakes. An embarrassment of a document.

And all that before they even send the contract and the signage. where there could be further mistakes.

[FTMDave]

If you want to start drafting a WS this early, your arguments need to be, more or less.

RUBBISH  PCN  Contradictory address.  Contradictory times.  States you were involved in criminality.  No real chance of appeal given the criminality is not explained.

INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  It states permits but in reality permits are not needed and the parking area is not clearly separated from adjacent areas.

MITIGATION  A party is supposed to avoid legal action if possible.  The only way the PPC's bod can have known the driver wasn't a customer of the bath & shower showroom is if they saw the driver going into the car showroom.  They could easily have asked the driver to move and freed a space up for the landowner's customers but did none of that.

BREACH OF INDUSTRY CODE OF PRACTICE  You were given no right of appeal.

NO KEEPER LIABILITY  All the reasons LFI states.

NO LOCUS STANDI  The fleecers are not the landowner.

PROHIBITION  Again, LFI has explained.

ILLEGAL  SIGNAGE  No planning permission for the signs.

ABUSE OF PROCESS  Making up £60 Unicorn Food Tax.

Edited August 15, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[BUNNY36]

Thank you all, this is incredibly helpful!