Claim form from UKPC / SCS Law

[Kijoki]

Hi,

Just to quickly note, I was referred to this site from MSE.

I got a claim form from UKPC / SCS law for parking in my parents' private parking area (they're tenants).

I've parked there quite a few times and always whenever I got the ticket I just disposed of it.

Eventually I got a letter from SCS Law and they wanted to take matters further, I just got rid of this letter as well.

Now I received a Claim Form and want to respond back to this basically.

I've read through the FAQ etc and wanted to understand who owns the parking space, I called their landlord and he said he doesn't own it. So I purchased the title plan and noticed the land is owned by the Freeholders. There is no designated parking space, and it's basically done on a first come first serve basis.


The parking enforcement (UKPC) is basically working under the management company for the block of flats, when I asked the management company who owns the land they said the estate owns it. Presumably they meant the Freeholders, and so at this point I wanted to understand ownership so I can go down this route when I defend myself in this regard. And I also need to understand under whose behalf the management company has instructed UKPC, or do I not need to go into that detail?

Not sure about the above, need to check this further.

I wanted to know how to build up my defence and how to include this as well as I believe this will be vital to help stop this.


Thanks a lot.

Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 25/01/2019
Have you Acknowledged the Claim?: Yes
Total Amount Claimed : 1200
Claimant’s Name: UK Parking Control Ltd
Solicitors Firm: SCS Law
Original Creditor:
Original Debt (eg. Credit card/Loan/Overdraft) :
Particulars of Claim:

1. The Claimant is, and was at all material times, a prviate parking company, managing parking at the locations listed in the below paragraphs pertaining to contraventions ('the site(s)').
2. The Defendant is and was at all material times an individual and was the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle(s) with registration number(s) XXXXXX ('the vehicle(s)').
3. The Defendant has admitted that they were the driver of the vehicle(s) for the contraventions listed below and/or, in the event that the Claimant has been unable to identify the driver of the vehicle(s), the Claimant has complied with the provisions of paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 and has the right to bring this claim against the registered keeper under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 of the same Act, being the Defendant.
4. For each contravention listed below, parking at each of the specifiied sites was offered subject to the Claimant's terms and conditions, which were clearly displayed on signage throughout the site. These terms and conditions were accepted by the driver of the vehicle(s) when they parked their vehicle(s) at the specified sites ('the agreement') and the Defendant was therefore bound by the same in their capacity as driver of the vehicle(s) and/or registered keeper. It was a term of the agreement that in the event of breach of the terms of parking, a Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') wold be issued for a sum & be payable within 28 days.

Contraventions

All contraventions listed.

5. The Defendant has failed to pay the sums owed in respect of the aforementioned PCNs.
6. In the circumstances, the Claimant has suffered loss and/or damage due to the Defendant's failure to pay the charges.

Particulars of Loss

All contraventions with amount.

7. The Claimant has complied wit hthe requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Statement of Truth etc etc etc


Is the debt Statute Barred: No
List any letters you have sent: None

[ostell]

So have you got the original PCNs? Photos of the signs? What does the tenancy agreement say about parking?

Have a look at fightback forum to see defences for parking cases.

[Kijoki]

TA doesn't say anything about parking unfortunately.

I've not got any of the original PCNs but from others posts I've seen I can request this off UKPC right?

[Kijoki]

So I just found this case, which is very similar to mine actually:

http://nebula.wsimg.com/c8348f3d7a15...&alloworigin=1

I can't seem to get my head round exactly what the ruling mentions in terms of there not being a contract between the two parties.

Does it refer to the freeholder not having a contract with the managing agency and therefore it's fine to park there?

If this is the case, should I now contact the Freeholder as well and ask if they have specifically given permission for the managing agent to contract UKPC to manage parking in their land?

[ostell]

It is a forbidding sign, in that there is no offer of parking to unauthorised people . Private parking works on the basis that the signage makes the offer of a contract to the motorist reading the sign. If the If there was no contract in place then there can be no breach of contract and no sum due. Mention that case, though it does not set a precedent.

If the Particulars of claim do not give you sufficient information to create a defence then say so in your defence and suggest to the court that the claimant be required to replead with a better POC. With what they've given there is no indication of the reason for the claim.

[Kijoki]

The idea wasn't to reference this particular case but to use the idea of not having a contract. So that particular case is saying that the signage wasn't visible then? On what basis would the contract not be in effect, apart from not reading it?

The signs are not displayed next to the actual parking bays but randomly on the road and they're placed quite high. Reading them isn't even easy, the picture I took I had to extend my arms to the fullest to get all of it properly on there and you can see it's on a very bent angle.

[ostell]

I read that case as the judge saying there was no parking contract because of the wording. If the signs are not visible then that's another point

[Kijoki]

Thanks, can I still request a SAR? I'd like to do this so I can gather all the evidence seeing as I disposed of all the PCNs and letters they sent to me.

And can you clarify to me, that if I managed to somehow dig up anything from the TA, how I could use this in my advantage? Seeing as I'm not the tenant?

Finally do you think I should look into ownership of the land and see if this can further prove that UKPC is fining me with no consent from the owner of the land?

[ostell]

Yes send a SAR to UKPC and a letter to SCS solicitors demanding that they send you all the documents that they intend to use in the case in order to narrow down the issues between you, as required by the courts. As the documents must be in their possession in order for them to perform due diligence before issuing the claim you require that the documents tobe delivered to you within 7 days.

If your parents have the right to park it could be extended to their visitors.

As you have not contacted them then they are fishing that they are giving the choice in the POC"The Defendant has admitted that they were the driver of the vehicle(s) for the contraventions listed below and/or, in the event that the Claimant has been unable to identify the driver of the vehicle(s)". Has the driver been identified? Simple Yes or No.

[Kijoki]

Just checked the signs again, it says parking only in marked bays and in visitor bays for visitors. The bays aren't marked and there are no visitor bays, can this be used in my defence as well?

[GBExile]

Just checked the signs again, it says parking only in marked bays and in visitor bays for visitors. The bays aren't marked and there are no visitor bays, can this be used in my defence as well?

Put it in your defence by all means but the bays are marked by the brickwork. Whether that is acceptable in law or not I have not got a clue.

But its a common way of marking bays & has been for decades.

[ostell]

So that is a forbidding sign, exactly as discussed above . Are they claiming you are unauthorised? What are they claiming.

[Kijoki]

Well the particulars say the below, it seems in my view that they are saying that I breached the terms and conditions as set out in the signage.


4. For each contravention listed below, parking at each of the specifiied sites was offered subject to the Claimant's terms and conditions, which were clearly displayed on signage throughout the site. These terms and conditions were accepted by the driver of the vehicle(s) when they parked their vehicle(s) at the specified sites ('the agreement') and the Defendant was therefore bound by the same in their capacity as driver of the vehicle(s) and/or registered keeper. It was a term of the agreement that in the event of breach of the terms of parking, a Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') would be issued for a sum & be payable within 28 days

[ostell]

No they are saying the driver allegedly breached the terms of the contract created by the signs but the signs are forbidding and did not create a contract to be breached.