UK Parking Control Roboclaim for Residential site

When you get a claim from UK Parking Control you will usually get these Roboclaim particulars. With UKPC you must press them early on for the missing information - contract, copies of signs, site layout - so you can get your own evidence together to counter their claims. A number of times we've seen dodgy contract and signs being produced - and that does not include the 2015 episode where their staff were found to have manipulated the photographic evidence.

Roboclaim Particulars

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE Claim No: XXXXXXXX
BETWEEN
UK Parking Control Ltd
Claimant

-and-

[INSERT NAME]
Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The Claimant is, and was at all material times, a private parking company, managing parking at the locations listed in the below paragraphs pertaining to contraventions (’the site(s)’).

[Editor Note: UKPC claim to be managing but do not produce a contract or authorisation until the hearing. You must challenge them to produce one at the earliest opportunity and

- check the dates as they have been known to operate when the contract has run out
- check who signed the authorisation and whether the individual who signed had the authorisation to do so
- for residential sites, see what your lease says. It's terms are superior to any UKPC signs (see UKPC v Masterson or Jopson v Homeguard)]

2. The Defendant is and was at all material times an individual/company and was the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle(s) with registration number(s) [Insert VRM] (’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.

[Editor Note: If you haven't named the driver, check that their paperwork does conform to POFA e.g. check with the DVLA if they accessed the Keeper details and when]

4. For each contravention listed below, parking at each of the specified 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.

[Editor Note: Possible the most contentious issue and one you should concentrate on. We've seen claims when a) the signs were not there or b) the terms they said were on the signs were not. Get your own pics or send a Subject Access request to get the pics that UKPC have. Do not accept this statement without proof]

Contraventions

[Editor Note: This is where they list the tickets. Check again the dates, the location and "offence". Some may recall that UKPC operatives made false claims by changing time stamps on the pics they took, so again do not take anything on face value]

4.1 On [Insert Date], the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [Insert Location]. The driver of the vehicle breached the terms of the agreement by parking in a designated "Permit Holder Parking Space" without clearly displaying a valid permit. The Claimant therefore issued a PCN, number [Insert PCN Number]. The Defendant has failed to pay the sums due within 28 days or at all. The amount currently outstanding under this PCN is £160.00.

4.2 On [Insert Date], the Defendant’s vehicle was parked at [Insert Location]. The driver of the vehicle breached the terms of the agreement by parking in a designated "Permit Holder Parking Space" without clearly displaying a valid permit. The Claimant therefore issued a PCN, number [Insert PCN Number]. The Defendant has failed to pay the sums due within 28 days or at all. The amount currently outstanding under this PCN is £160.00. 4

4.3 On [Insert Date], the Defendant’s vehicle was parked at [Insert Location]. The driver of the vehicle breached the terms of the agreement by parking in a designated "Permit Holder Parking Space" without clearly displaying a valid permit. The Claimant therefore issued a PCN, number [Insert PCN Number]. The Defendant has failed to pay the sums due within 28 days or at all. The amount currently outstanding under this PCN is £160.00.

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

Date: [Insert Date] Ticket Number [Insert PCN Number] Reference [Insert PCN Number] Amount £160.00

Date: [Insert Date] Ticket Number [Insert PCN Number] Reference [Insert PCN Number] Amount £160.00

Date: [Insert Date] Ticket Number [Insert PCN Number] Reference [Insert PCN Number] Amount £160.00

Total Amount £480.00

7. The Claimant has complied with the requirements of the Practice Direction-Pre Action Conduct

[Editor Note: Did they comply with the requirements of the Practice Direction-Pre Action Conduct. For example, where is the contract, site layout or copies of signs on which they will rely. Ask early, ask often]

AND the Claimant claims:

(1) £480.00

(2) Costs.

[Editor Note: The main challenge is to the £50 they have added on for "costs" already. Get them to prove that the £50 has been incurred and not just double charging for "legal" service i.e. sending out a template Roboclaim. See ParkingEye v Somerfield at para #419]

Have more questions? Submit a request

0 Comments

Please sign in to leave a comment.
Powered by Zendesk