C3HW73F4 UKPC v Mr M Southend 15/11/2016
Mr M was in and out of court in minutes.
The judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the claim stated the vehicle was parked in Windermere road. However, it was actually parked in a different road - Stanier Close. UKPC's solicitor tried to argue this did not matter as he knew the car was in Stanier Close; however she put him right by informing him that the particulars of claim need to be correct.
As the hearing was over so quickly, Mr M did not have time to bring to the attention of the judge that the notice to driver and notice to keeper were incorrect; and the so-called parking contract was with a company who did not appear to have the right to form a contract, as they were not the land owner or managing agent of the residence.
He was also unable to bring to the attention of the judge that the evidence submitted by UKPC appeared to have been photoshopped as the notice to driver had the road name changed and was therefore different to the actual notice to driver.
Additionally UKPC had the contract boundary map wrong, including areas which are controlled by another parking company.
Lastly, even had UKPC got their documents correct, there was no liability. Mr M is a tenant and his tenancy agreement does not require him to show a permit to park. UKPC cannot therefore unilaterally override this tenancy agreement, as shown by several recent cases.
The claim was brought by SCS Law (aka LPC Law) on behalf of UKPC. As this was a hopeless case with no chance of success, with evidence bordering on perjury, UKPC were well and truly suckered into taking out this claim
The Parking Prankster