PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

SIP parking ltd small claims court for parking outside of bay, wheels over the line in car park somewhere in Birmingham
Anothermama
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 11:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,051



In November last year I was in Birmingham at a conference. Parked in a car park, paid for a whole day. On return around 10pm I saw I had a ticket. I did not check the ticket until I got home to Brighton. It was for parking outside the bay.
I threw it out.
I later got a small claims. I defended it stating that I did not believe I had parked outside of the bay and that even if I had they suffered no financial loss. (The copy of the defence was accidently thrown out during building work at our house!)
I didn't know about this forum at the time. I have looked through this forum now and realise that that was not the best defence. Because of distance I have no photos of the signage and I have no idea what the wording is.
I have had the case transferred to a court near my home I am just waiting to be given a date.
Is there anything else I can do? Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 11:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 12:05
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,917
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Try to rescue it at Witness Statement and evidence stage. The stages are shown in the MSE NEWBIES thread, post #2:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822

I am local and I believe from other reports, that Brighton court is generally terrible about parking cases anyway (even with a decent defence) and your defence was hopeless (sorry, no loss has NO LEGS so do NOT try to argue it). At least you had this bit:

QUOTE
I defended it stating that I did not believe I had parked outside of the bay


...and that is what your WS and evidence will have to major on, and to discredit the added costs they've walloped on to increase £100 to probably well over £250. SIP has not paid any such costs and has suffered no damages, so cannot add these artificial amounts.

You need to read some defences - plenty are linked in that second post on the linked thread.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 12:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anothermama
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 16:09
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,051



I have a date for 6th November.
Am I wasting my time? Based on the reply and where I live?
I will keep going, but not if it's a complete lost cause.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 16:53
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,917
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Cases are won and lost in Brighton AFAIK but it will depend on the facts & evidence from each side (for example, maybe they won;t show up so you will get to pull their WS & evidence apart, with no voice of dissent.

It's not a lost cause in that you can argue in your WS now, about not parking 'outside of a bay' and putting them to proof that a contract existed and was readable (was it dark?).

And as I said before, you can discredit the added costs they've walloped on to increase £100 to probably well over £250. SIP has not paid any such costs and has suffered no damages, so cannot add these artificial amounts.

So when does it say you must file and serve your WS and evidence? Don't say you haven't got anything to file (yes you do), or ''is it the same as the defence'' because the stages are shown in the MSE NEWBIES thread, as already linked.

Anyway, what I would do is send a SAR by email to SIP's contact email on their website, head it up Subject Access Request, right now, and attach a copy of the court claim and your V5C to show the car & data is your own personal data and that you are who you say you are. Ask for copies of all letters sent and received regarding this case, all data held, all notes, human intervention and decisions, updates and status reports, and all photos taken on the day including a close up of the signage terms.

Chances are you might get a SAR reply before you need to submit your WS and evidence and then at least you can write that with some knowledge of how rubbish their photos are and maybe that the sign isn't clear about the parking charge or contract, or parking out of a bay...

So email that SAR tonight, now...no delay, you want their DPO to receive that first thing.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 19:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anothermama
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 18:43
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,051



Thank you, that is really helpful.
I should have said that it is SIP parking ltd.

Ok I have written this email

Following your claim in the county court Claim number xxxxxx. County court of Brighton SIP Parking v xxxxx
I request you provide me with the following information.
1. Copies of all letters sent and received regarding this case,
2. All data held,
3. All notes, human intervention and decisions.
4. Updates and status reports.
5. All photos taken on the day of the incident, including a close up of the signage terms.
I attach a copy of my VC5 which confirms I am requesting personal data.
Thank you

I have looked at the notice of allocation to the small claims track which is dated 2/10 I cannot see a date for the witness statements so I am assuming from reading MSE and this forum that it is 14 days before the hearing date, which means it needs to be in by 23/10.
I am reading copying and pasting and getting this ready now and would aim to have it in by 16/10.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 19:35
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,917
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Sorry, my bad, UKCPM are a pariah round here and I assumed! So it's SIP.

I am local enough to your area I reckon, but I work weekdays so can't show up in person (and do not accept anyone else offering - even a poster here - without first telling us on this thread in the open, who contacted you, because there are people who have a different agenda than the rest of us, who read this forum).

Head it up Subject Access Request for personal data and all information/photos re VRN xxx xxxx.

QUOTE
VC5

should be
QUOTE
V5C


QUOTE
I have looked at the notice of allocation to the small claims track which is dated 2/10 I cannot see a date for the witness statements
Not the NoA to track, it should be on the letter from the Brighton court that gives the date, the blurb on the back or lower down on the front should talk about the date by which all parties must...blah blah.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 19:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anothermama
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 10:02
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,051



I have had a response from sip.
They have sent me a number of photos which show my car with its front wheels (driver side) out of the bay. Copies of all the letters they sent and a copy of someone else's PCN!

I have googled the car park and found a photo of the entrance which is attached.
If you can see this photo I cannot see anywhere where it says anything about parking within the bay.
I am working on the witness statement and will send it today. I'll post here before I do.
Thank you

This post has been edited by Anothermama: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 10:07
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anothermama
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 12:51
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,051



Here is my first draft.
I have read and included/copy/pasted the bits I understand that are relevant to my case.
I would appreciate any help/comments.
Thank you.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

SIP Parking Limited (Claimant)

-and-

Mrs xxxxxx (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court
before.

2. I also point out to the presiding judge that the claimant has not supplied any
evidence at all that the alleged contravention ever occurred.
3. I entered the car park and checked signage for payment s and timings. There was no signage that indicates that there is a charge for parking outside of the bay.


4. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist because It is barely
legible, making it difficult to read. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the
Independent Parking Committee (of which ES is a member), clearly states that “Text
should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having
regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.” As can be seen from
the attached photographic evidence (ex E) this is not the case.

5. The claimant failed to send a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.


6. The driver did not enter into any agreement. No consideration flowed between the two parties and no contract was established.

7. I deny that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions been properly displayed.

8. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.
9.The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

10.The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

11.Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.

12. I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £60 solicitors costs to pursue an alleged
£100 debt, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable
The claimant described the charge of £60 as ‘legal fees’ not ‘contractual costs’ CPR 31.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court
The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable


13. I assert that the Claimant has also ignored the Government’s official position on parking charges as expressed clearly in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking Charges:
“Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.”

14. I submit that the amount demanded cannot possibly be a genuine pre-estimate of the Claimant’s loss.

15. 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 £160.

16. The Protection of Freedom 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.

17.The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

18. 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. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

19. Parking Eye 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.

20. Parking Eye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive.

21.I also refer the court to Parking Eye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined Parking Eye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that Parking Eye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is owed to the landowner, not the Claimant.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 12:54
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,090
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Anothermama @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 11:02) *
If you can see this photo I cannot see anywhere where it says anything about parking within the bay.

No, too small...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anothermama
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:51
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,051



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 13:54) *
QUOTE (Anothermama @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 11:02) *
If you can see this photo I cannot see anywhere where it says anything about parking within the bay.

No, too small...


I cannot get the photo any bigger it is a photo from google maps.
Does this work
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/uv?hl=en&...QoiowCnoECAoQCQ
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 15:18
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,090
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



On those pictures alone there is no contract, let alone any terms...!


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anothermama
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 15:30
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,051



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 16:18) *
On those pictures alone there is no contract, let alone any terms...!


Ok.
Do I need to mention that in the witness statement or is it too late?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 15:39
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,090
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



The witness statement is what you know (not legal arguments). So you could say that you've checked the signs and found they cannot form a contract etc...

But the GSV images alone aren't 100% convincing. Your own pictures would be better.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 15:39


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anothermama
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,051



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 16:39) *
The witness statement is what you know (not legal arguments). So you could say that you've checked the signs and found they cannot form a contract etc...

But the GSV images alone aren't 100% convincing. Your own pictures would be better.


I live in Sussex the car park is in Birmingham, so getting photos is not an option.

Is there anything I can add to my witness statement that will help me at this stage? I have checked others and adapted as much as I can. I need to send it off tomorrow.

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 17:53) *
Cases are won and lost in Brighton AFAIK but it will depend on the facts & evidence from each side (for example, maybe they won;t show up so you will get to pull their WS & evidence apart, with no voice of dissent.

It's not a lost cause in that you can argue in your WS now, about not parking 'outside of a bay' and putting them to proof that a contract existed and was readable (was it dark?).

And as I said before, you can discredit the added costs they've walloped on to increase £100 to probably well over £250. SIP has not paid any such costs and has suffered no damages, so cannot add these artificial amounts.


Have I covered this clearly in my witness statement? Bearing in mind they have now shown me a photo of one of my wheels outside the bay!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Yesterday, 00:02
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,917
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Where did you find that old WS example? No-one cites PE v Sharma, it's from 2013 and well before the Beavis case.

QUOTE
Independent Parking Committee
Doesn't exist any more, changed its name some 2 years ago:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...tee-change.html

You've also got ''(of which ES is a member)'' yet your parking firm is not ES Parking! You have copied a really old and irrelevant load of waffle, I'm afraid.

QUOTE
Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Eeeek...eeek....even more eeek no! You need to read the Beavis case decision and research this for more than a few minutes, or you will be taken to the cleaners in court.

We are trying to rescue a bad defence for you, not make it ten times worse by using pointless and outdated, losing stuff from 2013/14. Stop rushing this is you have a few days, stop wanting to fling anything at the court asap. And do NOT email it to Brighton Court of course. They are not going to print out evidence documents and your WS for you.

Try this instead, seeing as you are a fellow Seagull...(if you are a Palace fan this WS below will self destruct!!):



QUOTE
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRIGHTON

CLAIM No: xxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

SIP Parking Limited (Claimant)

-and-

Mrs xxxxxx (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am [xxxxx xxxxxxx], of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. This case centres on a private parking charge or penalty, relating to a parking event in November last year, however liability for the unconscionable penalty sought is denied and I contend that the Claimant is not entitled to any sum at all, over and above the tariff I paid on the day. I was the driver and I was in Birmingham at a conference, so I parked in a Pay & Display Ticket ('PDT') car park, read the small print on the PDT machine screen and I paid the appropriate tariff for a whole day. On return around 10pm I saw I had a private parking charge notice ('PCN') but could not read the allege contravention nor the extortionate sum it demanded in the dark, nor could I make out any terms at all anywhere - the signs were actually very basic, inadequate and sparsely placed at this location, apart from the large yellow entrance sign which had no terms at all apart from: 'SIP PAY & DISPLAY' and a sign above the PDT machine that said something like: 'PAY HERE'.

3. To my knowledge there was nothing on any clear & prominent signage that set any other obligations, nor any known 'penalty' over and above a full day's tariff and I was confused by the PCN. I had no idea they were accusing me of parking over a bay line, as it was dark and there were cars either side when I returned to the car so I had no reason to believe the positioning of my car was at fault. It had been a grey November day and at the location, plenty of the bay lines were worn and dirt-covered, so there was no way to tell what the alleged problem was.

4. It was only when I got home to Brighton, that I was able to read the small print on the PCN and learn that the accusation was that I had apparently contravened terms on a sign, by parking out of a marked bay, and that the Claimant was seeking to punish me to the tune of £100. I was shocked and believed the PCN to be a scam, and this appeared to be confirmed by the alarmist demands that then arrived in the post, and I chose not to 'appeal' or give any credence to their unfair charge, that this Claimant could not be bothered to evidence with any photographs or any facts.

5. My research told me that any appeal to a firm that are not a BPA 'Approved Operator' member does not lead to the fair and long established since 2012 service of 'Parking on Private Land Appeals' (POPLA) and thus an 'appeal' would have been futile. It has been exposed in Parliament this year that the industry and both Trade Bodies are - with no exceptions, no dissenting voices heard - operating an ''outrageous scam'' (Hansard, 2.2.18 - from the Second Reading of the Private Parking Bill).

5.1. It was further exposed in the debate that Directors are/were shared by Gladstones Solicitors - who filed this claim - and the International Parking Community, ('IPC') Trade Body itself. And these same people are also responsible for the 'IAS' (so-called 'appeals service') which is widely held and reported to be a kangaroo court, hugely biased, making numerous bizarre and wholly unfair decisions. The IAS are reported time and again, to twist contract law in favour of IPC firms by expecting a level of evidence from victim consumers that is so burdensome that someone like me could not possibly have managed it, especially as I could not even go back and re-read the signs.

6. There was no signage that indicates that there is a charge for parking outside of the bay, and the car was only parked at a slight angle due to other cars positions at the point of parking. No car was prevented from parking, and this sort of parking incident (parking slightly over a line solely due to the whole bay of cars, or adjacent cars doing the same) was in fact discussed and remarked to be clearly 'punitive' by the Supreme Court Judges during their deliberations at the July 2015 hearing in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was held to be completely different and 'complex'.

7. It is my case that, when I paid at the PDT machine, I recall that the tariffs for hourly and daily rates were in large lettering, and I complied with that instruction, paying in good faith for the parking space. I recall that there was a very basic, large yellow entrance sign but other than that, signage was sparse and so I went over to the PDT machine. to pay and learn of the terms that I would be bound by. There was nothing seen to warn me of any other relevant obligation, nor about £100 penalty, either at/near the machine, nor on the PDT machine screen, nor the ticket itself.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of clear and prominent terms on signs regarding the conduct that could give rise to such a penalty at the PDT machine, where I recall only small tariffs were clearly listed. I did not 'agree' to pay more than the tariff and even if the Claimant produces a photo showing one wheel over a line, I cannot be bound by terms the Claimant later might try to bolt onto their inadequate signs that were on site at the time.

8.1. The Beavis case assists in this regard, these being direct quotes from the Supreme Court final decision:

Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.

Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''


9. It is my contention that the correct authorities of relevance in a badly signed & lined PDT machine car parking case are not Beavis, but instead those that I now exhibit:

9.1. Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 where Denning LJ held that a person will not be bound by terms of a contract of which he has not received reasonable notice: ''I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it, before the notice could be held to be sufficient'', and

9.2. Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, where it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach, and

9.3. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] QB 163, where it was held that the machine itself constituted the offer. The acceptance was by putting the money into the machine. The ticket was dispensed after the acceptance took place; therefore another unknown/hidden clause that the driver learned about too late, was not incorporated into the contract.

10. I seek to defend and attend an oral hearing in the reasonable expectation that the ticketing employee or a Director of the Claimant attends the hearing, to explain why the PCN was issued, how many cars in that row were ticketed due to the parking of the first car slightly adjusting the position of all other cars in the bay, and why there is no photo in evidence that places clear and prominent terms and conditions adjacent to the area parked, and to show evidence of the exact placement of signs with full terms in large lettering.

11. In the absence of such evidence, I conclude that the signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist because the terms are barely legible, making it difficult to read. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the IPC, that this Claimant must abide by (such Trade Body Codes being mandatory rules and effectively 'regulatory' according to the Supreme Court) states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”

12. I have defended this in full because I do not believe that any conduct of mine contravened any terms proclaimed on a sign. I had seen no evidence of this from the Claimant and at the point of being suddenly served with this Claim I had also seen no evidence even of the alleged contract (the sign they relied upon) and received no detailed/compliant 'Letter of Claim' with any such evidence, despite the 2017 PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR DEBT CLAIMS requiring:

''INITIAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CREDITOR
3.1 The creditor should send a Letter of Claim to the debtor before proceedings
are started. The Letter of Claim should (a) contain [...] {detailed information}, and
(b) do one of the following –
(i) enclose an up-to-date statement of account for the debt, which should include
details of any interest and administrative or other charges added;
(ii) enclose the most recent statement of account for the debt and state in the
Letter of Claim the amount of interest incurred and any administrative or other charges imposed since that
statement of account was issued, sufficient to bring it up to date; or
(iii) where no statements have been provided for the debt, state in the Letter of Claim the amount of
interest incurred and any administrative or other charges imposed since the debt was incurred;
© enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form''

13. The particulars of claim also do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). As well as defending the claim, I wrote to the Claimant for their evidence and received a photo of the car with one wheel slightly overlapping a partially-marked white line, with no legible signs near it, and a few other blurry site photos, but nothing that established or advanced a legitimate interest argument, nor any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' that could give rise to £100 penalty.

14. I would also like to raise my concern that the Claimant has not incurred £60 'indemnity costs if applicable' nor £50 in 'legal' costs; these were never actually expended. The claim flows from an alleged (already hugely inflated) contractual parking charge of £100 but the sum on the claim form is more than twice this sum. The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of Gladstones' cut & paste parking robo-claims at all and this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

14.1. The Claimant and its Trade Body Solicitors are serial offenders on this regard and must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs.

15. It is noted in any case, from the sparse information available to me, that this Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. The Claimant is put to proof that its bare licence grants it sufficient interest in the land, or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf for this particular alleged contravention. Even if a contract is held by the Claimant, unless an unredacted version is supplied in evidence, I would conclude that the only legitimate interest the Claimant may have flowing from the landowner is likely not to allow them to pursue paying visitors, but merely to penalise non-paying drivers and to deter trespass, neither of which occurred.

16. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.


Signed

Date




Evidence to include - and PLEASE read this and the Beavis case to understand what not to argue in court:

- Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking:


https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html

- Spurling v Bradshaw

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1956/3.html


- Jolley v Carmel can be downloaded to print (and read) here:


https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/...l-Limited-2000-


...and talking of evidence attached to your WS, you said this:

QUOTE
As can be seen from the attached photographic evidence (ex E) this is not the case.


So why have you numbered that as 'Ex E'? Or did you just copy an ES Parking one and not re-number your evidence refs? Just call each piece of evidence your initials followed by 1, 2, 3, etc.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Yesterday, 00:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anothermama
post Today, 09:11
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,051



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 01:02) *
Evidence to include - and PLEASE read this and the Beavis case to understand what not to argue in court:

- Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking:


https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html

- Spurling v Bradshaw

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1956/3.html


- Jolley v Carmel can be downloaded to print (and read) here:


https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/...l-Limited-2000-


Thank you so much, that is so kind of you. I definitely owe you a drink (which is ok as i'm not a palace fan)
I have read the cases above. Am I right in saying that the key points here are about implied terms and conditions. Particularly for me in that there is no mention of bay parking and therefore these cases confirm that its not on me to assume that there was a penalty for this.
Should I print these and bring them with me or can I just refer to them from my own notes?

This post has been edited by Anothermama: Today, 09:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: JoeyJoec

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 18th October 2018 - 10:28
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.