PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

DOVER Whitfield Services CCTV/ Road County Court Claim (Urgent Please)), Private Esso Garage Whitfield Dover and McDonalds Drive Through
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 23:00
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



Hi,

Firstly apologies if I get the format or posting approach wrong, I am new to this forum and this is my first post.

I have been trawling though your forums and indeed the MSE ones of a similar nature, with the intention of challenging the court Claim sent to me by Gladstones Solicitors Limited, but I have have been struggling to get my head around it all. I now figure it is about time I asked for a bit of help to clear up my confusion. I do admit I have left this a bit late but hopefully not to late....

Here are the details of the Claim I received against the driver/registered Keeper of the vehicle.

I have logged onto the MCOL site and done an AOS (within the required timeframe), but have not done an SAR or any deference as of yet, I also stupidly (maybe..) threw out all previous letters including the LBC one which I thought was just another debt collector letter.. I was told by a lot of people who received these type of tickets for the same site that this was private land and that I should simply ignore them all which I did but very nearly paid up a number of times to get rid of all the stress but genuinely thought it was a scam. (I still do)

This is for a private ANPR/CCTV system installed at Whitfield Services in Dover. There is access to both the garage and a drive through MCDonalds which is adjacent to it and can only be accessed via the private road.

The details are as follows keeper details redacted.

Claim Issue date 13 Jan 2020.
Claimant
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
19 NEW ROAD BRIGHTON
BN 1UF

Address for sending Documents and payments
Gladstones Solicitors Limited
The Terrace ,High Leigh
WA16 6AA

Defendant = Keeper..

Particulars of the Claim
The Driver of the vehicle with Registration xxxxxxx ('the Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at Whitfield Services CCTV - Whitfield Services Sandwich Road Whitfield Dover CT16 3LF, on 06/04/2019 thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN'). The PCN was not paid within the 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £60 contractural costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £8.78 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.


End Particulars of the Claim

A bit more detail , the first I knew that there was CCTV at that site or that I had been photographed via CCTV was when I received a PCN in the post as the Register keeper which they got from the DVLA, on that document it showed my vehicle and stated that I had stayed longer than 2 minutes as stated on the 'Contract'. This is an access road and not a parking area, there are double yellow or red lines (on google maps they are red) on this section. I never saw any ' Contract' signs nor did I get out of the vehicle at any point.

The signs are not visible from the drivers seat in a car on that road, there are only two signs and are both in very small writing and are high up on two lamp posts they face the road so even if you look left you would see the edge when parallel with them.

On the day it was really busy and I got stuck in the queue I was not parked a lorry in front and a lorry behind it took forever to get out of the garage.

Could you please assist with what I should do most urgently first and second, I know I must send in my defense ASAP, but can't find any that exactly match, or which example of one is correct in this case.

(And yes I know I should have sorted this earlier but we lost my farther in law right on xmas and I also just found out that I am facing potential redundancy so been very preoccupied unfortunately.)

Thanks in Advance,
The Keeper
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 23:00
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 00:04
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



I've just found this post which looks like the closest to mine , would I be correct in thinking this is the closest ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...kcpm-gladstones

I believe I also need to fill out The Directions form from here? ,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...74/n180-eng.pdf

Thanks,
The Keeper


This post has been edited by MadAboutCCTVRoadScamers: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 00:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 04:03
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



A SAR needed to be done when you got the letter before claim, you now won't get the response in time for your defence.

Ignoring is bad, binning the information you need even worse!

If the claim is dated 13/1 your defence has to now be in by Friday, you've left it very late.

Get drafting one NOW, there are a number of templates on Money Saving expert forums, newbie thread, start with the one most applicable and work from there.

It's not CCTV it's ANPR, CCTV is a constant video ANPR takes a single photo when it detects a number plate entering or leaving site.

So your defence points will be
1/ Signage insufficient to create a contract, you refer to their own code of practice requirements on page 22, the Supreme Court deemed these as 'effectively binding' in Parking Eye v Beavis
https://theipc.info/resources/brandings/bra...of-Practice.pdf
2/ Frustration of contract, due to the poor management of the car park you were unable to leave in a timely manner due to a the traffic volume and slow speed on site, that UK CPM should not benefit from a failure of their own car park managment
3/ It's likley the signage cannot create a contract even if it was visible, lets have photos
4/ Standing, set UK CPM to prove that they have the necessary landowner authority to take the action that they are taking.
5/ Challenge the particulars of claim, they give no basis for the claim except an unpaid PCN, they have to prove that the PCN was owed in the first place



--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 08:48
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



Thanks @The Rookie, I have google maps street view screen shots, I've upload them, they are dated 2018 but I will get pictures from now too, dont think that they have changed.

I sent off a SAR to UKPM to the email address on their site. I'll print a copy and send that via snail mail also.

One thing is that this isn't a cark park the signs say CCTV and it is on a private road which I think is owned by the garage not mcdonalds. But I agree must be ANPR system, even if the signs don't say that.

I'll start drafting the defence at dinner time. And post the draft up. I am up that way tomorrow evening so will get some current pictures of what they look like now.
Many thanks for the help and guidance

The Keeper
(I so wished I had just started this post earlier, I just kept putting it off sad.gif )

This post has been edited by MadAboutCCTVRoadScamers: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 08:53
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 08:49
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



NOT screen shots, the link, we can't look around on screen grabs!

Familiar with the site but not visited in a long time, what was the driver's route in and out?

Last street view visit in June 19 shows no entry signage when coming off the A2, nor the Sandwich road, I only see two signs which are easily hidden by delivery lorries
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1552348,1...3312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.155127,1....3312!8i6656
And nothing at all for those coming off the A2 and leaving the same way.

Sounds like a honeypot
https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/pe...-matter-2283485

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 08:57


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 19:55
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



Oh dear very sorry, here is the closest I can get a url link to it
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1551188,1.2...3312!8i6656

It is the route from the sandwich road entrance where you enter the private area. As you go though you can see there is no signage other than for the BP station, Also you can see as you move into the entrance using street view that there are double reds lines and on the first lamppost on the left, next to the mcdonalds lorry, is the first CCTV sign, As you proceed around the bend there is just one lane which is marked as fuel and a hashed no parking zone marked for HGVs in the right lane. The next sign is on the next lamppost at the same height, my car was positioned after a lorry stationary in front of that sign and behind another lorry just before the entrance to the macdonalds drive through entrance. i pulled in front of the first lorry/truck and behind the second one as the HGV hashing also had cars there and cars leaving the garage. The A2 exit road was also jammed up . This is where the camera took the photos of my vehicle. At this point i was stuck and had no where or way to get out.

I hope that is clearer if not please let me know. Sorry for the late reply I have only just got back in from work.

Thanks,
The Keeper

Not sure what is going on but I only got the first part of your response, and no email notifications, and yes definitely a honey pot. I know of a lot of locals who have been stung by this and as it is directly on route to the docks and off of the A2. I would imagine that they are absolutely raking it in, especially anyone not familiar with it or its layout as it is easy to get stuck there as I did. I have not gone back since, and wouldnt normally even have visited had it not been for my passenger "desperately" needed a mcdonalds.
I am going to start my defence now and will upload as soon as I have an initial draft , prob about an hour I suspect.
Thanks,
The keeper
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 20:08
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



From the Kent live link you sent
"Steps have also been taken to ensuring that queuing traffic is not affected to either business as there is a two minute photo capture and before any fine is issued the photos are double checked to ensure that the vehicles receiving the fines are parked, rather than queuing."

The the notice that I received in post stated excess of 2 minutes. In that same article dated in December it states there are double yellow lines, I wondered about that because I vaguely remember double yellow lines no red. I am going to drive up there tomorrow park over the road and get some pictures. as it is now.

Ok so, This additional dailymail article from Jan 2019 shows double yellow lines so it is likely that the lines were yellow at the time my vehicle was caught on ANPR
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...rking-fine.html

It also shows a sign attached to a fence somewhere but not the ones on a lamppost like in the google maps street view ones from 2018, here is the image url directly
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/01/23/14/...48252878937.jpg
I think this sign must be attached to the fence that closes off the old garage in the first picture somewhere on the right as you I am going to check tomorrow as I said looking at that sign with the links as a size reference I think I would have trouble reading it if I were stood up extremely close right in front of it but absolutely no chance of reading it from a car at all... Working on the defence doc now.

Thanks again for your assistance.

This post has been edited by MadAboutCCTVRoadScamers: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 00:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 01:49
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



Hi,

Ok so I am working though the process of putting my defence together still drafting at the moment, I am using this example from this link as a starting point

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...m-gladstones/p2
Or is this one better a bit better to start from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...omment_76830280


During this process I have come across this post
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic...kefield/page/2/

"CPR 31:14 is a legal document you need to send to the other side, asking for information. " So I got one from here

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic...ng-court-claim/

Do I need to also send this to Gladstones as described in this post ? Or is that not relevant at this time ?
And do I need/should I also notify/send something (email/letter) to Gladstones stating that I have sent a SAR to the Claimant?

Thanks
The Keeper

This post has been edited by MadAboutCCTVRoadScamers: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 02:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 03:10
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



Hi @The Rookie,

Ok I am sure you are likely to rip this apart but I needs few more pointers as to where I am with my defense. i.e. where I am maybe missing stuff and maybe where I might be repeating things. smile.gif

Defense Below

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. Frustration of contract, due to the poor management of the car park the driver was unable to leave in a timely manner due to a the traffic volume and slow speed on site. UK CPM should not benefit from a failure of their own car park management.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears to be parked on the material date: it was not parked on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction to any traffic it was in a queue and blocked by traffic i.e. “grid locked”. This is not the fault of the driver but down to the failure of the traffic flow management on site as operated UK PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED.

4. The defendant is an observant and reasonable individual who has made the actions only of a reasonable individual in this case.

5. The claimants signage is ambiguous and provides confusion, as the symbol used by the claimant on their signage is the highway code symbol for parking (A white P on a blue background is used by the claimant), which, to a reasonable person acting reasonably shall usually assume that parking exists to some extent in a location. Xxx not sure about this bit ? → The defendant has sought examples of parking signs, none of which used by the claimant highlight “no parking” in-line with the highway code guidance and symbology.

6. At the time of issue, and since with further evidence gathered, there is no visible signage displayed in any sight lines or view of the driver of the vehicle in the exact vicinity where the vehicle had become stationary and was photographed. Furthermore, and in-line with the photo displayed by the claimant on the original PCN, the signage is unreadable from the location the vehicle was stopped in traffic. This is misleading the motorist that parking was not permitted in the location in question.

7. The signage is forbidding and makes no offer to the motorist. There can therefore be no contract. The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “No parking on roadways”. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfill the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant, even if they were readable from a car on route down this private road.
The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgement that:

“If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

8. In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.

9. There is a want of a cause of action because the Claimant is trying to dress up 'prohibited' or forbidden parking (a matter only within the gift of a landowner to pursue, under the tort of trespass) as if it was a licence to park at a price. The idea that this firm can offer a parking licence allowing the very conduct that is, it seems, expressly forbidden by their principal (the landowner) is a nonsense, at best ambiguous and a contradiction in terms. With no consideration on offer, it is the Defendant's position that the elements of the sort of 'agreed contract' that was upheld in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 simply do not exist. That Supreme Court decision can also be fully distinguished due to the absence of brief, clear & prominent signs and legitimate interest, such that in the instant case, the penalty rule remains engaged.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional inflationary £60 “Contractual”costs amount with additional interest which has no explanation, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery, since this is already included in the £100 PCN.

11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has incurred legal representation costs specifically related to this claim, for which a £50 cost has been included in the claim.

12. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

13. In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s case is without merit and has no prospect of success. The Court is invited, therefore, to strike out the claim of its own initiative.

14. I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Please let me know and I will amend ASAP and get it sent in via MCOL tomorrow at some point.

Hopefully I am getting the correct stuffed lined up in time and will be able to get my witness statement together also.

One last thing Should I mention about claiming expenses at this point or when I submit the WS.

Many thanks for your time on this much appreciated,


The Keeper
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 04:02
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



4 implies the defendant was driving (whether they were or not), rendering 10 irrelevant - one or the other (the driver may be conscious of course for the reword of 4) However nowhere on that sign can I read (and I suspect anyone at the sign read without a stepladder) an agreement to pay legal fees, so their own signage caps the amount at the original claim, reword 10 to cover both eventualities. It needs to be made clear that claiming the extra is a clear abuse of process. Look on MSE, this alone has won cases.

6 signage 'was' not 'is', you've also not mentioned the 'effectively binding' code of practice that the signage is meant to comply with and clearly doesn't, for example there is no prominent entry signage warning a driver he is entering private land and conditions apply (he'd then be expected to look for).

I'd expand on point one, the driver only stopped because of traffic, they were not waiting or parking, the sign saying no 'stopping' is clearly unenforceable as the driver will have to stop in certain circumstances outside their control while waiting or parking is within their control.

Please also describe the exact route taken that day.

That sign doesn't look like the ones visible on GSV, they are on posts that is on a mesh fence somewhere.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 04:19


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 08:23
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



DO NOT send gladstones CPR31.14. CAG are crap, they should kow better, and CPR31.14 does not apply on the small claims track
If you want docs
- SAR to the PPC
- send a "to narrow the areas under dispute" request to gladstones, giving them 7 days to respond as the list of documents you give them they should have BEFORE raising a claim. it woul dbe irresponsible of them to raise a claim before seeing them. WE KNOW THEY DO NOT HAVE THESE DOCS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 14:39
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 04:02) *
4 implies the defendant was driving (whether they were or not), rendering 10 irrelevant - one or the other (the driver may be conscious of course for the reword of 4) However nowhere on that sign can I read (and I suspect anyone at the sign read without a stepladder) an agreement to pay legal fees, so their own signage caps the amount at the original claim, reword 10 to cover both eventualities. It needs to be made clear that claiming the extra is a clear abuse of process. Look on MSE, this alone has won cases.

6 signage 'was' not 'is', you've also not mentioned the 'effectively binding' code of practice that the signage is meant to comply with and clearly doesn't, for example there is no prominent entry signage warning a driver he is entering private land and conditions apply (he'd then be expected to look for).

I'd expand on point one, the driver only stopped because of traffic, they were not waiting or parking, the sign saying no 'stopping' is clearly unenforceable as the driver will have to stop in certain circumstances outside their control while waiting or parking is within their control.

Please also describe the exact route taken that day.

That sign doesn't look like the ones visible on GSV, they are on posts that is on a mesh fence somewhere.


Hi @The Rookie I am on dinner break, I will get on this today thanks ever so much.
Should I simply remove point 4 ?


QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 08:23) *
DO NOT send gladstones CPR31.14. CAG are crap, they should kow better, and CPR31.14 does not apply on the small claims track
If you want docs
- SAR to the PPC
- send a "to narrow the areas under dispute" request to gladstones, giving them 7 days to respond as the list of documents you give them they should have BEFORE raising a claim. it woul dbe irresponsible of them to raise a claim before seeing them. WE KNOW THEY DO NOT HAVE THESE DOCS.


Hi @nosferatu1001 thanks for the input and additional advice

Understood forget CPR 31:14. smile.gif

- SAR to the PPC, I've already done that directly to UKPML via their DPO email address on their site but have yet to receive any kind of reply (I also ticked require read receipt). Should I phone them directly and point them to the email? (I didn't send any proof of identity and haven't sent it via snail mail copy yet but intend to do so this evening.)

- "send a "to narrow the areas under dispute" request to Gladstones" I have just found an example on legal beagles so will use that.
I out of time now will get back to this after work this evening thanks again.

I am getting pictures tonight also.
(BTW I am not getting any email notifications to your responses to my own topic is there a setting somewhere? )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 18:33
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I’d bin 4, it doesn’t add anything.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 00:19
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



Hi,
really sorry I haven't managed to post on here before now, (I've had a bit of a nightmare dealing with potential redundancy looming and all that...)

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 18:33) *
I’d bin 4, it doesn’t add anything.


So I've binned 4 and will add an updated version after this post.
Am I right in thinking that the deadline for submission is 33 days From Monday, 13 January 2020 so would mean it would be before the 15th February 2020?
And if that is so it needs to be on MCOL by EOP tomorrow? I am hopeful I have the time. (And I've just realised it is Valentines day tomorrow.. more trouble.. for me sigh!)

I've just fixed getting notification of posts immediately via email on my topic now to.. which explains why I wasn't seeing any responses until checking back on the board and refreshing.

Ok anyway..

Yesterday I attempted to get some pictures, but unfortunately there was an RTA right on the roundabout and the weather was very poor. I did manage to drive through the garage though and the signs are different to the GMaps ones from 2018. I also think that they have changed since the day my vehicle was snapped by the ANPR in terms of there positioning. There are still only two signs on the left but it looks like a sign has been moved slightly on a pole and is actually in the road itself where the double yellow lines are (this is more obvious as a lorry has obviously hit it). They do look very similar/the same to the ones in the sun and kent online articles although they do look much bigger now but still with the same illegible text on them. Further it is absolutely crystal clear that the signs have been designed and manufactured in such a way as to not be readable in term of fonts and colours, the use of grey and very small font for the detail of the conditions of entry etc.

I have managed to grab the image off of google from the Sun's article and enhance it enough where you can actually read the text and can just about read the small print. I will upload that as it provides the ability to at least read all of the text on the sign. Having driven through with my passenger attempting to get pictures it is absolutely obvious that there is no way to read that sign in a car you would have to get out to read it and with a ladder. Further more you would need to walk on the road itself to read them. And by getting out you have stopped on the road and by their definition you have parked in an unmarked space blah blah. and bingo you win an immediate ANPR snapshot. Also the picture is from a fence it appears they have put up lots more signs on the far right as you drive in from the sandwich road entrance basically the fenced off area around the old garage which was at one time a hand car wash spot. You would never be even looking in that direction so there is absolutely no signs on entry before you have already driven onto the private land/road.

I tried again tonight to get some pictures but couldn't get in or out without risking getting stuck in a queue ... so will try again in the morning.


QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 08:23) *
- send a "to narrow the areas under dispute" request to gladstones, giving them 7 days to respond as the list of documents you give them they should have BEFORE raising a claim. it would be irresponsible of them to raise a claim before seeing them. WE KNOW THEY DO NOT HAVE THESE DOCS.

Hi nosferatu1001 thanks for your advice once again,

I've put together my "to narrow the areas under dispute" and have sent via email to their enquiries email address The following text is this correct ?

My Address
Date of sending

Gladstones Solicitors Limited,
The Terrace, High Legh Park,
Warrington Road,
High Legh.
WA16 6AA


Dear Sir/Madam

Ref: Claim No XXXXXXXX
(Your reference XXXXXX.XXXXX/UK CAR PARK)

I have sent a Subject Access Request to your client, UK Car Park Management Limited, and as such I object to the processing of my data, and request that it be restricted and any litigation put on hold for 25 days after the Data Protection Officer from UK Car Park Management Limited has replied to my Subject Access Request.

I also require copies of all documents that you intend to rely on in court so that I can gain a better understanding of the issues in dispute. I understand that you should have the necessary documents in order to have performed the due diligence on the matter prior to issuing a claim. Please provide these within 7 days.

Please use the above address for all correspondence.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Keeper

This post has been edited by MadAboutCCTVRoadScamers: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 01:36
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 02:11
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 18:33) *
That sign doesn't look like the ones visible on GSV, they are on posts that is on a mesh fence somewhere.
Please also describe the exact route taken that day.

Hi The Rookie

Yes you are correct. The sign pics attached is on the fences of the old garage after you enter the private road on the far right, it looks to me today that they have added a lot more of them on that fence, but on first glance it almost implies that there is parking available there as the signage uses the white P on a blue background clearly that is misleading in any case.

As for the exact route taken,

Entry onto the private land was from the sandwich road entrance, there are no signs at all prior to entry or in the immediate vicinity of the actual entrance (onto what is now know as the private land) which leads into the garage and McDonalds drive through. On the day of entry traffic was so bad vehicles were also coming out as well as in and some vehicles were stationary on the left and right hand sides of the entrance. My vehicle kept mostly left before pulling into the left hand lane behind a lorry/truck and in front of another lorry/tuck due to traffic from all directions and with the intention of going through the McDonalds drive thru. This is adjacent to the hashed HGV area next to the fuel pumps. No signs noticeable/visible at any point near here. The vehicle also pulled left in order to not get stuck across this hashed HGV area. However, what was thought to be the queue into the drive thru behind the truck ended up being a grid lock of lorries/tucks/cars and van all comming in and out of the garage and the MacDonalds drive through. As soon as the vehicle was able to leave it did so. One point I have not though of before here also is that getting out of the vehicle anywhere here really would have been dangerous and likely a health and safety issue maybe.
Ok I am really tired now.. please let me know if my revised defence is up to it or is pants sad.gif or still needs some more fixing/blowing up)

Oh one other thing, do I send all pics I have at the same time as the defence ? (can these be uploaded via mcol or via the email adddress ?)
Thanks in advance v.much for any and all help with this.
The Keeper





Defense Below -please one and all provide feedback as I need to file tomorrow before close of play I think? unless I can do that on the 15th (Saturday?)

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. The vehicle only stopped because of traffic, they were not waiting or parking, the sign saying no 'stopping' is clearly unenforceable as the driver will have had to stop in certain circumstances outside their control while waiting or parking is within their control.

2. Frustration of contract, due to the poor management of the car park the driver was unable to leave in a timely manner due to a the traffic volume and slow speed on site. UK CPM should not benefit from a failure of their own car park management.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears to be parked on the material date: it was not parked on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction to any traffic it was in a queue and blocked by traffic i.e. “grid locked”. This is not the fault of the driver but down to the failure of the traffic flow management on site as operated UK PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED.

4. The claimants signage is ambiguous and provides confusion, as the symbol used by the claimant on their signage is the highway code symbol for parking (A white P on a blue background is used by the claimant), which, to a reasonable person acting reasonably shall usually assume that parking exists to some extent in a location. The defendant has researched examples of parking signs as a comparison , none of which used by the claimant highlight “no parking” in-line with the highway code guidance and symbology.

5. At the time of issue, and since with further evidence gathered, there is no visible signage displayed in any sight lines or view of the driver of the vehicle in the exact vicinity where the vehicle had become stationary and was photographed. Furthermore, and in-line with the photo displayed by the claimant on the original PCN, no signage is readable/visible from the location the vehicle (when stopped/blocked in queue in traffic). This is misleading the motorist that parking was not permitted in the location in question.

6. The signage was forbidding and makes no offer to the motorist. There can therefore be no contract. The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “No parking on roadways”. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfill the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant, even if they were readable from a car on route down this private road.
The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgement that:

“If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

7. In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.

8. There is a want of a cause of action because the Claimant is trying to dress up 'prohibited' or forbidden parking (a matter only within the gift of a landowner to pursue, under the tort of trespass) as if it was a licence to park at a price. The idea that this firm can offer a parking licence allowing the very conduct that is, it seems, expressly forbidden by their principal (the landowner) is a nonsense, at best ambiguous and a contradiction in terms. With no consideration on offer, it is the Defendant's position that the elements of the sort of 'agreed contract' that was upheld in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 simply do not exist. That Supreme Court decision can also be fully distinguished due to the absence of brief, clear & prominent signs and legitimate interest, such that in the instant case, the penalty rule remains engaged.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional inflationary £60 “Contractual” costs amount with additional interest which has no explanation, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery, since this is already included in the £100 PCN.

11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has incurred legal representation costs specifically related to this claim, for which a £50 cost has been included in the claim.

12. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

13. In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s case is without merit and has no prospect of success. The Court is invited, therefore, to strike out the claim of its own initiative.

14. I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 10:15
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You cannot restrict data processing.
Not gonna happen if you have a live claim. That is for PRE ACTION only, and ONLY because youre "seeking debt advice" - nothing to do with a SAR. None

Just get the defence written. MSE Forum -> Newbies thread -> 2nd post (no post numbers there now, annoyingly) there are 16 defences. Crib the best you can.

If you acknowledged 5 days after the date of issue, and NOT earlier, then yuo have 33 days from date of issue. If the deadilne is a weekend you have until 4pm on the MONDAY to get it served on the court. NOT uploaded -you will EMAIL a PDF.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 11:35
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



HI Everyone,
I understand I am late with all of this and a bit rubbish at all this But I am trying hard smile.gif

Could I please request some feeback about my defence please?

I want to submit it but don't want to risk missing the deadline or simply screwing it up by making a stupid mistake on my DS.

And I've just been reading this post on MSE

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...m-gladstones/p4

I am thinking that I have missed some stuff, and now am getting nervous that I am likely to lose given how good this person was.

Thanks in advance any and all help appreciated
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 11:37
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



It looks good enough to go to me, rather than risk being late.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 15:25
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 10:15) *
You cannot restrict data processing.
Not gonna happen if you have a live claim. That is for PRE ACTION only, and ONLY because youre "seeking debt advice" - nothing to do with a SAR. None

Just get the defence written. MSE Forum -> Newbies thread -> 2nd post (no post numbers there now, annoyingly) there are 16 defences. Crib the best you can.

If you acknowledged 5 days after the date of issue, and NOT earlier, then yuo have 33 days from date of issue. If the deadilne is a weekend you have until 4pm on the MONDAY to get it served on the court. NOT uploaded -you will EMAIL a PDF.


Hi nosferatu1001,

Really appreciate your time. (There really is something a bit funky going on with the caching of pages or something as I didn't see your post whilst I was posting mine )

Ah I understand, I did indeed acknowledge a while after 5 days and the issue date was the 13/01/2020, that means I hit the 15/02/2020 SAT. So that is good to know.
Gotcha send PDF of defence document via email directly to the court email address. (Is that just the DS? are pics for the WS) ?
With regards to the letter to Gladstones, do I just forget that at this stage then? Or simply remove the restrict litigation section.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 11:37) *
It looks good enough to go to me, rather than risk being late.


Ok I going to send it in today via Email as directed by nosferatu1001

I'll go read the what happens next post on MSE now smile.gif

Should I state on the WS that I think thes signs and possibly the positions of them have changed since my vehicle was capture on ANPR.

Thanks v.much indeed for your input.
Do I start now on the WS?

This post has been edited by MadAboutCCTVRoadScamers: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 15:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MadAboutCCTVRoad...
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 16:41
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,694



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 10:15) *
You cannot restrict data processing.
Not gonna happen if you have a live claim. That is for PRE ACTION only, and ONLY because youre "seeking debt advice" - nothing to do with a SAR. None

Just get the defence written. MSE Forum -> Newbies thread -> 2nd post (no post numbers there now, annoyingly) there are 16 defences. Crib the best you can.

If you acknowledged 5 days after the date of issue, and NOT earlier, then yuo have 33 days from date of issue. If the deadilne is a weekend you have until 4pm on the MONDAY to get it served on the court. NOT uploaded -you will EMAIL a PDF.


Hi nosferatu1001

Quick question before I send in the DS

Is this what you meant by sending in the defence
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...m-gladstones/p1 third post on that page ?
As I can't find these instructions anywhere else, or in the newbie thread directly.

I.e. this
1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to [EMAIL="CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk"]CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.


Thanks
The Keeper

This post has been edited by MadAboutCCTVRoadScamers: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 16:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:58
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here