Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • DS90
    • By DS90 19th Nov 16, 10:41 PM
    • 33Posts
    • 21Thanks
    DS90
    UK CPM PCN received
    • #1
    • 19th Nov 16, 10:41 PM
    UK CPM PCN received 19th Nov 16 at 10:41 PM
    Hi,

    Driver received a PCN from UK Car Park Management (IPC firm) last week for ‘not displaying a valid permit’. This is the second time receiving one of these (won the previous thanks to the wonderful advice on this forum) so I'm largely comfortable with the process. I have gone through the Newbies thread again and read around the key current issues (such as appealing to IAS or not), so I’m fairly clear on what to do next. I’m hoping somebody could clarify a couple of things, though.

    The PCN states that appeals must be made within 21 days, rather than the usual 28, so is the template letter in the Newbies thread actually an appeal or is it a kind of pre-emptive defence against the unfair nature of the IPC’s process? Because the template doesn’t explicitly state that this an appeal. I appreciate it says to use the letter verbatim, but if it is acting as an appeal, is it worth including extra defences? I know it will be immediately rejected, but my thinking is that I want to deter them from ever pursuing this in court, which I know is unlikely but I’d rather reduce the risk. I ask because the driver had express permission from the owner of the space to use it. It is a small residential building with allocated parking, so presumably the space’s owner has a legal prerogative that overrides the PPC’s ‘contract’? I found this issue in another thread and wonder if the same applies in my case (can't provide the url as a newbie, but the thread title is 'CPM Parking Charge Notice - no parking outside of a designated area'). The template also, though it contends that no keeper liability has been established, doesn't explicitly state that this is on behalf of the keeper. Is this relevant in improving the chances that they forget the NTK?

    Also, like the example above, the driver is not the registered keeper, but is it okay to proceed with contact with the PPC acting as the keeper, as per the advice from Fruitcake in that thread? And should the driver use their name and address or the registered keeper’s?

    Lastly, the PPC in question is no longer a listed member of the BPA, but they continue to display the BPA’s logo on both the PCN and their website. Can I get them into trouble with the BPA/DVLA for this? They also have the IPC logo on the PCN, but it has the wrong name: it says ‘Independent Parking Committee’ as opposed to ‘International Parking Community’, which is the acronym used on the IPC’s website. They are listed as members on the website, though. Any action that can be taken on that?

    Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick regarding the template letter. Many thanks for any advice.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Aug 17, 11:57 PM
    • 54,098 Posts
    • 67,766 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bumping this again for us to see/comment on tomorrow...!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DS90
    • By DS90 12th Aug 17, 10:39 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    DS90
    One last ditch bump! I'll be printing and posting this afternoon. Many thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Aug 17, 12:18 PM
    • 54,098 Posts
    • 67,766 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks good to me. Also email a copy to the CCBC, to be sure they don't lose it (has been known).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 12th Aug 17, 1:16 PM
    • 825 Posts
    • 1,572 Thanks
    Johnersh
    DEFENCE

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

    7. The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.


    **NOTES FOR TEMPLATE USERS**
    (a) if you OWN your property you should refer to the freehold and replace references to the lease
    (b) Check the reference to the IPC - not all parking companies are members of that body
    (c) Check the reference to an allocated bay - does this apply in YOUR circumstances?
    Last edited by Johnersh; 18-09-2017 at 9:46 AM. Reason: Edits to typos
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Aug 17, 1:42 PM
    • 54,098 Posts
    • 67,766 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Love that defence with headings, Johnersh, very succinct. Must add it to the NEWBIES thread examples!

    Saw one typo:

    A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been give.
    Can you suggest (do you feel it is needed?) that we also have defence wording pointing out that even if the court finds there can be a charge, the POFA prescribes a mandatory ceiling of the sum on any compliant NTK, disallowing any double recovery. And that the full charge of £100 already includes a significant sum in profit (so, since this business model includes significant profit, there can be no damages) as was found in the Beavis case where no added costs where pursued. And the Judges stated that PE would not have been able to recover damages in any case, and their £85 charge was not a matter of damages.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-08-2017 at 1:45 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 12th Aug 17, 2:21 PM
    • 1,297 Posts
    • 2,574 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Brilliant, Johnersh. I'm bookmarking that one for future reference.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 13th Aug 17, 11:42 PM
    • 825 Posts
    • 1,572 Thanks
    Johnersh
    @coupon - it can be added. The defence works, but I can see why you may want to expand/clarify.

    It is implicit in 5.1 insofar as the claimant is limited to Pofa, that they can only recover what Pofa allows. At 10 and 11 the sums then claimed are denied (usually £160 by then) and interest on that.

    Under the county court rules, the interest may well accrue on £100 if awarded, but not a greater sum than they are permitted to recover!
    • maria212
    • By maria212 6th Sep 17, 10:12 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    maria212
    DEFENCE

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Claimant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

    7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.


    **NOTES FOR TEMPLATE USERS**
    (a) if you OWN your property you should refer to the freehold and replace references to the lease
    (b) Check the reference to the IPC - not all parking companies are members of that body
    (c) Check the reference to an allocated bay - does this apply in YOUR circumstances?
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    I know this is quite random but could I add the below to my defence, would it make sense?

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Sep 17, 11:12 AM
    • 1,297 Posts
    • 2,574 Thanks
    Lamilad
    I know this is quite random but could I add the below to my defence, would it make sense?
    Yes, this is one of the defence formats recommended by the NEWBIES thread - which everyone is advised to read before preparing a defence.
    • DS90
    • By DS90 1st Jan 18, 10:12 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    DS90
    Hello again everyone. Thanks for your comments several months ago regarding my defence. Unfortunately I had run out of time and had to get the thing posted so I couldn't incorporate any of Johnersh's great defence.

    I'm now at the beginning of the end and it's time to produce court documents. I've spent all afternoon and evening combing the forums, reading all of the Newbie links and trawling through the relevant threads.

    This has proven a little overwhelming as there is just so much information available and all of it is unique to each case in question. So is anyone able to just nudge me back on track and give me a quick few pointers on what I'm supposed to do at this stage? I need to compile my witness statement and evidence bundle. I am confused about a skeleton argument - is this incorporated into the witness statement? It seems to me that the two will be saying identical things?

    I'm extremely prone to prolixity (as was evident in the first draft of my defence!) and I want to make these documents succinct and persuasive.

    Many thanks as ever.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 2nd Jan 18, 8:10 AM
    • 518 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    claxtome
    So is anyone able to just nudge me back on track and give me a quick few pointers on what I'm supposed to do at this stage? I need to compile my witness statement and evidence bundle. I am confused about a skeleton argument - is this incorporated into the witness statement? It seems to me that the two will be saying identical things?
    Witness statement is different to a skeleton argument.
    You need to submit your witness statement and evidence bundle by the date given in your court document.
    You don't need to produce a skeleton argument. It is your choice if you produce one. If you do produce one it is sent a day or two before your court date.

    Differences between them and why submit a skeleton argument (skeleton)
    A witness statement is what you saw/did on the day and refers to your evidence bundle.
    It doesn't include legal arguments.
    These should be left to your skeleton or stated previously in your defence.
    A skeleton, I think of as, a summary of your case.
    It is what you would say on the day but written down.
    You start with your main defence argument and work downwards.
    It refers to all your other documents and any legal arguments.
    It also refutes their evidence and witness statement.

    Hope this helps.

    The NEWBIEs sticky post #2 explains the differences as well.
    • DS90
    • By DS90 3rd Jan 18, 5:22 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    DS90
    Perfect explanation, thanks a lot Claxtome.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jan 18, 9:45 PM
    • 54,098 Posts
    • 67,766 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Use Johnersh's words in your WS and/or skeleton argument, and show us. No running out of time...
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DS90
    • By DS90 7th Jan 18, 5:54 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    DS90
    Use Johnersh's words in your WS and/or skeleton argument, and show us. No running out of time...
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks, CM. I have used Johnersh's post in my WS, and will use it as the basis for my skeleton argument, which I'll write once I receive their evidence bundle, etc.

    Here is my witness statement. Is it too long? Do I need to make reference to legal evidence here? I know it is explained that generally the WS is not the place for this, but it seems most of the examples on the forum contain at least the most pertinent legal arguments in the WS.



    I, NAME, Defendant in this case, deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

    1. This matter relates to a parking charge issued to my vehicle (registration: XXXX) on DATE. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of this vehicle.

    2. I confirm that my vehicle was parked in a bay belonging to ADDRESS. The vehicle was parked there by invitation from the tenant residing at this address at the material time.

    3. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle is insured for several people to drive it at any time (see ITEM X). The claimant has offered nothing in the way of evidence as to the identity of the driver and if they wish to pursue the Defendant as driver rather than keeper, then they must produce strict proof.
    a. In light of this, the claimant may only pursue the defendant as keeper of the vehicle in strict adherence to the stipulations outlined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012).
    b. It is averred that the claimant has failed to do this on numerous points, not least of all, regarding the location of the incident as recorded on the original Parking Charge Notice, as well as the subsequent Notice to Keeper (NTK), which is entirely incorrect.
    i. In their NTK, the claimant vaguely alleges that they are authorised to manage this area, ‘at St Dunstan’s’, ‘by our client’ (see ITEM X, NTK). Firstly, no evidence of this authority has ever been provided, despite numerous requests having been made by the defendant (see ITEMS xyz); secondly, this charge was not issued in St Dunstan’s, but on Station Road West, Canterbury. As can be seen on ITEM X, St Dunstan’s is an entirely different area of Canterbury, half a mile away from the actual site in question. Quite how the claimant has authority from a single ‘client’ to operate on an area this large on a singular basis, which somehow includes a residential building in a different postcode, is particularly perplexing.
    c. Furthermore, the claimant may allege that there is a reasonable presumption that the registered keeper was also the driver, allowing them to circumvent the regulations of POFA 2012. The defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law that the keeper is the driver. The defendant denies that the keeper is obliged to name the driver to the private parking firm (despite the claimant’s assertion in ITEM X). POFA 2012 makes no such requirement for a keeper to do this.
    i. The claimant may seek to rely on the findings of Elliot V Loake (1982) in alleging that the keeper can be presumed to have been the driver. In this criminal case, forensic evidence was produced to a criminal standard. Therefore, the same logic can absolutely not be applied in this instance.

    4. The driver arrived at the address late on the evening of DATE, and the vehicle remained parked in the bay overnight.

    5. Despite being a genuine visitor to the building, with permission granted to use the relevant parking bay, a parking charge was issued to the vehicle the following morning.

    6. As the claimant has repeatedly failed to clarify the nature of the claim, the defendant has assumed that it relates to an alleged breach of contract.

    7. Therefore, liability for the alleged debt is disputed in its entirety based on the well-established legal principle of primacy of contract: the agreement (ITEM X) that exists between the tenant and their landlord extends to the use of the specified parking space and overrides any purported contract conveyed by the claimant’s insufficient, demonstrably illegible signage (Items X). The tenant’s contract makes no assertion that a permit must be displayed to use the bay, nor that a penalty of £100 must be paid in the event of a failure to do so (Item X, pages xyz). The tenancy agreement’s lack of specificity on any conditions related to parking in the relevant bay can only be construed that none of the restrictions asserted by the claimant apply.
    a. Regarding signage: the defendant argues that the signage in situ at the time of the alleged parking contravention was woefully insufficient in conveying the terms of any alleged contract, particularly the most onerous, i.e., the £100 penalty.
    b. ITEMS XYZ demonstrate that it is impossible to read the signs after dark, which, given the time of year of this particular incident, is any time after 16.30pm (see ITEMS X, pics). Moreover, the majority of the signs on site are completely invisible from the route taken by the driver, from entering the car park, to parking in the relevant bay, to walking into the building (SEE ITEM X, MAP). Only two signs are potentially visible: the entrance sign, which is demonstrably small, unlit, and illegible from the driver’s seat of a moving vehicle (and which is also placed on a junction equidistant between the car park in question and another, opposite, belonging to a different property {see ITEM X, MAP}); the second, that positioned near to the vehicle in question when parked, but which is not in any way facing in the direction of access to the parking bay {and is also unlit and illegible after dark, SEE ITEM X, PIC}).
    c. On this matter, the defendant defers to the ruling of ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any alleged breach of parking terms were clear – both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    i. ITEMS XYZ clearly demonstrate that the signage in this instance was deficient in number, distribution, wording, and lighting, to reasonably convey a contractual obligation to which a driver could wilfully agree.
    ii. The residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkyingEye distinguished.

    8. I contend, therefore, that the tenant’s agreement provides an unfettered right to park in their assigned bay for themselves and their invited guests. This cannot be superseded, altered, or ignored by a parking management company post hoc.

    9. I believe that any parking management company with a legitimate interest in protecting the parking rights of a residential space – which is surely their only purpose – would immediately rescind any charges issued to residents and their legitimate visitors.

    10. In this belief, therefore, I appealed, as the keeper of the vehicle, on X DATE (ITEM X).

    11. My appeal was rejected on the false grounds that appeals must be made by the driver (see ITEM x).

    12. With the rejection of this initial appeal, no offer of independent arbitration was made, contravening the Codes of Practice of the International Parking Community (IPC, a parking trade body to which the claimant belongs), the British Parking Association (BPA, a parking trade body to which the claimant formerly belonged), the DVLA, and flaunting the European Directive on Alternative Disputes Resolution.

    13. An offer to appeal to an independent arbitrator was only made on DATE, in the claimant’s Notice to Keeper (NTK, ITEM X), which completely ignored the fact that an initial appeal had already been made and rejected. The NTK explains, ‘If we reject the appeal, you will be provided with the contact details of the Independent Appeals Service.’ As can be seen from ITEM X, no such provision was made following the rejection of my initial appeal.

    14. It should be noted at this point that the ‘Independent Appeals Service’ (IAS), which the IPC utilises as its alternative dispute resolution, has a prominent reputation of biased rulings in favour of parking operators. Evidence supporting this assertion is readily available in the public domain, and appeals made by motorists through this service are largely futile. Unlike the equivalent service, offered by the BPA, ‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ (POPLA), the IAS lacks any independent scrutinising body, and it defies the usual methodology of an ADR service by expecting the consumer (rather than the claimant) to bear the burden of proof, and by using anonymous ‘assessors’, contrary to usual ADR rules.
    a. Statistics show that in the twelve months ending 31st March 2015, 52.65% of appeals made to POPLA were allowed, while 47.35% were refused. For the IAS, however, only around 20% of appeals were upheld, with the opposing 80% refused in favour of parking operators.
    b. Crucially, the IPC, who utilise the IAS, is a company formed and directed by Misters Will Hurley and John Davies, who, incidentally, are the same individuals who run Gladstones Solicitors (SEE ITEMS XYZ, Companies House data), the claimant’s current representative (and a prolific agent working on behalf of parking management companies in the small claims court). Any opportunity of a fair review of one’s appeal under the IAS is absolutely lost, since it is clearly in the best interest of the IAS to refuse motorists their appeals, allowing Gladstones Solicitors to pick up the debts and take the cases to small claims court.

    15. Therefore, I contend that no independent arbitration service was ever offered, and no reasonable efforts were made to resolve this dispute outside of court. It can clearly be seen from my own correspondence that attempts were made to acquire further details regarding the particulars of this debt and its validity, but these were met with predominantly automated replies.

    16. The majority of the correspondence received from the claimant, their debt recovery partners, and their representation, has been threatening, misleading, and in several instances, absolutely duplicitous (ITEMS XYZ, letter from CPM; DRP and Gladstones masquerade; threats to credit rating, etc.)

    17. Accordingly, it is maintained that the defendant has no liability for this debt and that the claimant has acted immorally and deceitfully on several occasions, pursuing the alleged debt in an aggressive and intimidating fashion, with the singular intention of coercing the debt from the defendant with continued threats of legal action. No effort was made whatsoever to address the very reasonable assertions made by the defendant that the driver had every right to park in the bay in question through invitation by the leaseholder; if this particular parking management company truly aimed to protect the rights of residents, this matter could have been resolved amicably and swiftly, without the need of involving the courts.

    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
    SIGNED
    DATE
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jan 18, 12:29 AM
    • 54,098 Posts
    • 67,766 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The tenant!!!8217;s contract makes no assertion that a permit must be displayed to use the bay, nor that a penalty of £100 must be paid in the event of a failure to do so (Item X, pages xyz). The tenancy agreement!!!8217;s lack of specificity on any conditions related to parking in the relevant bay can only be construed that none of the restrictions asserted by the claimant apply.
    The above is very important and was buried in #7. I would have it higher, with its own number.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DS90
    • By DS90 8th Jan 18, 1:04 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    DS90
    The above is very important and was buried in #7. I would have it higher, with its own number.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you. Other than that it's acceptable?
    • DS90
    • By DS90 8th Jan 18, 5:53 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    DS90
    Quick question: the Newbies thread recommends 'a copy of the Beavis case sign as a comparison to show how awful the small print sign was in yours case' to include in your evidence bundle. Any suggestions on where to find a copy of this? It would be extremely useful as a comparison.

    Many thanks!
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 8th Jan 18, 6:48 PM
    • 518 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    claxtome
    Just Google it. I found it quite easily
    • DS90
    • By DS90 8th Jan 18, 7:01 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    DS90
    Just Google it. I found it quite easily
    Originally posted by claxtome
    Thanks, Claxtome - you're right! I thought it might be buried somewhere more specific, but it's on the Prankster blog.
    • DS90
    • By DS90 16th Jan 18, 6:30 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    DS90
    Hi all.

    Ten days to go so I'm putting together my skeleton.

    The Gladstones 'bundle' (21 pages total) arrived a day late and I'm just working over their Witness Statement. I was hoping I might be able to get some advice on some of the issues they've raised. I think my inexperience has allowed me to become a little worried by the arguments they've made. I'm still confident in the strength of my case, but I'm not confident that I can persuade a judge of that in the face of an experienced solicitor.

    These are some of the issues they raised that I'd appreciate some advice on, please.

    1) They cite Link v Blaney (C9GF03Q9)(May 2017), paragraph 22: 'whereby it was held that the landowner's rights were subject to regulations brought in from time to time and therefore "any tenancy agreement...must be subject to it as well". In light of this, any right the Defendant alleges may have been given to them to park would have always encumbered as the Landlord could not have given a right which was not theirs to give.' This is their wording.

    2) They cite Alder v Moore 1961: 'The court concluded that one should consider the obligations imposed by the agreement, not the terminology used i.e. the agreement's substance, not form.'

    They use this to support their assertion that 'The rules of interpretation require simply that the parties knew of their obligations to one-another. The Defendant was offered to use the Land and thereafter either follow the rules and park for free or in breach of the rules agree to pay £100.' Their wording.

    3) ParkingEye v Somerfield (2011): '"If this is the price payable for the privilege, it does not seem to me that it can be regarded as a penalty[...]"'.

    I'm not arguing that it is a penalty. Any thoughts?

    4) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000: 'What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant didn't see the signs I submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the COurt of Appeal case of [Vine etc.}...'

    5) They say: My Company has included a claim for costs as its right on issuing proceedings. the costs are claimed in accordance with CPR 27.14 and CPR 45.'

    What exactly can they claim in the small claims court, and how can I challenge it? They make a similar point further on about claiming costs for time and materials used in facilitating the recovery of the debt. They ask that these costs be awarded as damages.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

7Posts Today

4,237Users online

Martin's Twitter