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
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 25th Jan 17, 12:49 PM
    • 61Posts
    • 19Thanks
    thismakemesad
    SIP Parking / Gladstones Court Claim / Defence Stage
    • #1
    • 25th Jan 17, 12:49 PM
    SIP Parking / Gladstones Court Claim / Defence Stage 25th Jan 17 at 12:49 PM
    Good afternoon all,

    A parking ticket was received last year (14/10/16) on Cable Street Manchester - In this circumstance the driver was in Manchester and paid for 3 hours parking. the driver was late back due to a hold up at work, But they made it back within the hour. There is now a final reminder on the ticket.
    The bill now stands at £125 but because it has been left so long I don't think they will listen to anything as it is so far past the ticket. Any advice??

    Does anybody know the landowner so I could email and explain the situation? I've heard that gets better results?
    Last edited by thismakemesad; 10-05-2017 at 11:52 PM. Reason: New information
Page 5
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 2nd Oct 17, 3:51 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Okay, I think I have my witness statement. Please could anybody comment with any advice?
    I have attached my exhibits as a dropbox link in case anybody wants to read and see what the exhibits are exactly:

    I am XXXX XXXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

    This matter relates to a pay & display car park and on the material day, XX/XX/XXXX, where the driver bought a ticket on land at Cable Street without realising they were entering into valid contract due to poor signage at the site.

    As suggested with Exhibit number 1, I have not received proper contact from The Claimant to identify the driver nor received any evidence of a Notice to Keeper (NTK) - See defence point 1c. alongside Exhibit number 2 and 3 to further back up points in section 1 of the defence.

    Section 2 in the defence shows how The Claimant has no right to relief from the keeper of the vehicle as they have failed to comply with the requirements of the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (Exhibit number 2).

    Section 3 - there are a number of cases which support my defence point, that a keeper cannot be held liable for a parking charge issued out-with the POFA (Exhibit number 14, pages 12 and 13), these include a persuasive Appeal case in Excel v Smith (exhibit number 4) and also recent decisions on the same fact of law, in Excel v Lamoureux (exhibit number 5) and VCS v Quayle (exhibit number 6).

    The main points in this defence case is in relation to the lack of signage and fencing around the site to clearly inform about the intentions of the land as explained in Section 4 of the defence.

    The Beavis vs ParkingEye 2015 case (Exhibit number 15) relates directly to part of this case regarding the signs. It was ruled in the Supreme Court that signs had to be clearly displayed with all text visible as shown in Exhibit number 8. However, The Claimant has a sign displayed as Exhibit number 7. A defiance of the IPC Code of Practice (Exhibit number 13).

    The driver had entered the car parking space directly from the road in a rush, and there were no readable signs in either directions to state any abiding contracts or or to suggest indeed it was a private car park at all. See Exhibit number 10 to see the space that the car in question was parked (bottom of the picture is the space). The driver was parked facing out towards the road and had reversed into the space. The only visible sign spotted via photographs and after the date in question is on the side of the wall to the left of Exhibit number 10. When parking the car is virtually impossible to notice when there are cars filling up that car park opposite and it is not even clear whether that car park is the same company owned. The spaces are poorly organised as shown in Exhibit number 11 and there is complete lack of fencing and entrance signs to suggest the land is private. Exhibit number 11 also shows how scarce the amount of signs at the site are, and the ones that are there are poorly positioned.

    Exhibit number 9 shows a potential entrance to the car park which is merely a guess even when revisiting the site. The fact that cars look invited by concrete lines on the floor identical to all other spaces laid out, to park in what would also appear to be an entrance (Exhibit number 11) creates confusion with any drivers attempting to use the site.

    Argument 4c. in the defence argues that the location has no entry signs is contrary to the IPC Code of Practice which can be seen in Exhibit number 13.

    Exhibit number 7 - The size of the font for the vital information on the signs, as mentioned in 4b. is unclear and all that seems large enough to read is how much the parking is. The information certainly cannot be seen anywhere near the vast majority of vehicles. Further to this point, the additional costs added above the fine appear to have been plucked from thin air as they are not stated in clear terms on the sign, nor have any costs been incurred from debt collectors services.

    After complying with the claimants Letter Before Country Court Claim which stated that The Keeper did not believe the letter was fully compliant with the Practice Direction (Exhibit Number 1), I sent a response on the 16/04/17 (See exhibit number 12) I received no reply and The Claimant has failed to supply any evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised.

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

    Signed:

    Date:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey2xen903r28431/AAAPAhLmj9QH21Ow5Of9atnFa?dl=0
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 5:55 PM
    • 51,711 Posts
    • 65,364 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The Beavis vs ParkingEye 2015 case (Exhibit number 15)
    It's not 'Beavis vs ParkingEye'.

    It's ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

    Be aware you don't have to file the entire Beavis judgement, only the page(s) or paragraphs that suit your case; e.g. in another current SIP case I've just listed for mlang88 all the points from the judgment that I could find which throw out SIP's attempt at double recovery, because £100 already undoubtedly comprises a huge majority in profit, even allowing for a few cases costing a little more in terms of 'robo-claim' territory (minor costs to an IPC member).

    Defendants need to debunk the myth from Gladstones, that added and unsubstantiated 'costs' can be somehow plucked out of thin air and bolted onto the claim ad infinitum when £100 is already huge.

    You might want to read other SIP threads like that one, to compare what others did, especially all the winners over the Summer (loads of Gladstones cases, all won).

    I would remove any admission about the driver being 'in a rush' as it doesn't assist you:
    The driver had entered the car parking space directly from the road in a rush,
    Oh, and like every other court statement, the WS needs to have all paragraphs numbered.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 02-10-2017 at 5:58 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.

    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 2nd Oct 17, 6:25 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad

    Be aware you don't have to file the entire Beavis judgement, only the page(s) or paragraphs that suit your case; e.g. in another current SIP case I've just listed for mlang88 all the points from the judgment that I could find which throw out SIP's attempt at double recovery, because £100 already undoubtedly comprises a huge majority in profit, even allowing for a few cases costing a little more in terms of 'robo-claim' territory (minor costs to an IPC member).

    Defendants need to debunk the myth from Gladstones, that added and unsubstantiated 'costs' can be somehow plucked out of thin air and bolted onto the claim ad infinitum when £100 is already huge.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I'm a little confused by this but I'll read some other threads to see what they say! Can you recommend any in particular? I'll cracking on finding the latest either way


    Oh, and like every other court statement, the WS needs to have all paragraphs numbered.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    It's weirdly all numbered in my document but only when you mentioned it did I realise it hasn't pasted it, how strange!

    THanks
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 2nd Oct 17, 6:54 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Just read the points you picked out for mlang88 and it was super helpful. I've included them in my witness statement so hopefully this will reduce the costs if we aren't successful, brilliant!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 2nd Oct 17, 7:04 PM
    • 4,734 Posts
    • 3,074 Thanks
    KeithP
    It's weirdly all numbered in my document but only when you mentioned it did I realise it hasn't pasted it, how strange!
    Originally posted by thismakemesad
    Are you using Word?

    If so you might want to read this thread:

    .
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 3rd Oct 17, 10:55 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    I'm not using word no, I'm on Pages for Mac, but I think it's okay this time on the thread
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 3rd Oct 17, 10:56 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Okay CM, I have added in your points from the other thread but just wondering if this is a wise way to do it?

    I am XXXX XXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

    1. This matter relates to a pay & display car park and on the material day, XX/XX/XXXX, where the driver bought a ticket on land at Cable Street without realising they were entering into valid contract due to poor signage at the site.

    2. As suggested with Exhibit number 1, I have not received proper contact from The Claimant to identify the driver nor received any evidence of a Notice to Keeper (NTK) - See defence point 1c. alongside Exhibit number 2 and 3 to further back up points in section 1 of the defence.

    3. Section 2 in the defence shows how The Claimant has no right to relief from the keeper of the vehicle as they have failed to comply with the requirements of the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (Exhibit number 2).

    4. Section 3 - there are a number of cases which support my defence point, that a keeper cannot be held liable for a parking charge issued out-with the POFA (Exhibit number 14, pages 12 and 13), these include a persuasive Appeal case in Excel v Smith (exhibit number 4) and also recent decisions on the same fact of law, in Excel v Lamoureux (exhibit number 5) and VCS v Quayle (exhibit number 6).

    5. The main points in this defence case is in relation to the lack of signage and fencing around the site to clearly inform about the intentions of the land as explained in Section 4 of the defence.

    6. The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case (Exhibit number 15) relates directly to part of this case regarding the signs. It was ruled in the Supreme Court that signs had to be clearly displayed with all text visible as shown in Exhibit number 8. However, The Claimant has a sign displayed as Exhibit number 7. A defiance of the IPC Code of Practice (Exhibit number 13).

    7 . The driver had entered the car parking space directly from the road, and there were no readable signs in either directions to state any abiding contracts or or to suggest indeed it was a private car park at all. See Exhibit number 10 to see the space that the car in question was parked (bottom of the picture is the space). The driver was parked facing out towards the road and had reversed into the space. The only visible sign spotted via photographs and after the date in question is on the side of the wall to the left of Exhibit number 10. When parking the car is virtually impossible to notice when there are cars filling up that car park opposite and it is not even clear whether that car park is the same company owned. The spaces are poorly organised as shown in Exhibit number 11 and there is complete lack of fencing and entrance signs to suggest the land is private. Exhibit number 11 also shows how scarce the amount of signs at the site are, and the ones that are there are poorly positioned.

    8. Exhibit number 9 shows a potential entrance to the car park which is merely a guess even when revisiting the site. The fact that cars look invited by concrete lines on the floor identical to all other spaces laid out, to park in what would also appear to be an entrance (Exhibit number 11) creates confusion with any drivers attempting to use the site.

    9. Argument 4c. in the defence argues that the location has no entry signs is contrary to the IPC Code of Practice which can be seen in Exhibit number 13.

    10. Exhibit number 7 - The size of the font for the vital information on the signs, as mentioned in 4b. is unclear and all that seems large enough to read is how much the parking is. The information certainly cannot be seen anywhere near the vast majority of vehicles. Further to this point, the additional costs added above the fine appear to have been plucked from thin air as they are not stated in clear terms on the sign, nor have any costs been incurred from debt collectors services. There was conclusion on this exact matter in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case as shown in Exhibit number 15 where I have collected highlighted points relevant to this case:

    “97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying. On the contrary, at least if the £85 is payable, it gains by the unauthorised use, since its revenues are wholly derived from the charges for breach of the terms.

    98. Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main
    objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...

    193. Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.

    198. The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.

    286. ParkingEye imposed the parking charge in order to encourage the prompt turnover of car parking spaces and also to fund its own business activities and make a profit.

    287. That legitimate interest would not justify the parking charge if it were out of all proportion to that interest, or, in other words, exorbitant. In deciding whether the charge was exorbitant, I think that the court can look at the statutorily authorised practice of local authorities in England and Wales and also the recommendations of the accredited trade association, the BPA.

    11. I was the will of Parliament when introducing the POFA Schedule 4 in 2012, that parking firms could not make hay by ‘double recovery’, which is why the only sum stated as recoverable in cases where the registered keeper is being pursued, is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. Both Trade Associations set a securing of £100 which is over and above the ‘healthy profit’ model used in ParkingEye vs Beavis.

    12. After complying with the claimants Letter Before Country Court Claim which stated that The Keeper did not believe the letter was fully compliant with the Practice Direction (Exhibit Number 1), I sent a response on the 16/04/17 (See exhibit number 12) I received no reply and The Claimant has failed to supply any evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised.

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

    Signed:

    Date:
    Last edited by thismakemesad; 03-10-2017 at 10:58 AM. Reason: Addding paragraph numbers
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 17, 1:57 PM
    • 51,711 Posts
    • 65,364 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bump - back to the top for comments...
    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.

    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 5th Oct 17, 1:19 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    I have a reply from Gladstones with their witness statement! And it's early... Unusual for them. Shall I scan it and add to this document so I can add some defence into the witness statement?
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 5th Oct 17, 2:05 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    URGENT! TIME DEADLINE TOMORROW!
    Gladstone's Witness Statement:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/drgku38u5n8e2s7/Gladstones_001%20WS%20copy.pdf?dl=0

    This made me nervous, but hopefully you guys will see things and pull it apart that I can't!
    Tomorrow is the last chance I will get to get my witness statement to the courts. I'm not sure if it can be emailed or whether it has to be taken/posted?

    Straight away I can see an error in the map they have provided. They have shown a completely different place to where the driver was parked. There are two car parks side by side and the driver was in the car park on the bottom right of the picture provided. I'm going to dig deeper but this is after a moment of flicking through.
    Last edited by thismakemesad; 05-10-2017 at 2:26 PM. Reason: More information
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 6th Oct 17, 11:43 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Sorry, just want to bump this before I submit today and to get some feedback on the Exhibits
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 8th Oct 17, 11:16 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    I'm trying to submit my witness statement to Gladstones via email but it isn't sending. Does anybody have any ideas why? There's an extension filter on it for the folder I'm trying to send through..

    I have submitted my WS to the court on Friday so fingers crossed it will be picked up on Monday.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 8th Oct 17, 11:42 AM
    • 40,515 Posts
    • 80,907 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I hope I'm not too late for you.

    Elliot vs Loake has been thrown out so many times by judges that parking scammers really should be penalised for trying it on.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/excel-lose-in-cardiff-judge-explains.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/excel-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

    The comments about the POFA stating that a keeper has to name the driver is an out and out lie.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 8th Oct 17, 11:51 AM
    • 7,413 Posts
    • 6,460 Thanks
    The Deep
    Two reasons to go for unreasonable behaviour costs

    https://keoghs.co.uk/keoghs-insight/aware/costs-orders-for-unreasonable-behaviour-in-small-claims
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 9th Oct 17, 1:40 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    You're not too late for my skeleton agreement if I can get it in there? WS is submitted though.

    Thanks guys!
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 17th Oct 17, 12:15 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Is there any way I can bump this thread? Hearing is on Monday and I'm in need of some help with the Skeleton. They have the driver down as being in a car park they were not parked in. The driver was in the neighbouring car park and feel I can pull it my way if I have this down as the first skeleton argument point in response to their witness statement.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Oct 17, 12:57 PM
    • 15,898 Posts
    • 24,643 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The last 3 posts in the following thread might help you in formulating a SA.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73274054#post73274054

    As far as I’m aware, a SA isn’t a required part of the small claims process. You could just use a crib sheet with the points you want to argue from your side, and refute/rebut from what has been said on the claimant’s side. Alongside each crib point you put the cross reference to whatever page/para you are referring to so you can easily access it and/or refer the judge to it.

    So this kind of ‘SA’ doesn’t have to be a masterpiece to present to the parties prior to the hearing.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 17th Oct 17, 1:38 PM
    • 332 Posts
    • 330 Thanks
    claxtome
    As far as I’m aware, a SA isn’t a required part of the small claims process.
    It isn't a mandatory requirement in the small claims court process. LoC, a legally trained member told me in my thread.
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 18th Oct 17, 10:11 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    So would I literally be able to put in the point about them showing evidence for the wrong parking space? Or would I need to create an SA for the whole of the witness statement? I feel I've said everything I need to in the WS but just want to start everything off with pointing out the wrong car park
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 18th Oct 17, 11:03 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Interesting development. I have just had a letter from Gladstones stating:

    "In accordance with CPR 27.9 our Client hereby gives notice that it will not be attending the hearing on 23.10.2017

    We confirm the court has been informed and that we have asked the Court to decide the claim in our Client's absence based on the evidence submitted."

    Any moves I can make on this?
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

2,942Posts Today

7,736Users online

Martin's Twitter