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
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 27th Apr 17, 2:25 PM
    • 37Posts
    • 15Thanks
    claxtome
    1 Big Car Park, 2 landowners, Valid parking ticket but Parking Charge Issued
    • #1
    • 27th Apr 17, 2:25 PM
    1 Big Car Park, 2 landowners, Valid parking ticket but Parking Charge Issued 27th Apr 17 at 2:25 PM
    Backgound
    1 big car park 2 landowners - local council and private (ESxxx) which is AOS member and should follow IPC guidelines)
    2 entrances from highway to ES part and 1 entrance from highway to Council part.
    Bought valid parking ticket in council part; drove to private part and parked.
    Didn't realise the car park covered 2 areas of land ownership.
    No signage at change of land ownership against AOS CoP guidelines
    Came back later in day with 'Notice to Driver' parking charge with words "council tickets not valid in this part of car park"

    NTK came back 39 days later. I ignored and didn't appeal

    Further letters and sent my response letter below...
    Received reply stating too late to appeal and continuing with chasing letters.

    Received LBC from Gladstones which I sent second reply below...

    Received MCOL court claim letter from Northampton early April

    Summary
    I had no idea there were 2 landowners for the car park and at the change of landownership there was no fence nor change of signage to indicate this. I have produced a DVD showing how it is possible to drive round the car park without going back onto a highway.

    Random letter to ES (not official appeal)

    You issued me with a parking ticket but I believe it was unfairly issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reason:

    The alleged contravention did not occur due to insufficient signage AND missing fence at change of Land Ownership
    Quite simply, the parking attendant got it wrong and the vehicle was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the fact a valid parking ticket for the car park was purchased and displayed but the signage and barriers did not indicate sufficiently there were 2 different areas of land. Please see attached evidence, copy of ticket used on the day and DVD video showing how you can drive between where I paid for the ticket and where I eventually parked without driving onto public roads and seeing any change of signage, as proof of my claim.

    If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.


    Gladstone Reply

    Your letter dated xxx mentions a ticket was not displayed when the alleged parking violation occurred. This is refuted as the last correspondence included both a copy of the ticket displayed and a copy of the actual parking charge notice from your client. The actual parking charge notice mentions a ticket being displayed. Note: A further copy of either can be sent if required.

    Your claim there is adequate signage on the land is disputed as can be seen in the attached photo, and previously sent DVD. The photo shows part of the route taken on the day in question and believe shows the boundary of the land managed by your client. As you can see there is no fence blocking entrance to the site nor any signage to indicate a change of land ownership.

    In conclusion if a fence or clear sign had been at the boundary it would have been easy to identify that you were entering land owned by someone else and that a different parking ticket may have been required. It was believed that the car was parked displaying a valid ticket for the time it would remain there.

    If you continue to pursue the claim further legal advice will be sought.
    Last edited by claxtome; 19-07-2017 at 1:18 PM.
Page 2
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th May 17, 10:40 AM
    • 988 Posts
    • 1,703 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I had missed you had replied twice Loadsofchildren123.
    With regard to the exolo argument. I am happy with the paragraphs i have for this and doubt i would find the time to get fully conversant with your, no doubt, a full and exhaustive argument.
    Originally posted by claxtome
    Agreed. You'd use my fuller argument at the actual hearing - no need for this sort of detail in the defence
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th May 17, 10:55 AM
    • 988 Posts
    • 1,703 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    1. The claimant has not provided enough details in the Particular of Claim to file a full
    defence.
    a) The Claimant has simply stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    b) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge.
    c) There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
    was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
    exchange of information.
    d) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
    charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
    Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being
    incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could
    give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
    e) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
    similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
    and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
    particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
    struck out.

    The Defendant asks that the court orders that the Claimant properly particularises the Claim Further and Better Particulars of Claim and
    gives the Defendant asks leave to amend the Defence should amendments be necessary following the further particulars.

    2. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol which binds all litigants equally.
    a) No initial information was sent to the Defendant for the following
    (i) Full particulars of the parking charges.
    (ii) Who the party was that are contracted with ES Parking.
    (iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
    (iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had
    their authority.
    (v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum
    (vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking
    and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
    (vii) To provide a copy of the signs that ES Parking can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all Photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
    This information should have been provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.
    b) The defendant asks the court to look at consider Para 4 13-15 on non-compliance and sanction, and points out
    that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
    action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
    own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.


    3. The defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
    landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    b) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
    vehicle parking at the location in question
    c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
    specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
    agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    4. No planning permission for signage [swap this round with para 5 - para 5 is your main defence, this is secondary]
    a) The Claimant is not entitled to rely on an illegal or immoral act in order to profit from it, pursuant to the doctrine ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In this matter, the Claimant does not have planning/advertisement consent in relation to its parking signage on the land in question (which are classed as “advertisements” under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). This is a criminal offence under Regulation 30 of those Regulations. Accordingly, as a matter of public policy the principle ex dolo malo non oritur action should apply – namely, the Claimant should not be allowed to found a cause of action on an immoral or an illegal act (in this case the unlawful signage). The rationale for this is set out in the case of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 and was reaffirmed in RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015). The Defendant also relies on Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507.
    b) In addition to the criminal offence committed by the Claimant, it is in breach of various statutory and regulatory provisions set out in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Regulation 3 – a breach of which is an offence under Regulation 5), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sections 62 and 68 and Schedule 2) and the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (Regulation 13). Again, the court should not lend its aid to the Claimant in founding a claim based on its unlawful and/or immoral conduct.
    c) Furthermore, it must be contrary to public policy for a court to enforce a contract whereby a party will profit from its criminal conduct and the Defendant will rely on ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338

    5. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the Defendant even if planning permission is in place
    a) Signs were forbidding in wording and not therefore capable of making any "offer", and were small in size and positioned high up on lampposts, too high to be easily seen from a car thus failing the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC, of which the Claimant is a member and with which it must comply CoP guidelines
    b) The car park has 2 different landowners; one area owned by the local council; the other privately owned and managed by the Claimant.
    c) The two different areas of the car park were not demarcated in any way and there are not signs or markings which indicate to drivers that they are passing from one are of the car park to the other, and that different rules of parking apply in each.
    (i) There was no sign at the entrance to the area of the carpark managed by the Claimant, which goes against its AOS CoP guidelines
    (ii) There was also no fence to stop travel between 2 areas
    (iii) There were no road markings or anything at all indicating that there were two distinct areas run by different entities, in which different parking rules applied.
    d) The defendant entered into the council part of the car park, where there was signage that informed him that it was a "pay and display" car park. He stopped to buy a ticket, and then drove a short distance on to park, not seeing any further signs.
    e) Upon going back to the carpark after being issued with the charge which forms the basis of this Claim, the Defendant has seen the one, high up, small sign purporting to indicate that new terms applied to that area of the car park which isn't visible from a car
    f) A driver who bought a legitimate ticket for Council area of car park but unknowingly ends up parking in the private area of car park can be penalised without knowing it (and vice versa). The Defendant argues this is a form of entrapment. IPC CoP Part B 14.1 says "You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance"
    g) There was no offer made by the Claimant's signage, nor was there any acceptance, and no consideration flowed - these being or consideration, which are the 3 elements required to form prove the existence of a contract.

    6. Threatening behaviour and breakdown/addition of costs and charges unclear
    a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that
    further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the
    debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
    calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25, and later an
    extra £35, to the £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the
    alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
    Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
    incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    b) The extra charges appear to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an
    attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs
    to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    d) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be
    recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 4th May 17, 1:55 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    claxtome
    Thank you once again Loadsofchildren123 for spending so much time in helping me so far. Your english (and others on here) is so much better than mine and you have the ability to articulate things so well.

    My defence submission will be going in the post this afternoon once I have printed it out.

    I will cut and paste the version I submitted later today or tomorrow. This is for 2 reasons - to hopefully help others and more importantly for me so people can hopefully help me prepare for the next phase.
    Last edited by claxtome; 04-05-2017 at 1:58 PM.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 6th May 17, 6:36 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    claxtome
    Defence Statement sent without heading at top->



    Preliminary Matters.
    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says
    1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.


    2. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
    there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the Particulars
    of Claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
    known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. It is believed the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest.
    Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:!
    1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
    2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
    disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.


    On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
    cause of action.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_____________________________ ______________________________________________

    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_____________________________ ______________________________________________


    I am XXXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and was the driver of the car that day.

    It was not cost effective to employ a solicitor in this case so I have had to arrange this defence myself, please excuse me if I fail to use the correct legal terms.

    The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

    1. The claimant has not provided enough details in the Particular of Claim to file a full
    defence.
    a) The Claimant has simply stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    b) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge.
    c) There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
    was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
    exchange of information.
    d) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’.
    e) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
    similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
    and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
    particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.


    The Defendant asks that the court orders that the Claimant properly particularises the Claim and gives the Defendant leave to amend the Defence should amendments be necessary following the further particulars.


    2. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol which binds all litigants equally.
    a) No initial information was sent to the Defendant for the following:
    (i) Full particulars of the parking charges
    (ii) Who the party was that are contracted with ES Parking
    (iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
    (iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had their authority
    (v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum
    (vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking
    and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'
    (vii) To provide a copy of the signs that ES Parking can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
    This information should have been provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.
    b) The defendant asks the court to consider Para 4 13-15 on non-compliance and sanction, and points out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.


    3. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
    landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    b) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
    vehicle parking at the location in question.
    c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
    specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.


    4. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the Defendant
    a) Signs were forbidding in wording and not therefore capable of making any "offer", and were small in size and positioned high up on lampposts, too high to be easily seen from a car thus failing the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC, of which the Claimant is a member and with which it must comply.
    b) The car park has 2 different landowners; one area owned by the local council; the other privately owned and managed by the Claimant.

    c) The two different areas of the car park were not demarcated in any way and there are no signs or markings which indicate to drivers that they are passing from one area of the car park to the other, and that different rules of parking apply in each.
    (i) There was no sign at the entrance to the area of the car park managed by the Claimant, which goes against its AOS CoP guidelines.
    (ii) There is no fence to stop travel between the 2 areas.
    (iii) There is no road markings or anything at all indicating that there were two distinct areas run by different entities, in which different parking rules applied.
    d) The defendant entered into the council part of the car park, where there was signage that informed him that it was a "pay and display" car park. He stopped to buy a ticket, and then drove a short distance on to park, not seeing any further signs.
    e) Upon going back to the carpark after being issued with the charge, which forms the basis of this Claim, the Defendant has seen the one, high up, small sign purporting to indicate that new terms applied to that area of the car park which isn't visible from a car.
    f) A driver who bought a legitimate ticket for Council area of car park but unknowingly ends up parking in the private area of car park can be penalised without knowing it (and vice versa). The Defendant argues this is a form of entrapment. IPC CoP Part B 14.1 says "You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance".
    g) There was no offer made by the Claimant's signage, nor was there any acceptance, and no consideration flowed - these being the 3 elements required to form a contract.


    5. No planning permission for signage
    a) The Claimant is not entitled to rely on an illegal or immoral act in order to profit from it, pursuant to the doctrine ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In this matter, the Claimant does not have planning/advertisement consent in relation to its parking signage on the land in question (which are classed as “advertisements” under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). This is a criminal offence under Regulation 30 of those Regulations. Accordingly, as a matter of public policy the principle ex dolo malo non oritur action should apply – namely, the Claimant should not be allowed to found a cause of action on an immoral or an illegal act (in this case the unlawful signage). The rationale for this is set out in the case of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 and was reaffirmed in RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015). The Defendant also relies on Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507.
    b) In addition to the criminal offence committed by the Claimant, it is in breach of various statutory and regulatory provisions set out in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Regulation 3 – a breach of which is an offence under Regulation 5), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sections 62 and 68 and Schedule 2) and the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (Regulation 13). Again, the court should not lend its aid to the Claimant in founding a claim based on its unlawful and/or immoral conduct.
    c) Furthermore, it must be contrary to public policy for a court to enforce a contract whereby a party will profit from its criminal conduct and the Defendant will rely on ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338.


    6. Threatening behaviour and breakdown/addition of costs and charges unclear
    a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25, and later an extra £35, to the £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
    Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
    incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    b) The extra charges appear to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an
    attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs
    to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    d) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be
    recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.



    Data Protection Act breach
    For the reasons set out already, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper’s details from the DVLA and to use them, and has breached the Defendant’s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing both. Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) is authority that misuse of personal data is a tort. Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 is authority that a reasonable sum of compensation would be £750. The Defendant reserves his rights in respect of these matters.



    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    • Kezza15
    • By Kezza15 8th May 17, 1:23 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Kezza15
    Have you submitted your defence now Claxtome? Any news?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th May 17, 4:00 PM
    • 13,634 Posts
    • 21,381 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Have you submitted your defence now Claxtome? Any news?
    Originally posted by Kezza15
    It was only being submitted 2 days ago (and that was a Saturday!). Things don't work that quickly!
    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 9th May 17, 9:18 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    claxtome
    Have you submitted your defence now Claxtome? Any news?
    Kezza15 I posted it on Thursday first class recorded. I am now waiting for the court to->
    "
    Court looks at claim and defence and makes a provisional allocation to the small claims track and sends the parties a Directions Questionnaire...
    "

    I am preparing the photos and other peices of evidence I will rely on. I hope to post links to these this week for further advice.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 11th May 17, 3:22 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    claxtome
    Had a reply in the post today saying they had received my defence and sent to claimant. Just have to wait to see what Claimant submits.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 11th May 17, 3:38 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    claxtome
    Can someone please reply to say they can see photos under the 3 links below and if I need to get more evidential photos on top of a DVD simulating the route I took to park on the day.

    Land boundary photos->
    http://https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xuog2mt27o2vetq/AACRVRVkyUMqDNNVz9dUqa33a?dl=0

    Council part photos->
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uqvi4mlf5jwp4mx/AABc9H9QYTNoCo0VDQRweEtpa?dl=0

    Private part photos->
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ciyt6cj4ru9vl0w/AAAh39vq-8wFbNirRabhwhVZa?dl=0
    Last edited by claxtome; 11-05-2017 at 3:45 PM. Reason: Typos
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th May 17, 4:36 PM
    • 13,634 Posts
    • 21,381 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    3, 2 and 2 photos can be seen in the links.

    How long do you intend your DVD to last for? I can't see a judge settling down, opening a bag of popcorn and watching an epic. Can't see him/her being that bothered with any of it.

    Will you be taking the necessary hardware with you to enable the 'showing'?
    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 11th May 17, 7:26 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    claxtome
    Thank you Umkomaas for replying. The links obviously work.

    The DVD is about 1 minute long at most. It shows the route from one part of car park to other taken on the day.

    My understanding with the court proceedings is that there are only the three of us in the room so can take a dvd player if that is deemed necessary by the court.

    I have seen other defences on here where a DVD was suggested. Do you think this is a bad idea?
    Last edited by claxtome; 11-05-2017 at 7:53 PM.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 15th May 17, 11:58 AM
    • 988 Posts
    • 1,703 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Put the DVD in.


    On the day, take a laptop or iPad with you, with a spare of the DVD to play, or with the video on the PC/iPad to play it.
    Worst case, judge says "what does it show, do I really have to look at it?". You say it is only 1 minute long, it has been served on the Claimant, and it is very important - indeed it is the crux of your defence - because it shows:


    1. that the 2 parts of the carpark are indistinguishable


    2. that when you enter the council end with the council sign and machine these signs are clear, and there is nothing telling you that this applies to only part of the carpark


    3. that when you pass from one part of the carpark to another, there is no sign or marking or barrier to tell you that it is no longer council-run but privately run and the council t&cs on their signs no longer apply, and no new sign telling you what t&cs apply. In fact, it is impossible to tell where the council t&cs end and the PPC's begin. it is therefore easy for a driver to enter into the council end, and proceed unwittingly into the "other" part of the carpark, and there is nothing to make it obvious at all that this is now managed by the PPC, with different t&cs and a different P&D machine


    4. that the PPC's signs are woefully inadequate, there are just a couple (or 1?) of tiny signs high up on a lamppost which are not readable from any distance, and one sign saying "pay station" (and a reasonable person entering from the council end of the carpark would assume that the signs are the council's)


    5. The video clearly shows in a visible way that no contract can have been offered by that signage.


    If they refuse your DVD that would be grounds for an appeal
    • Kezza15
    • By Kezza15 16th May 17, 10:27 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Kezza15
    Have you heard anything yet Claxtome? I have finished my defence and feel happy with it but cant fit it in the online box on mcol!
    Did you post yours?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th May 17, 10:50 PM
    • 48,342 Posts
    • 61,796 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You aren't meant to send the defence via MCOL, that's not what bargepole advises in the NEWBIES thread post #2.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 17th May 17, 6:00 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    claxtome
    Kezza15 Still waiting to hear - waiting game ;-)

    I posted my defence so the formatting is correct - make sure you get a certificate of posting and probably better to send it recorded delivery.
    Have seen other threads suggesting to email it.
    • Kezza15
    • By Kezza15 17th May 17, 11:45 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Kezza15
    Good luck, hope you get a good outcome.
    I am posting mine today.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 18th May 17, 11:05 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    claxtome
    Received the Directions Questionaire - typical one for Gladstones. I know how to fill it out (read the newbie sticky) and will do this tomorrow.

    Other things gleamed ->
    1) Found out the landowner is Iliad by looking at planning applications.
    2) The landowner has planning permission for it to be used as a temporary car park until 2021
    3) There was planning permission for the signage on the day I parked but it has since run out on Feb 24th 2017

    I am researching merits of->
    1) a Part 18 request and/or a SAR to send to the Claimant (ES Parking) for photos taken of my car, signage in place on day etc.
    2) a SAR to DVLA to check when they were contacted

    Any hints/tips/comments are welcome
    Last edited by claxtome; 18-05-2017 at 11:11 PM. Reason: Typos
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th May 17, 11:40 PM
    • 48,342 Posts
    • 61,796 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    SAR to the PPC? Yes, even though you might need to pay £10 if they ask for that.

    The DVLA do not need a SAR, just an email asking.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 22nd May 17, 11:46 AM
    • 988 Posts
    • 1,703 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Rule 18 doesn't actually apply to small claims. However, many of the PPC solicitors don't realise this, so worth putting it in anyway.


    I haven't refreshed my memory today, but the relevant part of Rule 27/18 (or the practice directions of the same number) say that in a small claim it is in the judge's discretion to order more information. So I think send the Pt 18 Request to the Claimant and at the same time send it to the court with a letter pointing out the relevant rule, explaining why the information is necessary (should have been produced before proceedings even issued under para 6(c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct) and is necessary for you to have a full understanding of the claim and to defend it properly, and asking the court to order the C to answer it.


    I think the DQ you've received may well have been sent to you by Gladstones. In which case ignore it and wait for the court to send it to you. Gladstones do this, presumably to try to get you to do things quicker than you should. Just wait until the court sends it to you with an order saying the date by which you must return it.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 22nd May 17, 7:48 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    claxtome
    Thanks for the advice Loadsofchildren123 and Coupon-mad.

    You are right the DQ was a copy of what as sent to the court by the PPC. I am waiting to receive from the court my official DQ form to fill out.
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

3,090Posts Today

8,339Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin