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
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 9th Jul 17, 12:37 PM
    • 81Posts
    • 40Thanks
    Jonathon365
    £860 Private Parking County Claim - Urgent Help!
    • #1
    • 9th Jul 17, 12:37 PM
    £860 Private Parking County Claim - Urgent Help! 9th Jul 17 at 12:37 PM
    Hello all ,

    On the 28/06/2017 the keeper of a vehicle received a claim form from First Parking to the amount of £860.00 (£800.00 claim + £80.00 fees). The claimant has signed off as First Parking LLP.

    Update 14/10/2017 - Witness Statement draft:


    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all for the following reasons:

    1.1 The Claim relates to 5 alleged parking events from vehicle (REG NUMBER) having been loaded at Lancaster University Campus (FULL ADDRESS HERE). These 5 events occurred on the following dates:
    07-03-2016
    04-04-2016
    26-04-2016
    04-05-2016
    09-05-2016
    First Parking are arguing I have breached Lancaster University Parking Policy and therefore bound by those terms creating a contractual charge.

    1.2. I was not made aware of the Lancaster University Parking Policy until after the said parking events had taken place. This was not provided to me in any University starter documentation that I would of received back in 2012 nor was communicated to me in the duration of my course.

    1.3. For each parking event, I did drive my vehicle onto Lancaster University property and stopped my vehicle for a very short duration. Whilst I cannot remember the particulars of each case, the intention of stopping was so that I can collect and then load bulky books and other documents from the University library into my vehicle.

    1.3. HHJ Charles Harris in Jopson v Homeguard (2016) held this distinction that “it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time”.

    1.4. HHJ Charles Harris provided a very detailed definition of 'parking' as opposed to a few minutes 'loading' and held: ''The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the defendant, loading awkward piece of furniture. [...]I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.''

    2.0. Exhibit A - The Lancaster University Parking Policy point 20 states "Where vehicles are being loaded or unloaded in other areas, including car parking areas, vehicles must not be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time. This includes moving students’ belonging in or out of campus accommodation".

    3.0. The claim is for £800 of charges which represent gross inflation and add-ons to the original charges that were £75.00 each.

    3.1. Under POFA Schedule 4 add-ons and additional charges are not allowed as part of any contract and are certainly not quantified on Lancaster University signage (Exhibit C) nor in the Lancaster University parking Policy.

    3.2. Add-ons and additional charges were also not applied in the complex case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis (2015). In this case, only the £85.00 value of the original ticket and no additional charges were pursued. The attempt made by First Parking is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims cost rules.

    4.0. I have never been presented with a contract showing the authority of First Parking to issue tickets on behalf of Lancaster University. I suspect any "contract" that is shown during the hearing will be self-authorisation, where First Parking have written to themselves saying they have authority to issue tickets. I challenge First Parking to prove they have genuine authorisation from the occupier Lancaster University and not just a self-generated approval.

    5.0. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissable under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

    Defence sent earlier in 2017:
    The claim is based on 5 parking violations:
    - 07/03/2016
    - 04/04/2016
    - 26/04/2016
    - 04/05/2016
    - 09/05/2016

    Due to the timing, The keeper is unsure how much he claim was initially worth but think they were each £75.00.

    All five violations took place during the keeper's final year of University at Lancaster University. The University adopt a strange parking policy where Students cannot apply for a permit unless you are a) disabled or b) extenuating circumstance why you need a car i.e. you have a job 30 miles from Campus. - The keeper did not meet any of the criteria to qualify for a permit.

    All 5 violations took place, where the car was parked under 10 minutes whilst the keeper accessed the Library printers. The keeper thought the chargers were unreasonable and was informed that you did not have to pay them.

    The keeper thought it had gone away, until they received the court claim letter last week. The biggest single issue is the keeper cannot remember the particulars of each case and the claim contains very little information to structure a defence around.

    The keeper had a look on these forums to build a defence but in all honesty there is information overload and they need bespoke support. Please can you help? They have submitted the Acknowledgement of Service and stated they will defend the claim.

    Below is the draft defence that they've built using the resources on this site: They urgently need support on this.


    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the ____ by Civil Enforcement Limited was not
    correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

    a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

    b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

    e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

    (i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    (ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    (iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    (iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Keeper
    (v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    (vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    (vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

    g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.!

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned further debt and damages.

    4. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Signed
    Date

    Thank you
    Last edited by Jonathon365; 14-10-2017 at 12:47 PM. Reason: Corrections
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Jul 17, 12:42 PM
    • 33,228 Posts
    • 17,176 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 9th Jul 17, 12:42 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Jul 17, 12:42 PM
    You need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving.


    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you


    If you have inadvertently used your real name in your forum name then you need to contact MSE to change it to something totally anonymous
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 9th Jul 17, 1:05 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    • #3
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:05 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:05 PM
    Done thank you
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 9th Jul 17, 1:05 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    • #4
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:05 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:05 PM
    The keeper has since formulated the following draft defence:

    2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
    3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this
    defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.
    4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a X
    registered number XXXX XXX
    5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of
    the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the
    driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at X on X, X,
    X, X and X. Purported Basis of Claim
    6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and
    correspondence, it appears to be the claimant's case that:
    a. There was a contract formed by the defendant and the claimant on X, X, X, X and X.
    b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
    d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified
    additional sums.
    e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the
    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association
    Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
    g. Further that the defendant has not paid the alleged debt.
    Rebuttal of Claim
    7. It is denied that:
    a. A contract was formed
    b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
    d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified
    additional sums.
    e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the
    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association
    Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
    g. That I am liable for the purported debt.
    8. It is further denied that I owe any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any
    debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply
    with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and
    vexatious.
    9. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.
    My Defence
    10. My defence will rely principally upon the following points:
    11. That the signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it
    clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute
    an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.
    12. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test
    of good faith.
    Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness
    requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or
    traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the
    customer.”
    13. Underlining that is Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the
    placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:
    18.3 You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are
    given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all
    the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they
    are easy to see, read and understand.
    14. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a
    contact and which met the specifications above.
    15. Section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators some of the
    common law principles of operating on someone else's land as a licensee. One such item is written
    authority - a written contract - to be there. It defines the elements of this written authority as follows:
    7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the
    written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the
    land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the
    management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for.
    In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either
    you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that
    you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the
    courts if necessary.
    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure
    that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action
    being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly
    defined.
    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any
    restrictions on hours of operation.
    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking
    control and enforcement
    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs.
    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
    16. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any
    event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a
    calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum
    sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.
    17. That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when
    compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if
    paid within 14 days.
    18. In the alternative, the attention of the court is drawn to para. 4(5) Schedule 4 Protection of
    Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper,
    where the keeper liability provisions have been properly invoked (which is expressly denied in this
    case) is that amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (whether issued in accordance with paras 8(2)c;
    8(2)d, 9(2)c or 9(2)d of the Act).
    19. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.
    20. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller
    claim.
    This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    Signed ______________________
    Dated 09-07-2017
    V1.01/2017
    Last edited by Jonathon365; 09-07-2017 at 3:15 PM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Jul 17, 1:17 PM
    • 33,228 Posts
    • 17,176 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:17 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:17 PM
    Done thank you
    Originally posted by jordan365
    Well...... You have made a typo if you mean you edited your OP.

    Didn't the keeper get the claim?

    Also it's the keeper sending in the defence!
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 9th Jul 17, 1:20 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    • #6
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:20 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:20 PM
    Revised and thank you, this is all new to me!
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Jul 17, 1:27 PM
    • 33,228 Posts
    • 17,176 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #7
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:27 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Jul 17, 1:27 PM
    No. Still reference to the driver in #4
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 9th Jul 17, 3:15 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    • #8
    • 9th Jul 17, 3:15 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Jul 17, 3:15 PM
    Amended - Thank you again
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jul 17, 3:56 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,096 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 9th Jul 17, 3:56 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Jul 17, 3:56 PM
    We presume that #1 of the defence no longer talks about 'Civil Enforcement Ltd' as the first draft did?

    Were all the occasions between 8am and 6pm, which are the permit 'applicable hours' there, according to their policy?

    https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/facilities/car-parking-policy/CARPARKINGPOLICY2015-16PRINCIPALDOCUMENT.pdf

    Collecting bulky printing could be argued as 'loading' and the policy at #20, allows cars to stop for loading, as long as they are not unattended for MORE THAN 10 minutes at a time. You are saying your car was not left for more than that time, so that should be your main defence point:

    20. Unloading / loading of vehicles
    [...] Where vehicles are being loaded or unloaded in other areas, including car parking areas, vehicles must not be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time. This includes moving students’ belonging in or out of campus accommodation.
    In fact, if I were you then in your case (unusually) I would defend as DRIVER, unless it is likely that different drivers were using this car at University. I think to pretend you can't recall who might have been the driver, and then talk about loading bulky printed documents/files of work/books picked up and loaded into the car, in less than ten minutes on each occasion, from the adjacent library.

    I think not to say you were that driver, bearing in mind you know it was loading and you really want to argue the car wasn't there more than ten minutes each time, would be seen through by any Judge.

    So I would go with a far less generic defence, and for starters, I always advise people refrain from repeating the Claimant's case (why would we?!):

    2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
    3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence, as may be required, upon disclosure of the claimant's case.
    4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a X registered number XXXX XXX
    5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at X on X, X,
    X, X and X. Purported Basis of Claim
    6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and
    correspondence, it appears to be the claimant's case that:
    a. There was a contract formed by the defendant and the claimant on X, X, X, X and X.
    b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
    d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
    e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
    g. Further that the defendant has not paid the alleged debt.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-07-2017 at 6:02 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.

    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 11th Jul 17, 9:36 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Thank you and sorry if I am making rookie errors, I've got no experience of this.

    I believe all occasions were between 6am and 8pm, but because of the time lapse I cannot be 100% certain. I have changed #1 to say First Parking Limited.

    I would like to include in the first point that I was not 'served' any of the letters, as they were sent to an old address (my parents home). - Is this a point worth arguing?

    Are there any other points I can add to the defence below?

    1. The Claim Form issued on the ____ by First Parking Limited was not
    correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by ďFirst Parking Limited" (Claimantís Legal Representative)Ē.
    2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
    3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence, as may be required, upon disclosure of the claimant's case.
    4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a X registered number XXXX XXX
    5. The vehicle was parked on each occasion for under 10 minutes, whilst the driver loaded bulky printed documents/files of work/books from the adjacent library to the vehicle.
    6. Lancaster University Car Parking Policy #20 states that "Where vehicles are being loaded or unloaded in other areas, including car parking areas, vehicles must not be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time. This includes moving studentsí belonging in or out of campus accommodation."
    7. Lancaster University Car Parking Policy #20 therefore allows cars to be parked for loading, as long as they are not unattended for 10 minutes.

    Many thanks!
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jul 17, 10:01 AM
    • 33,228 Posts
    • 17,176 Thanks
    Quentin

    I would like to include in the first point that I was not 'served' any of the letters, as they were sent to an old address (my parents home). - Is this a point worth arguing?....
    Originally posted by jordan365


    The charges would be sent to the address they obtained from dvla.


    Did you change your dvla details at the time from your home to the uni??
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 11th Jul 17, 11:05 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    No I've never touched my DVLA details. Even so, surely this sort of correspondence should require a signature to confirm it has been received?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jul 17, 11:14 AM
    • 33,228 Posts
    • 17,176 Thanks
    Quentin
    No I've never touched my DVLA details. Even so, surely this sort of correspondence should require a signature to confirm it has been received?
    Originally posted by jordan365
    No. Where did you get that from?

    You were misinformed.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 6:08 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,096 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Add #8:

    8.1. In the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, heard on Appeal in Oxford Court by Circuit Judge HHJ Charles Harris QC and therefore a persuasive finding as well as being on all fours with my case, it was held that: “it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time”.

    8.2 HHJ Harris provided a very detailed definition of 'parking' as opposed to a few minutes 'loading' and held: ''The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. [...]I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.''
    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.

    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 13th Jul 17, 2:57 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Thank you. Please see below for revised version:

    Is there anything else I should add?

    1. The Claim Form issued on the ____ by First Parking Limited was not
    correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “First Parking Limited" (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.
    2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
    3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence, as may be required, upon disclosure of the claimant's case.
    4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a X registered number XXXX XXX
    5. The vehicle was parked on each occasion for under 10 minutes, whilst the driver loaded bulky printed documents/files of work/books from the adjacent library to the vehicle.
    6. Lancaster University Car Parking Policy #20 states that "Where vehicles are being loaded or unloaded in other areas, including car parking areas, vehicles must not be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time. This includes moving students’ belonging in or out of campus accommodation."
    7. Lancaster University Car Parking Policy #20 therefore allows cars to be parked for loading, as long as they are not unattended for 10 minutes.
    8.1. In the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, heard on Appeal in Oxford Court by Circuit Judge HHJ Charles Harris QC and therefore a persuasive finding as well as being on all fours with my case, it was held that: “it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time”.
    8.2 HHJ Harris provided a very detailed definition of 'parking' as opposed to a few minutes 'loading' and held: ''The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) loaded with bulky items, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. [...]I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the keeper's car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while he carried out his books, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.''
    Last edited by Jonathon365; 13-07-2017 at 3:50 PM.
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 21st Jul 17, 8:54 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    I am about to submit the above defence. Is there any other suggestions / Do you think that will be sufficient?

    Many thanks
    • onomatopoeia99
    • By onomatopoeia99 21st Jul 17, 9:04 AM
    • 3,523 Posts
    • 7,732 Thanks
    onomatopoeia99
    Quick one that may be relevant - have you, sorry, I mean has "the keeper", graduated?
    INTP, nerd, libertarian and scifi geek.
    Home is where my books are.
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 21st Jul 17, 9:50 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Yes the keeper has graduated
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jul 17, 3:05 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,096 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Fine - I reckon send it, yours is a case based upon the fact you complied with stated Uni policy, and were loading. At any hearing you will need to evidence that if you can, perhaps from library borrowing emails/records, or just by stating it as the truth, in your WS before the hearing.
    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.

    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 6th Aug 17, 8:21 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Hello,

    The keeper has received a 1) 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' and a 2) 'Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track)' in the post.

    Document 1) states that this is now a defended case (I'm assuming in reference to the submitted defence above), that the case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track and requests for the 2) document to be completed and filed with the court office.

    Please can readers advise on the best possible route? Shall the keeper request meditation? They would prefer not to go to a hearing.

    OR

    Is this another scare tactic?

    It looks like the parking firm (Claimant) in question has taken 0 cases to hearing and issued 37,744 tickets across 2015,2016 and 2017.

    Does this also mean the claimant has rejected the defence?

    Any help is greatly appreciated!
    Last edited by Jonathon365; 06-08-2017 at 8:24 PM.
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

711Posts Today

6,613Users online

Martin's Twitter