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 3
    • Castle
    • By Castle 19th Aug 17, 7:29 PM
    • 1,310 Posts
    • 1,703 Thanks
    Castle
    No on both counts. It's the former that worries me. I'd expect them to cash the cheque long before the 40 days are up. Do you how long it is into the 40 days that it usually gets done?

    Again, according to BMPA the claimant has never taken anyone to a hearing before, so I am concerned their lack of experience may mean they fail to comply.
    Originally posted by jordan365
    The reason they haven't cash the cheque is deliberate; so that when challenged, they can simply say the SAR was never received. Send another copy by email and remind them when the 40 days period is up.
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 5th Sep 17, 3:08 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Hello, today 05/09/2017 the subject access request response has been received.

    Turns out the reason they never cashed the cheque was because they simply didn't need it. The original cheque was contained in their response.

    It was a very detailed and thorough response. It contained pictures of the vehicle in all violations, data from the DVLA, information from the parking attendants (this was just the attendant(s) name and the yellow sticker info), and the debt collection letters.

    The bad news...4 / 5 pictures show the vehicle was parked for longer than the 10 minutes called out the Defence They vary, but usually around 15 minutes, with the latest showing the vehicle parked for 30 minutes. - This is deeply worrying.

    The 1/5 that supports the defence shows the vehicle parked for just 2 minutes.

    Please can you advise? I assume it is now likely for the claimant to win the case in Court? If so, Is there any action to be taken that would now avert court action? Paying up would be preferable to a negative CCJ.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 5th Sep 17, 5:48 PM
    • 1,186 Posts
    • 1,230 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Losing in court doesn't mean you have a ccj
    If you pay within one month then nothing is recorded. No credit file impact.
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 5th Sep 17, 6:23 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    So, is the best course of action bearing in mind 4/5 of the evidence support the claimant to just go to court and lose?

    a) Are there any other angles for a defence? I've read the scope for adding major items to a defence is limited at witness statement stage. Is there something else to add that may just swing it?

    b) Is it worth just contacting the claimant and suggesting mediation? Or is it too late for that now?

    c) @Nosferatu1001 - Thank you, however I have 2 further points - What about for monthly payments? That the keeper's preferred option, especially with the claim being for a relatively large amount. Secondly, if it goes to court and the keeper loses, surely the eventual payment will be higher than both the original claim and any mediation attempts?

    d) Any recommendations on what to do next now that I've seen their response to the subject access request?

    Thank you!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 7:06 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Is it worth just contacting the claimant and suggesting mediation?
    No. Carry on.

    So, is the best course of action bearing in mind 4/5 of the evidence support the claimant to just go to court and lose?
    But you might well win.

    Or, you might at least when looking at all the evidence, win 1 or more, out of the five.

    And if not, at least you can state that the 'additional charges' and add-ons are not part of any contract, are plucked out of thin air and constitute 'double recovery' which is disallowed under the POFA schedule 4 and were not quantified on the signs.

    Even the Beavis case only allowed PE to recover the £85 'charge' on the signs and no more, and the Supreme Court discussed and all parties acknowledged that the £85 itself was already inflated to include a significant percentage for profit. So more cannot be added randomly as if it was part of the alleged contract.

    You said it was (probably) 5 x £75 - was it - now presumably they have shown you 5 x NTKs?

    That is NOT a sum equalling £860!

    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.

    The claim is based on 5 parking violations:
    - 07/03/2016
    - 04/04/2016
    - 26/04/2016
    - 04/05/2016
    - 09/06/2016

    Due to the timing, The keeper is unsure how much he claim was initially worth but think they were each £75.00.
    today 05/09/2017 the subject access request response has been received.
    The SAR is not their evidence and WS, though, it it? You can't guess that they will organise the WS and evidence to include all of that bumf, since the SAR isn't part of the court process. Far more likely the WS and evidence will be thrown together, full of the usual holes!

    Any recommendations on what to do next now that I've seen their response to the subject access request?
    Nothing. Crack on with preparing your WS and evidence - when do you have to get that in by?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 05-09-2017 at 7:26 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 5th Sep 17, 7:22 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Thank you Coupon-mad, your message gave me much relief.
    To answer your questions:

    1) Yep, 5 NTK were issued in the post. The SAR provides all the info for each of the 5 occurrences. In fact, the SAR includes 2 other parking violations in 2015 that were never followed up on by the claimant.

    2) You're right, the SAR is not their WS nor evidence. The reason I think/thought it is significant is because the claimant has photographic evidence that directly contradicts the defence for 4 of the 5 occurrences. One would assume this evidence has to form a key part in their eventual WS.

    3) No date to prepare the WS or evidence yet. Still waiting for a date to be confirmed for the hearing.

    From what you've said, it's likely the claimant will only be somewhat successful and able to request £300 (£75 x 4). A number much easier to stomach.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 7:32 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You're right, the SAR is not their WS nor evidence. The reason I think/thought it is significant is because the claimant has photographic evidence that directly contradicts the defence for 4 of the 5 occurrences. One would assume this evidence has to form a key part in their eventual WS.
    Probably...if they get their act together, but honestly, these firms rarely do!

    And as for your defence, how are you meant to recall how many minutes it took you in 2016, on some unremarkable occasions, when you were undertaking normal everyday student task of unloading or loading books borrowed from the library. Unloading - even for over ten minutes - is STILL not 'parking', according to HHJ Charles Harris in Jopson v Home Guard.

    And does the signage actually say in legible lettering, prominently displayed, that cars are restricted to ten minutes if loading/unloading? Is it even a feature of the terms? Is loading/unloading even mentioned (I'm trying to remember!!).
    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 4th Oct 17, 8:24 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Update:

    I received a letter dated 12 September 2017 titled Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing).

    The letter states that the hearing will take place in early November and requests the claimant pays a court trial fee of £80.00 by the 10th October.

    No action required from either myself or forum readers, but thought I'd post an update to document the entire experience.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Oct 17, 8:47 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would read it again. Your date to exchange statements and evidence is in that letter.
    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 4th Oct 17, 9:11 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Right so re-read and the only mention of any action from me is:

    number 6) Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.

    @Coupon-mad is this what you are referring to?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Oct 17, 10:11 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yep, that's the usual wording, so this isn't correct:

    No action required from either myself or forum readers
    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 5th Oct 17, 7:50 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Thanks.

    So I need to send to the claimant and court a copy of the Lancaster University parking policy (that contains the 10 minute clause). Along with my initial defence? And Witness Statement?

    I am sorry that I'm unsure, this document isn't as explicit as the previous.
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 5th Oct 17, 8:11 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    I'm preparing my documents:

    Please see below for the structure (Adapted from Newbies thread) and my comments:

    (a) a copy of the Beavis case sign as a comparison to show how awful the small print sign was in yours case. I will add here that the sign makes no mention of the 10 minute grace period noted in the lancaster parking policy.
    (b) a video of how it looks from a car is good evidence! You can get a passenger to hold a camera or phone and record the lack of signs seen to the point of parking. Only 1 sign that's positioned on a round-a-bout.
    (d) a copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA - there is a link to it in post #1 above. The Judge will NOT have this to hand & is unlikely to be familiar with it. This is only applicable if you are defending as keeper. @Coupon-mad is this appropriate?
    (e) a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper. Again, @Coupon-mad is this appropriate?
    (g) the case transcripts that support your argument (get them from the Parking Prankster's case law page), e.g. if arguing prohibitive 'forbidding parking' signs which offer no contract a driver can accept, you need PCM v Bull; if arguing that this is a residential space where the tenant/leaseholder has already been granted (impliedly or explicitly) the right to park or unload you need Jopson v Home Guard (a persuasive Appeal case heard by a Senior Circuit Judge) and PACE v Mr N, etc. This will be the case mentioned earlier in this thread regarding the differences between parking and loading.
    (h) the IPC or BPA Code of practice, where it supports your case (e.g. the grace periods section 13 of the CoP in a BPA few minutes' 'overstay' claim).
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Oct 17, 9:27 AM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So I need to send to the claimant and court a copy of the Lancaster University parking policy (that contains the 10 minute clause). Along with my initial defence? And Witness Statement?
    Not the initial defence again, but your WS needs your evidence (not just one thing).

    See the NEWBIES thread post #2 for suggestions on WS and evidence to include.
    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 5th Oct 17, 9:55 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Hello, I've organised my key arguments as follows: Please provide input where you see relevant: (Please note this is not the final WS but key themes I've picked out to structure into a proper argument that supports my WS).

    1.0. - Loading and not Parking
    1.1. Car was being loaded with library books and not parked.
    1.2. Jopson v Homeguard![2016] B9GF0A9E - Confirms the distinction between loading and parking
    1.3. Lancaster University Parking Policy - States loading is fine as long as your car is not left unattended for 10 minutes. This immediately strikes out 1/5 claim (Provide evidence of pictures taken less than 10 minutes apart).
    1.4. Lancaster University Signage makes no mention of this 10 minute loading period.

    2.0. Add-ons and additional charges disallowed
    2.1. Under POFA Schedule 4 add-ons and additional charges are disallowed as not part of any contract and not quantified on Lancaster signage.
    2.3. Initial charge is £375.00 (£75.00*5 violations), yet £860.00 is being claimed.

    3.0. Lack of information provided by the claimant
    3.1. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
    3.2. A copy of the contract that was allegedly in place has never been provided.

    Please can I have feedback on these points.

    Thanks
    Last edited by Jonathon365; 06-10-2017 at 9:11 AM.
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 6th Oct 17, 12:00 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    @Coupon-mad any input? Are these solid arguments? Shall I leave the last one out?

    Do I reference the relevant case within the WS? Or just send the transcript along with the WS?

    Writing up my WS now

    Cheers,
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Oct 17, 7:15 PM
    • 1,201 Posts
    • 2,387 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Do I reference the relevant case within the WS? Or just send the transcript along with the WS?
    You must reference any evidence you adduce in your WS, e.g:
    . "The defence refers to exhibit AB1 - a copy of the transcript from claimant vs defendant [claim no.] [court] [date]....... "
    • Jonathon365
    • By Jonathon365 13th Oct 17, 10:56 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    Hello,

    I am feeling out of my depth, completely overwhelmed and very stressed in putting this together. Please can you assist me urgently. I have only a few days left to complete this and send.

    Below is what I currently have for the WS. Are these valid arguments? Is the evidence i'm using correctly applied? Will this be enough to win?



    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.

    1.4. 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”.

    1.5. 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. Once I finally did see the Lancaster University Parking Policy Exhibit A - I noticed it does contain a clause where "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 £800.00 of charges which represents additional charges and add-ons to the original charges. The original charges were £75.00 per parking event (total £375.00) and means First Parking have included £425.00 of disallowed additional charges.

    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 (Exhibit A).

    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 parking charge for each parking event was issued after the 28-day limit as set out under POFA. (Readers can you confirm this is the case?)

    5.1: Parking charge issued 35 days after the event.
    Date of Event: 07/03/2016
    Date Issued: 11/04/2016
    First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

    5.2 2: Parking charge issued 36 days after the event.
    Date of Event: 04/04/2016
    Date Issued: 10/05/2016
    First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

    5.3 3: Parking charge issued 36 days after the event.
    Date of Event: 26/04/2016
    Date Issued: 01/06/2016
    First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

    5.4.4: Parking charge issued 34 days after the event.
    Date of Event: 04/05/2016
    Date Issued: 07/06/2016
    First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

    5.5: Parking charge issued 36 days after the event.
    Date of Event: 09/05/2016
    Date Issued: 14/06/2016
    First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

    6.0. 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.
    Last edited by Jonathon365; 14-10-2017 at 12:58 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Oct 17, 9:49 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    bumping for others as I'm not around/able to post right now.
    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 14th Oct 17, 11:12 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 40 Thanks
    Jonathon365
    bump, I've got 4 days left to respond. I just need to know if the arguments I've chosen are valid / strong enough to win.
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

221Posts Today

1,265Users online

Martin's Twitter