We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
UKCPS - parking in disabled bay without displaying BB - WE LOST :-(
Options
butchx5
Posts: 67 Forumite
UKCPS Ltd vs Mr Butcher, Lincoln 16 March 2015, District Judge Roberts. Parking in a Disabled Bay without displaying a disabled badge at Carlton Centre, Lincoln May 2014 – non-blue badge holder but does have medical issues.
WE LOST :-(
On each of the main points (selected from our 23 page defence) we chose to focus on for our defence whilst speaking in Court.
• BB has no standing on Private land
• Son DOES have health issue so can use disabled bays without displaying a BB
• Signage not read therefore no contract formed
• Signage unclear – too many words, too small font, unclear wording
• Penalty NOT GPEOL
To help others in their personal journey I will summarise what happened in Court today. – these are my words and probably not the ones used by any of us in court – except where I put some of the Judge’s comments in “” when they were his actual words.
For the background leading to this check out these threads:
Moneysavingexpert.com: original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5103097
Then another when things got confusing and my case was mentioned in my sons: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5187172 and
Pepipoo: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=94460
First my son James (now 19 years old) and I (Mother) arrived at Court very nervous but as prepared as we were going to be.
We could see Mr Stephen Hall from UKCPS Ltd across the waiting area from us (we guessed it was him anyway) but decided it prudent not to approach him – nor did he make any attempt to approach us.
The Court was running late but eventually we were all called in and provision made for me in my wheelchair – there was no issue with me accompanying my son into Court and I was allowed to step in and talk on my son’s behalf as often as I felt it necessary (after checking with the Judge he would allow this).
The Judge started straight away and explained to my Son and I how things would proceed – presumably feeling Mr Hall already knew. He made it quite clear he wanted to keep to the facts of the offence and the main points of the defence and that both my son and Mr Hall would have a chance to comment on what each had stated – he did not want any points of law raised, etc in Court that day. Which my son and I felt relieved about as that was the area we felt weakest on and would have had to read directly from his defence. But then wasn’t sure how that could affect our defence – considering we needed those points of law to back us up.
As an aside - I felt it strange he didn’t introduce himself at the point Mr Hall, my Son and I did – but I did correct this at the very end of proceedings by asking him his name – District Judge Roberts. ;-)
The Judge then invited Mr Hall to explain why we were in Court that day. Mr Hall then tried to speak to explain why he had brought my son to Court that day and mentioned my involvement in the decision to bring both my and my Son’s case to Court but the Judge would not allow him to speak about this. Whenever Mr Hall tried to explain why this case was a bit different and why both my son and I had been taken to Court the Judge just stopped him. Mr Hall tried again when the Judge asked the sum of money being claimed by explaining this was not about the money but an exercise in education about taking note of the signage – but the Judge cut him off and in the end Mr Hall had to state the sum on the County Claim Form – the standard £100.
Mr Hall ran through the facts of the case – son parked in a disabled bay on such date at such time, left the vehicle to shop and a PCN was issued as per the warnings, etc on the signage. He provided many photos of sons car parked in disabled bay and all the car park signage and a close up of a sign, as well as all his other information – which wasn’t brought up.
The Judge then asked my son if he agreed with all that Mr Hall had stated – son pointed out Mr Hall kept referring to us as Mr and Mrs Butler (paperwork was all correct) when our family name is Butcher – so we got that sorted with a smile. Son pointed out that he had spoken to the person who issued the ticket to query his validity as he wasn’t wearing an uniform so son hadn’t thought he was a real parking attendant – plus he pointed out the car next to him had also been issued a ticket despite the occupant using a wheelchair – as had been observed by the ticket attendant. He also pointed out he hadn’t read the parking signs as they were so high up and contained so many words and he found them unclear in their content.
At this point we were expecting Judge to return to Mr Hall to ask for his argument BUT he stayed with my son and asked him to give his argument as to why the PCN should not have been issued. Son asked if I could speak on his behalf and Judge agreed.
I started to explain that son and I were NOT part of any campaign and it WAS only coincidence that we both received tickets for parking in a disabled bay within a few weeks of one another and that I am genuine Blue Badge holder but I was cut short and Judge said none of this was relevant to the case.
By now I had got the idea the Judge wanted short and to the point of the PCN – so I tried to keep to what I considered the salient points – the judge already having ruled out points of law issues.
First I mentioned son had parked in disabled bay but that disabled badges have no standing on private land and son had genuine health issues which should enable him to park in such a bay.
Went on to point out signage says ‘disabled badge holders may park in disabled bays’. But does not say the bays are ONLY for disabled badge holders – and mentioned Tesco do use such signs which although still may not cover the BB on private land issue they are clear as to who can use the disabled bays.
Explained that although there are many, many parking signs throughout the parking area at the Carlton Centre as a driver trying to negotiate the area and then looking for a space, especially when busy, it is not feasible to expect a driver to be able to read the signs. Also when actually parked the nearest sign is 6 feet off the ground at its lowest point and full of writing – the only way to read it is to park first. Son had not read the signage prior to parking and even when he did read once he received the County Court Form he still didn’t really understand it.
Then went onto GPEOL – explained we felt £100 was a penalty NOT a GPEOL – that the council – who’s tickets I have paid twice in the past – are only £35 despite them having expensive premises, staff fully uniformed and wearing safety wear who are salaried so why is it acceptable UKCPS Ltd charge £100.
I had so much more to say – that had been written in the defence to fully back up all this – especially the GPEOL but didn’t think it prudent to discuss it at that point and cold only hope the Judge had actually read it prior to the case.
Judge thanked me for being succinct.
He then went on to explain he was going to pass judgement. We and Mr Hall were a bit caught short by this and Mr Hall asked if Judge wanted him to make his argument but the Judge said no. I must admit at this point son and I were feeling quietly confident .
So Judge summed up the facts of the offence including the point the disabled bay had a traditional marking on the tarmac, summarised the salient points of the signage and that there were many signs around the area, including one close to the actual bay parked in and that son had left vehicle for about 10 minutes. Then he explained his decision on each defence point:
He confirmed a Blue Badge has no legal standing on private land. However private land “can be governed by a contract” – that there is “nothing improper in requesting a disabled badge be displayed” to park in a specific area and by having adequate signage explaining the rules for any particular private land over-ruled the other legality.
The next point was signage and he was satisfied there were ”a multiplicity of notices” around the car park area. His view was that private car parks attended by parking companies were now the norm for supermarkets, retail parks, etc and each parking company has its own form of signage and it was “naive” of a car park user not to make sure they understood the information on each sign prior to committing to use that car park. The onus is on a “user to look for signage in a car park” and if there is any ensure they have read, understand and agree to comply to the instructions on the signage prior to using a car park.
We then moved onto the wording and of the sign which the judge felt was acceptable and understandable. Specifically, he concluded that the wording on the sign: “Vehicles displaying a current valid disabled badge may park in the disabled bays. The badge must be displayed inside the front windscreen with all appropriate details clearly visible.“ is clear and adequate and is “implicit that if not displaying a disabled badge not to park in a disabled bay”.
Final point – GPEOL – I really thought we had this but as soon as Judge Roberts explained he was going to base his decision on the Beavis case – which both UKCPS and son and mentioned – but in different ways – UKCPS and used it to back the amount as being acceptable – son had requested a stay until after the appeal of the case. Judge had either not read or not noticed our reason for involveng the Beavis case as he chose to follow the same decision as the Beavis case – my heart sunk as I now knew we had lost the whole case – in that he ruled “the characteristics of the amount was not improper or excessive”.
Son ordered to pay the £100 plus £50 court fees (2x£25).
I was fed up – and angered that the decision regarding GPEOL had been made on a case which had gone to appeal. So thought I had nothing to lose by asking the Judge some advice:
I pointed out his decision regarding GPEOL had been based on the Beavis case which in fact had gone to appeal late February 2015 and I asked if son would be able to appeal his decision today to await the decision of the Beavis appeal which was expected hopefully around the end of this month (March 2015).
Mr Hall then tried to explain how he had wanted the case heard – alongside mine as an education not for financial gain and I was responding when Judge cut us off and said it was not relevant and if we wanted to discuss matter to do so out of court – oops!! BUT we were all (well son and I were, certainly) confused and frustrated.
Judge then explained he had set a ‘thing’ up – sorry I didn’t write it down and cannot remember the words but both Mr Hall and us had to ask Judge to explain what it meant – basically – Son has lost case and as such needs to pay UKCPS £150 BUT UKCPS have to apply to the Court before they can ask son for the money. This application cannot be made until the results of the Beavis appeal are known – eg If appeal falls in parking company favour UKCPS can apply to Court for James to be issued ‘invoice’ (don’t know what the term is) to pay the £150. If the Beavis appeal falls in Beavis’ favour then UKCPS cannot apply for the money.
We all left Court and had a chat in the waiting area – Mr Hall explaining he would recommend to the Landowner that son and I were not in fact part of any ‘campaign’ and I was a genuine BB holder and to drop my Court case – Phew!!!!!
His view was that irrelevant of the outcome of the Beavis trial he would also not make the application for the money my son may end up owing as he felt son and I had been educated – the signs were to be followed and did stand up in court and therefore not to make the mistake again which was apparently his aim in taking us both to Court – He is correct in that – so Phew again !!!!!
We can only hope he follows through with his promises – time will tell but I like to think he did actually mean it – or why bother taking so much time chatting to us afterwards – he had nothing to gain from it – we had lost the case and I could well lose my case as well – the signs are clear – display your badge and I forgot to.
I was actually pleasantly surprised by Mr Hall and his attitude to our cases once we were able to talk to one another about the situation. We had a little chat about the Beavis appeal and what it could mean for future parking and both agree one thing we would like to gain from the outcome is clarity in the law – a standard wording for signage to try and reduce the sizing but keep it legal, clarity regarding the contractual charge or parking charge which also involves the VAT issue, etc.
At the end of the day it would help the consumer, clear POPLA, the Courts, etc of many time-consuming cases if the PCN issue was clarified once and for all. It would also mean some of you who help those of us needing support may have more time to spend enjoying your families which I am sure you would all welcome :-)
THANK YOU to all of you who offered help and advice.
WE LOST :-(
On each of the main points (selected from our 23 page defence) we chose to focus on for our defence whilst speaking in Court.
• BB has no standing on Private land
• Son DOES have health issue so can use disabled bays without displaying a BB
• Signage not read therefore no contract formed
• Signage unclear – too many words, too small font, unclear wording
• Penalty NOT GPEOL
To help others in their personal journey I will summarise what happened in Court today. – these are my words and probably not the ones used by any of us in court – except where I put some of the Judge’s comments in “” when they were his actual words.
For the background leading to this check out these threads:
Moneysavingexpert.com: original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5103097
Then another when things got confusing and my case was mentioned in my sons: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5187172 and
Pepipoo: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=94460
First my son James (now 19 years old) and I (Mother) arrived at Court very nervous but as prepared as we were going to be.
We could see Mr Stephen Hall from UKCPS Ltd across the waiting area from us (we guessed it was him anyway) but decided it prudent not to approach him – nor did he make any attempt to approach us.
The Court was running late but eventually we were all called in and provision made for me in my wheelchair – there was no issue with me accompanying my son into Court and I was allowed to step in and talk on my son’s behalf as often as I felt it necessary (after checking with the Judge he would allow this).
The Judge started straight away and explained to my Son and I how things would proceed – presumably feeling Mr Hall already knew. He made it quite clear he wanted to keep to the facts of the offence and the main points of the defence and that both my son and Mr Hall would have a chance to comment on what each had stated – he did not want any points of law raised, etc in Court that day. Which my son and I felt relieved about as that was the area we felt weakest on and would have had to read directly from his defence. But then wasn’t sure how that could affect our defence – considering we needed those points of law to back us up.
As an aside - I felt it strange he didn’t introduce himself at the point Mr Hall, my Son and I did – but I did correct this at the very end of proceedings by asking him his name – District Judge Roberts. ;-)
The Judge then invited Mr Hall to explain why we were in Court that day. Mr Hall then tried to speak to explain why he had brought my son to Court that day and mentioned my involvement in the decision to bring both my and my Son’s case to Court but the Judge would not allow him to speak about this. Whenever Mr Hall tried to explain why this case was a bit different and why both my son and I had been taken to Court the Judge just stopped him. Mr Hall tried again when the Judge asked the sum of money being claimed by explaining this was not about the money but an exercise in education about taking note of the signage – but the Judge cut him off and in the end Mr Hall had to state the sum on the County Claim Form – the standard £100.
Mr Hall ran through the facts of the case – son parked in a disabled bay on such date at such time, left the vehicle to shop and a PCN was issued as per the warnings, etc on the signage. He provided many photos of sons car parked in disabled bay and all the car park signage and a close up of a sign, as well as all his other information – which wasn’t brought up.
The Judge then asked my son if he agreed with all that Mr Hall had stated – son pointed out Mr Hall kept referring to us as Mr and Mrs Butler (paperwork was all correct) when our family name is Butcher – so we got that sorted with a smile. Son pointed out that he had spoken to the person who issued the ticket to query his validity as he wasn’t wearing an uniform so son hadn’t thought he was a real parking attendant – plus he pointed out the car next to him had also been issued a ticket despite the occupant using a wheelchair – as had been observed by the ticket attendant. He also pointed out he hadn’t read the parking signs as they were so high up and contained so many words and he found them unclear in their content.
At this point we were expecting Judge to return to Mr Hall to ask for his argument BUT he stayed with my son and asked him to give his argument as to why the PCN should not have been issued. Son asked if I could speak on his behalf and Judge agreed.
I started to explain that son and I were NOT part of any campaign and it WAS only coincidence that we both received tickets for parking in a disabled bay within a few weeks of one another and that I am genuine Blue Badge holder but I was cut short and Judge said none of this was relevant to the case.
By now I had got the idea the Judge wanted short and to the point of the PCN – so I tried to keep to what I considered the salient points – the judge already having ruled out points of law issues.
First I mentioned son had parked in disabled bay but that disabled badges have no standing on private land and son had genuine health issues which should enable him to park in such a bay.
Went on to point out signage says ‘disabled badge holders may park in disabled bays’. But does not say the bays are ONLY for disabled badge holders – and mentioned Tesco do use such signs which although still may not cover the BB on private land issue they are clear as to who can use the disabled bays.
Explained that although there are many, many parking signs throughout the parking area at the Carlton Centre as a driver trying to negotiate the area and then looking for a space, especially when busy, it is not feasible to expect a driver to be able to read the signs. Also when actually parked the nearest sign is 6 feet off the ground at its lowest point and full of writing – the only way to read it is to park first. Son had not read the signage prior to parking and even when he did read once he received the County Court Form he still didn’t really understand it.
Then went onto GPEOL – explained we felt £100 was a penalty NOT a GPEOL – that the council – who’s tickets I have paid twice in the past – are only £35 despite them having expensive premises, staff fully uniformed and wearing safety wear who are salaried so why is it acceptable UKCPS Ltd charge £100.
I had so much more to say – that had been written in the defence to fully back up all this – especially the GPEOL but didn’t think it prudent to discuss it at that point and cold only hope the Judge had actually read it prior to the case.
Judge thanked me for being succinct.
He then went on to explain he was going to pass judgement. We and Mr Hall were a bit caught short by this and Mr Hall asked if Judge wanted him to make his argument but the Judge said no. I must admit at this point son and I were feeling quietly confident .
So Judge summed up the facts of the offence including the point the disabled bay had a traditional marking on the tarmac, summarised the salient points of the signage and that there were many signs around the area, including one close to the actual bay parked in and that son had left vehicle for about 10 minutes. Then he explained his decision on each defence point:
He confirmed a Blue Badge has no legal standing on private land. However private land “can be governed by a contract” – that there is “nothing improper in requesting a disabled badge be displayed” to park in a specific area and by having adequate signage explaining the rules for any particular private land over-ruled the other legality.
The next point was signage and he was satisfied there were ”a multiplicity of notices” around the car park area. His view was that private car parks attended by parking companies were now the norm for supermarkets, retail parks, etc and each parking company has its own form of signage and it was “naive” of a car park user not to make sure they understood the information on each sign prior to committing to use that car park. The onus is on a “user to look for signage in a car park” and if there is any ensure they have read, understand and agree to comply to the instructions on the signage prior to using a car park.
We then moved onto the wording and of the sign which the judge felt was acceptable and understandable. Specifically, he concluded that the wording on the sign: “Vehicles displaying a current valid disabled badge may park in the disabled bays. The badge must be displayed inside the front windscreen with all appropriate details clearly visible.“ is clear and adequate and is “implicit that if not displaying a disabled badge not to park in a disabled bay”.
Final point – GPEOL – I really thought we had this but as soon as Judge Roberts explained he was going to base his decision on the Beavis case – which both UKCPS and son and mentioned – but in different ways – UKCPS and used it to back the amount as being acceptable – son had requested a stay until after the appeal of the case. Judge had either not read or not noticed our reason for involveng the Beavis case as he chose to follow the same decision as the Beavis case – my heart sunk as I now knew we had lost the whole case – in that he ruled “the characteristics of the amount was not improper or excessive”.
Son ordered to pay the £100 plus £50 court fees (2x£25).
I was fed up – and angered that the decision regarding GPEOL had been made on a case which had gone to appeal. So thought I had nothing to lose by asking the Judge some advice:
I pointed out his decision regarding GPEOL had been based on the Beavis case which in fact had gone to appeal late February 2015 and I asked if son would be able to appeal his decision today to await the decision of the Beavis appeal which was expected hopefully around the end of this month (March 2015).
Mr Hall then tried to explain how he had wanted the case heard – alongside mine as an education not for financial gain and I was responding when Judge cut us off and said it was not relevant and if we wanted to discuss matter to do so out of court – oops!! BUT we were all (well son and I were, certainly) confused and frustrated.
Judge then explained he had set a ‘thing’ up – sorry I didn’t write it down and cannot remember the words but both Mr Hall and us had to ask Judge to explain what it meant – basically – Son has lost case and as such needs to pay UKCPS £150 BUT UKCPS have to apply to the Court before they can ask son for the money. This application cannot be made until the results of the Beavis appeal are known – eg If appeal falls in parking company favour UKCPS can apply to Court for James to be issued ‘invoice’ (don’t know what the term is) to pay the £150. If the Beavis appeal falls in Beavis’ favour then UKCPS cannot apply for the money.
We all left Court and had a chat in the waiting area – Mr Hall explaining he would recommend to the Landowner that son and I were not in fact part of any ‘campaign’ and I was a genuine BB holder and to drop my Court case – Phew!!!!!
His view was that irrelevant of the outcome of the Beavis trial he would also not make the application for the money my son may end up owing as he felt son and I had been educated – the signs were to be followed and did stand up in court and therefore not to make the mistake again which was apparently his aim in taking us both to Court – He is correct in that – so Phew again !!!!!
We can only hope he follows through with his promises – time will tell but I like to think he did actually mean it – or why bother taking so much time chatting to us afterwards – he had nothing to gain from it – we had lost the case and I could well lose my case as well – the signs are clear – display your badge and I forgot to.
I was actually pleasantly surprised by Mr Hall and his attitude to our cases once we were able to talk to one another about the situation. We had a little chat about the Beavis appeal and what it could mean for future parking and both agree one thing we would like to gain from the outcome is clarity in the law – a standard wording for signage to try and reduce the sizing but keep it legal, clarity regarding the contractual charge or parking charge which also involves the VAT issue, etc.
At the end of the day it would help the consumer, clear POPLA, the Courts, etc of many time-consuming cases if the PCN issue was clarified once and for all. It would also mean some of you who help those of us needing support may have more time to spend enjoying your families which I am sure you would all welcome :-)
THANK YOU to all of you who offered help and advice.
0
Comments
-
Kind of good news I guess but I'm intrigued about the obsession as to whether you are part of a 'campaign' ? Why would it matter if you were ?"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri0
-
VAT Issue? UKCPS deny that they are VAT registered!What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
-
trisontana wrote: »VAT Issue? UKCPS deny that they are VAT registered!
Read this and write a letter to the fraud line
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5195437=You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
You should have taken someone with you from here.
Has Mr Hall obtained a Law Degree now ?
If it was just him, why was the judge allowing him to sit in litigation on behalf of a company.
Did he have a Solicitor with him ?
If not you have a right appeal point.I do Contracts, all day every day.0 -
What has happened here, is that the Judge has found in favour of the Claimant, but suspended enforcement until the result of PE v Beavis appeal is in.
If Beavis wins, UKCPS won't be able to enforce, and the Judgment will be struck out. If PE wins, the OP will have to pay UKCPS.
A similar thing happened in a case I was involved with recently, and probably loads of others around the country. Some courts are staying hearings completely, until the appeal result comes through.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
Marktheshark wrote: »If it was just him, why was the judge allowing him to sit in litigation on behalf of a company.
Did he have a Solicitor with him ?
If not you have a right appeal point.
Rubbish, an employee of a company is permitted to represent that company on the Small Claims Track.
Practice Direction 27 Clause 3.2(4): Any of its officers or employees may represent a corporate party.
The judge erred in law here: The onus is on a “user to look for signage in a car park”
No it isn't, the signage has to be unmissable.Je suis Charlie.0 -
Question for the more legally qualified
Was this a breach of contract or just a claim for trespass; if the driver doesn't have a blue badge (and ignoring the Equality Act 2010), what consideration can they give in a free car park?
Beavis was based on "a promise to leave" to leave after 2 hours; is a promise to do something which you can't do, (display a blue badge), consideration?0 -
Because Stephen Hall is obsessed with us - he's the one who coined the phrase 'forum guru's' (with that greengrocer's apostrophe!).Kind of good news I guess but I'm intrigued about the obsession as to whether you are part of a 'campaign' ? Why would it matter if you were ?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Did the judge err here?
There seems to have been no discussion of v.a.t., was this a contractual charge, or a breach of contract? If the latter why were losses not explored? Why was the wording on the signage not examined.
If this went to appeal, I would be inclined to get an expert opinion on its possible meanings, I am sure Martin Cutts would oblige.
From a layman's point of view, and of course without knowing most of the facts, the judge seems to have behaved "strangely".
Also, I am struggling to see how this case is similar to PE v Beavis, was that not a P&D, and did not PE have a financial interest in the land? Did the Judge consider these?
Perhaps the OP and her son have "form" for militant behaviour WRT parking in "disabled" bays which the Judge knew about.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
It was alleged breach, I am pretty sure, from reading the pepipoo thread.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards