Grace Period.

Northlakes

Previous advice very valid but another couple of points may help to turn the screw a bit tighter.

Contact the Whitehaven News and see if they will run a article.

You will also probably find that HB /PE don't have advertisement consent for the signage so check with Copeland Borough Council.

Given another case that went before West Cumbria County Court I would avoid court as fairness and justice is in short supply in that court. Unfortunately the Beavis case has given a court a precedent which gives them an easy cop-out.

Lincs_Owl

Thanks for all the replies, which I will be studying in detail. The case is scheduled for S!!!!horpe County Court in early March, as we were only in the Lake District on holiday.

Yes, I've been getting a certificate of postage for every letter I've written. In fact, the first letter sent by Parking Eye was never received by us. I've asked them for a clear photocopy of their certificate of posting for that letter and they still haven't replied.

The reason I am writing to Parking Eye is that the Practice Direction which the court sends out, insists that both parties must make every effort to settle out of court and use mediation where possible. The courts provide a free mediation service. I agreed to use it. Parking Eye refused. Strange. I think the mediator would have ruled in our favour.

Don't think there is a problem if I've read the 'grace period' correctly. That in itself should absolve us from any parking charges.

Many thanks again. I will update this when I have something to report.

Lincs_Owl

Ridiculous. The swear filter won't let me type the full name of Scunny!!

Lincs_Owl

Ralph-Y. Don't know if you've been in court. I haven't ever so far. But you have to supply the court with full details of your defence and all documents you are going to rely on, no later than 14 days before the trial begins. And also send full copies to the other party in the dispute. Obviously it gives Parking Eye a chance to counter my arguments and vice-versa. And gives the judge time to read both sides arguments. As I say, can't see how I can lose if I was within the grace period. I've already asked PE about that and I'm still waiting- a month after I wrote to them.

Redx

you may be able to get help from a lay rep or BMPA rep or possibly prankster or somebody similar to help defend this

more chance against them in Scunny than in the lakes

dont just rely on that defence, make them prove all the rest

locus standii
poor signage
anpr accuracy
not a gpeol
grace periods
EA 2010 , ie:= reasonable adjustments due to illness

offer to go to POPLA for ADR instead

the works

Coupon-mad

Do not make any offer and do not get involved in mediation. Are you at the stage of now submitting your full defence before a court hearing in February?

You MUST distinguish the case from Beavis in your full defence.

PE will try to railroad it through citing that case so your defence must cover the differences which are significant on two counts:

- You are right about the grace periods adding up to more than 10 minutes. So unlike in the Beavis case, there is no cause of action because there is no 'legitimate purpose' behind pursuing people who are within the grace periods under the BPA Code of Practice. The landowner has only authorised PE to issue PCN 'in accordance with' the BPA CoP and the CoP also requires operators to carry out their 'enforcement' within any applicable laws.

- The Equality Act 2010 is key as well, in my view. Asthma is certainly without a shadow of doubt, a 'protected characteristic' which deserves a reasonable adjustment which must be made in advance. This adjustment is NOT dependent upon the service provider 'knowing' about individual disablities because it's a duty to avoid indirect discrimination to the protected public at large.

So you must cite that and have a copy in your bundle of the relevant sections of the Act and the two applicable Codes of Practice (the BPA CoP and the Equality Act CoP for Service Providers) so start looking it up! A parking company has a legal duty, as does a retailer and landowner in a public car park, to follow the statutory Code of Practice (it's not just guidance) for Service Providers under the EA.

Info for you, your wife was the 'service user' and was caused detriment by having an arbitrary time limit imposed:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/service-users/goods-facilities-and-services/core-guidance-using-businesses-offer-goods-facilities-and-services-public

Supermarkets & retailers and parking companies have known about this issue since before the EA even existed. It was discussed when the old DDA was the law:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8488737.stm

And here's the Statutory Code of Practice, search it for the words 'indirect discrimination' and also search it for the word 'tours' to find an example proving that an arbitrary time limit has the potential to cause indirect discrimination against protected people at large (regardless of whether PE 'knew or should have known' about the asthma, which they didn't, not at the time - doesn't matter):

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publication/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice

And here's the Act itself, search it for 'indirect discrimination':

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

''142 Unenforceable terms

(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.''

I realise you have already written your initial defence points but as the driver was disabled (sorry but I kind of *have* to use that word about asthma to bring it under the umbrella of a protected characteristic) then in fact you can also use Beavis in your favour. This paragraph from the SC decision is relevant IMHO, in connection with any argument about the Equality Act. That law IS a 'general law or statute' which protected the driver (unlike in the Beavis case):

{from the Beavis case} 107. ''In our opinion the term imposing the £85 charge was not unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute.''

In comparison, in your wife's case and in the case of anyone in the population with a relevant protected characteristic who may need an adjustment of time due to their condition, the term DOES restrict her legal rights under the EA.

Finally - who is defending this, you as keeper? Or your wife as driver? That person MUST turn up.

Lincs_Owl

Thanks everybody. Especially to Coupon Mad for such an extensive reply. Think I will know more about parking law than any judge by the time this goes to court, if in fact it does.
The trial at Scunnythorpe(avoids the swear filter) isn't until early March so I've plenty of time. I have to submit my defence and send copies of all documentation to both the court and the Claimant(PE Ltd) by late February(14 days or more before the trial).
Who's defending? I drove in but then went to pub while wife shopped. Plan was for her to drive out but she had an asthma attack. So neither of us could legally drive out. She should be defendant as the driver out. But PE are sending me the letters/invoices etc as registered keeper. I've already told them they should start again by sending her the parking invoice, and giving her a chance to appeal. No reply of course. We will BOTH attend court, though I'm named on papers as the defendant.
Redx- you state I had 11 minutes grace to leave the car park. I've seen that 11 minute figure before somewhere but where is it from? The British Parking Assn Code of Practice states 10 minutes to get out. See 13.4 on this link.

Aaaaahhhhh. I'm not allowed to post links to stop scamming.

Plus they give you time to read the small print and park.

So will fight it on....
1. Well within grace period (Can't see any logical counter-argument)
2. Wife's asthma attack. She's nervous at attending court but will do it. She has a very honest face- plus her prescriptions etc. Neither of us could legally fulfill the contract. There are precedents set for this from the 1800's where it would be illegal to fulfill a contract.
3. De Minimis Non Curat Lex. Roughly translates as 'The law does not concern itself with trivialities'. Taking someone to court over seconds is basically a waste of public money- as the small claim court is subsidised I believe.
4. The Beavis case is entirely different. PE's papers go on about it setting a precedent. It does not in our case. Entirely different circumstances.

I have to try to settle out of court to keep within the Practice Direction. Interesting reading. Don't see how I can conform to that without contacting PE.

Once more, I can't post the Practice Direction link.

Again, thanks for all the help. Will be having a good read through it all when I get an hour or two. The more ammo the better. :-)

I studied civil law years ago for an office job I had. Not afraid to go to court at all. Will give them a run for their money, hopefully. Apparently PE don't turn up most of the time, anyway. Too expensive for them to do so. :T

Redx

if you do a search on here for recent threads it was mentioned that in a meeting at the BPA they would have to amend that line to over 10 minutes, which is 11 minutes or more

they are supposed to add it in the next version of the BPA CoP

I am not going to look for it but I assure you I read it too , like in here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5373260

you can still post links even as a new user, but they have to be DEAD LINKS, not live links, so change any links from http to hxxp

forget about the swear word filter, its very common on forums and not relevant to your case

its also easy to get around it , like this

Scun thorpe
Sc*nthorpe
Scun_thorpe

Coupon-mad

PE always turn up. They send a law firm and they usually win. So you will need to be very prepared and on your toes to deflect the Judge away from thinking 'Beavis'. End of story. NEXT!

In your defence include a signed witness statement from your wife and it will be a good thing that you BOTH turn up, as you intend to do.

You do not have to make an offer to try to settle.

Guys_Dad

Do you have a photo of the signs? If so, and they say 2 hours parking, then you need to make the distinction between being on site and actually parking.

Explain that it takes some time to park at the start from the time that you pass the ANPR and that the CoP ( make sure you take a copy with you for Judge, PPC and your self) allows for an additional 10 minutes to get out of car park.

On the asthma front, the fact that you parked, went to the pub and wife had asthma attack that prevented her leaving on time does you no favours. If your wife has that condition, then you as a dutiful husband should have been on hand to drive back. It is not the fault of the PPC that your domestic arrangements got in the way, and it was YOU who parked in any case. That is the argument that will be used against you