UKPC Court claim

salmosalaris

I still stand by the following interpretation of the sign. To use a marked bay you must display a permit . You must not park on the roadway , double yellows or hatched areas. So if you were not in a bay but abided by the above there was no breach of contract anyway.

The fact that it was dark and signs/ roadmarkings were unlit is a separate argument

And if an actual sign of the "design" they have provided ( which like other cases I have seen has a large "proof" across it ) is not present , demonstrate that is so to discredit their evidence.

bargepole

Coming back to the GPEOL argument, I would express the point as follows:

In the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis, it was held that there was no loss to the parking operator, and therefore the doctrine of penalties was engaged. However the charges were deemed lawful if they served a legitimate interest, and were not grossly disproportionate, as detailed by Lord Neuberger at [97]. In the case of residential parking, the legitimate interest clearly lies in ensuring that parking spaces are occupied by genuine residents and their visitors, and not abused by random motorists with no connection to, or business within, the property. The issuing of parking charges to residents and visitors, as in this case, serves no legitimate interest, and therefore the Claimant cannot rely on the Beavis judgment, and it is submitted that the charge will fall foul of the penalty rule.

nigelbb

In Beavis the intention of the 'fine' was to deter staying longer than two hours. In the case of a resident's parking space ensuring display of a parking permit is not the object of parking enforcement. The aim of enforcement is to deter those not authorised to park at all. As soon as a resident notifies the PPC that the windscreen ticket was issued to a resident then the ticket should be cancelled. The PPC will have suffered no loss & has no legitimate interest in imposing a penalty on the resident.

TommyG5

By extension that i am a visitor to the resident I will leave in the GPEOL part then but make sure to distinguish it from the Beavis case that it is residential not a commercial

I will also add in a part about the signage itself that salmosalaris talked about.

I will also check the entrance signage and see if it would have required planning permission.

Other than those three additions do you think its a strong defense?

-Also could i put a but in about the time of the ticket issue, clearly issuing tickets at 12 at night is profiteering not parking management

TommyG5

So I have check and there is no signage at the development entrance, and the rest is few and far between. So i will add that to the defense.

Also the signs are 0.5x0.5m so looks like they would need planning permission, so will look into that.

I need to submit this today so could you guys confirm or challenge the points in my above post about GPEOL, profiteering and if it is now a good defense?

Thanks for all your help so far!

bargepole

I drafted the paragraph for you at post #63. You should use that, not the GPEOL one.

The_Deep

Does this mean that you agree with me that GPEOL is not always "dead in the water"?

salmosalaris

The_Deep wrote: »

Does this mean that you agree with me that GPEOL is not always "dead in the water"?

Elucidate please

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

Does this mean that you agree with me that GPEOL is not always "dead in the water"?

No I don't.

GPEOL is now irrelevant, because the UKSC says there doesn't have to be one.

They have also said that charges are essentially penalties, but can be saved if there is a legitimate interest in enforcing them. So it's now necessary for defendants to show why there is no legitimate interest in enforcing their particular charge.

Quite easy to do for residents in allocated spaces, less so otherwise.

TommyG5

Right thanks for all your help guy and ladies. Think its ready to be submitted bar 3 paragraphs

5 - does this not stand up if GEOPL is not relevant? therefore does this need to be reworded or removed?

12 - Is this sensible to include as if you look at the small wording on the "proof" design copy it states "Must be parked within designated bay with a valid parking permit displayed" will this help of hinder my argument?

15 - Does this make sense, have I understood this correctly?


1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.


2. The claimant has responded to a Part 18 Request written and sent by the defendant and delivered to SCS Solicitors on the 10/03/2016, however the following questions were not answered:

a. A request to provide the full legal identity of the landowner.
b. If the contract has been conveyed by the use of signage on site, please provide copies of the
signs on which you rely and confirm these are the signs in situ on the date of the event (December 2013). Please also provide the date these signs were installed, for example, a works schedule, maintenance record or invoice for the work.
c. Were there signs at the entrance to the site on the date in question? Did these meet the
British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent
Parking Committee’s Schedule 1 (Please indicate)
d. A request to provide a full unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner which demonstrates the claimants authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and litigate in their own name.
e. A request to provide a detailed and itemised breakdown of the losses and or damages suffered by the claimant.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Parking Control Ltd. The claimant is unable to re-offer a contract to park on more onerous terms that those already specified in the lease, which grants an easement/ right to park for residents and their visitors and an entitlement to peaceful enjoyment.

4. UK Parking Control Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) UK Parking Control Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.
(ii) absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.
(iii) Based on information supplied by SCS Law, UK Parking Control claim they have a contract with a management company, this is not the land owner nor a verified company according to Companies House. The court is invited to consider whether UKPC is even aware of who their contract is with.

5. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:
a) As the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the locations in question
b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
c) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist stays by ten seconds or ten years;
d) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's current signs.
e) The intention of ticketing vehicles at 1am is clearly with the aim of profiteering and not parking management.

6. The signage on the site in question is unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question or at the entrance to the development, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days. It is clear from UKPC’s own photos that signage was not sufficient or clear. This is in contrast to the Parkingeye Limited v Beavis case where the charges where shown in the largest font on the signage, clarity was vital for the judge’s decision on ruling in Parkingeye Ltd’s favour.

7. The signage on the site in question is not lit and the parking charge was issued in December late at night (01.00am), so no contract could be or has been formed with driver(s). The signage was not legible as shown in UKPC’s own photos.
8. The lack of markings in the area do not communicate a 'no parking zone'. Therefore no contract has been made with the driver.

9. The Defendant contends there is nothing legible adjacent to the vehicle to communicate this was private land and terms/restrictions were unlikely to have been seen. The authority for this is Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 Apr 2000. Furthermore BPA Code of Practice (June 2013) states: "Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract… Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions”. However in this case there are no entrance signs whatsoever at the entrance to the parking area or entrance to the development, making it impossible for a contract between UKPC and the driver to have been formed. UKPC has a track record of not adhering to BPA Code of Practice, recently being investigated for falsifying photo evidence. This is not a parking company which complies with the strict rules of their Trade Body, which were held as a vital regulatory feature in ParkingEye v Beavis.

11. It is not believed that the signage on site at the time included any stated additional costs or surcharges nor even that the £100 was legible on each occasion. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

12. The “proof” design copy of the parking sign UKPC purported to have been on site (actual sign is illegible, see UKPC own photo evidence) is interpreted thusly: To use a marked bay you must display a permit, you must not park on the roadway, double yellows or hatched areas. UKPC have issued a charge based on that the vehicle was not parked within the markings of a bay. However the vehicle was not parked incorrectly within the lines of a bay and not parked on double yellows, on the roadway or a hatched area. All the above were abided by therefore is no breach of contract in this instance.

13. In the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis, it was held that there was no loss to the parking operator, and therefore the doctrine of penalties was engaged. However the charges were deemed lawful if they served a legitimate interest, and were not grossly disproportionate, as detailed by Lord Neuberger at [97]. In the case of residential parking, the legitimate interest clearly lies in ensuring that parking spaces are occupied by genuine residents and their visitors, and not abused by random motorists with no connection to, or business within, the property. The issuing of parking charges to residents and visitors, as in this case, serves no legitimate interest, and therefore the Claimant cannot rely on the Beavis judgment, and it is submitted that the charge will fall foul of the penalty rule.


14. If the driver were considered to be a trespasser, if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum

15. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The £60 debt recovery charge is against the driver, as UKPC are pursuing this against the registered keeper it is therefore not relevant.

16. The Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to a pre-agreed parking operator funded cost of £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

17. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.