Claim Form received. Here's what happened.. (Parking Control Management)

pixeLm

First of all thank you for reading this.

I received a claim form from County Court Business Centre.

I checked the claim no. online and it seems to be legit.

The particulars of claim are :

"the sum of £x for Parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable including [bla bla % interest]".

The backstory:

The driver of the car tried being a good guy and offered to drop off a friend at the train station as they had a suitcase with them.
You can reach the entrance of the station by car, through a dead end road, that ends up on a round about outside the station's entrance. Next to the round about there are 2-3 spaces for dropping passengers off.

I have to say that to reach the small round about you enter a road marked as "private road".

There is construction going on at the station so you cannot reach until the small round about anymore.

As the driver got closer and saw that the end of the road was closed off due to construction, he checked the mirrors, saw there was nobody on the road at the time, and stopped the car. The driver noticed there were some signs at the parking spaces on the road but they were full with small text so the driver couldn't understand what the situation was. So the driver decided to get out of the car as the road was empty and help the friend with the luggage that was at the back.

As the driver exited the car he/she noticed two people standing on the building across the car (a gated underground parking entrance) starting to take photographs. The driver waved at them but there was no reaction. The driver approached them and asked if there is some kind of problem and asked why were they taking photos of him/her. There was no reply. The driver raised his/her voice asking again what was the purpose of the photos, and the response is "look at the sign". The driver replied that he/she could not read the sign as it wasn't readable from the car. Then he said that the car was obstructing the pedestrians while parked there. After trying to argue that it's not possible to obstruct the pedestrians as the road is closed off so no cars are coming or going, he told the driver to "do your job" and that they will do theirs.

At that point the driver realised there was no point on continuing the conversation, so he/she said goodbye to the friend and drove off.

After a week I received a letter saying that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle "when this vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver agreed to pay a charge: when the vehicle was "Parked outside of a marked bay / on restricted roadway / landscaped / paved areas or causing an obstruction or inconvenience to others". "

Then written is the location , the date and a time, but not a time range.

I have not responded to the letter as I found it ridiculous, but I was annoyed that DVLA provides keeper's information with that ease to companies that are in my opinion common criminals.

After that I received a reminder and 2-3 other letters from debt collecting companies and a solicitor.

on the 12th of May I received the Claim Form with the description of the particulars as I mentioned in the beginning:

"The Claimant claims the sum of £x for Parking charges and indemnity costst if applicable including £x interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 11/05/16. Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment Daily rate to Judgment £0.03. Total debt and interest £x".

In the initial letter I received there are two photos of the car from a distance of around maybe 10 and 7 meters. In one of them the car door is open.

I know I have to respond to the Claim Form but I'm confused about a few things:

1) In the defense, would a description of the situation, pointing out the conversation the driver had with the person taking the photos, pointing out that there was nowhere to go since the road was closed, and pointing out that the car was not parked but only making a non obstructive 1 minute stop do? Or would I need to talk to a lawyer or solicitor before doing anything?

2) After the defense, what happens? Will the court actually make a decision? Or is the court not involved on a decision ruling at this point of the process?

3) Am I in danger of paying hundreds of pounds in legal expenses if this goes all the way to a day in court? Is there an approximation to an amount that you have in mind from experience?

4) I never admitted that I was or wasn't the driver or replied to any of the letters. Is there a way I can use this? Could a photo of the driver taken without his/her permission in a private road be used as proof that it was that person driving the vehicle? Or are such evidence non submittable?

I'm sorry for the long post. I don't have any legal knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that the driver did not "agree to pay a charge" as the initial letter states, and the driver was definitely not parked but only stopped.

I also don't want to back off and pay the so called fine, because I feel that it's unfair and that many people are being played by this company every day.

Thanks for any advice and responses.

I'm grateful in advance..

pixeLm

pixeLm

I know the post is long, but it would be really helpful if I could get some opinions about this

dazster

Edit everything you have posted above to remove all clues to who was driving the vehicle. The scum read this forum. One leg of your defence is that since the vehicle was not parked (stopping to allow passengers to alight or board is not parking) PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 does not apply therefore the vehicle keeper cannot be held liable, only the driver can.

Another leg of your defence is that the driver cannot have contracted to do something that is forbidden. The Parking Prankster will shortly have a County Court Judgment on his blog which confirms this very point and to which you can refer.

The inadequate signage is another point, get some photos of the signs (and post 'em up here so we can see them).

Failure to mitigate is another point. They were watching the driver, they could/should have simply asked him to move on.

"Indemnity costs" is bolleaux, they can't try to charge any more than what it said on the sign.

You should also challenge their right to issue charges on this site and insist that they produce their unredacted contract with the landowner.

Once you have submitted your defence the case will get allocated to your local County Court and there will be a hearing (unless someone blinks first).

The claimant can claim a fixed £50 in legal fees and that's it. Unless a party behaves unreasonably (and that means stupidly unreasonably) there is no danger of you having to pay up large legal fees.

Don't hurry and don't panic. When you acknowledge the claim tick the box requesting extra time to prepare your defence, and use that time to research this fully. Come back here as often as you need for help. In my opinion their case is very flimsy, but the County Court is a bit of a lottery.

Johno100

And you have indicated that this happened close to a railway station. Is there any reference in any of the previous correspondence received to Railway Byelaws?

Castle

dazster wrote: »

The inadequate signage is another point, get some photos of the signs (and post 'em up here so we can see them).

This is vital in light of this:-
https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/208607905--Forbidding-Signs

dazster

Johno100 wrote: »

And you have indicated that this happened close to a railway station. Is there any reference in any of the previous correspondence received to Railway Byelaws?

I was rather under the impression that the "offence" occurred in a development adjacent to the railway station but yes, it would be good to get this clarified.

pixeLm

First of all I want to thank you for replying. I was thinking about giving up, but after seeing your replies I decided to fight this.

dazster wrote: »

Edit everything you have posted above to remove all clues to who was driving the vehicle. The scum read this forum. One leg of your defence is that since the vehicle was not parked (stopping to allow passengers to alight or board is not parking) PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 does not apply therefore the vehicle keeper cannot be held liable, only the driver can.

Another leg of your defence is that the driver cannot have contracted to do something that is forbidden. The Parking Prankster will shortly have a County Court Judgment on his blog which confirms this very point and to which you can refer.

The inadequate signage is another point, get some photos of the signs (and post 'em up here so we can see them).

Failure to mitigate is another point. They were watching the driver, they could/should have simply asked him to move on.

"Indemnity costs" is bolleaux, they can't try to charge any more than what it said on the sign.

You should also challenge their right to issue charges on this site and insist that they produce their unredacted contract with the landowner.

Once you have submitted your defence the case will get allocated to your local County Court and there will be a hearing (unless someone blinks first).

The claimant can claim a fixed £50 in legal fees and that's it. Unless a party behaves unreasonably (and that means stupidly unreasonably) there is no danger of you having to pay up large legal fees.

Don't hurry and don't panic. When you acknowledge the claim tick the box requesting extra time to prepare your defence, and use that time to research this fully. Come back here as often as you need for help. In my opinion their case is very flimsy, but the County Court is a bit of a lottery.

Thank you for your advice. I have acknowledged the claim and requested the extra 14 days. That gives me according to the letter 28 days after 5 days from the date written on the claim from the county court. That puts the deadline at around 1 week from now.

I went online on their website and found the "evidence" that they provided. I thought it was only the 2 small photos that they initially included on their letter, but it turns out that they had the whole thing photographed.
Should I post the photos or is it a bad idea?
As for the failure to mitigate: The photos show that the people taking the photographs were actually talking to the driver, and it shows that the car was stopped for a exactly 2 minutes, including the conversation with the people operating the camera. Instead of instructing the driver to leave they started taking photographs of the individuals, even after the driver stated that he/she does not allow them to continue photographing. Could this be considered harassment?

I'm uploading a photo of the sign. Does the sign indicate that the driver accepted any sort of contract? The car was not parked but stopped outside a parking spot, but not on any restriction markings. It was at the end of the road due to the construction, so it was not obstructing traffic or pedestrians.

i.imgur.com/uWSGrVT.jpg
i.imgur.com/Jcwplkc.jpg

[edit: I can't post links to the photos as I'm a new member so you'll have to copy paste the above into a browser ]

Johno100 wrote: »

And you have indicated that this happened close to a railway station. Is there any reference in any of the previous correspondence received to Railway Byelaws?

Thanks for the reply!

I checked a different thread, and people are saying that that specific private road is not considered rail area and is not covered by the bylaws.

I'll try to draft a defense for you to have a look if you have the time...

Fruitcake

http://i.imgur.com/uWSGrVT.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Jcwplkc.jpg

Post all the pics the scammers have provided in case the experts here can find flaws in them. A brief description with each pic will help as well.

Charging a fee for ‘all’ card payments including debit cards is banned under statute

Premium rate numbers are not allowed either. An illegal premium rate number on the PCN and the signage (allegedly where the contract is 'formed') renders this demand unenforceable:

See here in post 5 for further info: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69655988#Comment_69655988

This was for a PoPLA appeal for a BPA member, but the law equally applies to IPC members.

Fruitcake

From the Beavis case, the 100 quid charge should be as prominent as the other wording for parking restrictions on those signs.

Coupon-mad

I'm uploading a photo of the sign. Does the sign indicate that the driver accepted any sort of contract? The car was not parked but stopped outside a parking spot, but not on any restriction markings. It was at the end of the road due to the construction, so it was not obstructing traffic or pedestrians.

No because it only says parking is 'permitted' for (i.e. a contract is allegedly formed with) cars in bays for up to 20 minutes and it looks as though double yellows is the only area depicted as not allowed. The signs are silent about any contractual offer for anything else.

The £100 is so tiny (and in a paragraph of small font capital letters) that you really cannot read it. Can't have agreed to pay £100 if you can't read that sum and the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 covers that, signage must be adequate to inform a driver of the sum of the 'parking charge'. No consideration flowed between the driver/PCM who (unlike PE in the Beavis case) didn't offer the driver anything of any value because they are saying parking wasn't 'permitted' where your car was. Yet the signs do not support the charge/contract argument.

As dazster said:

Another leg of your defence is that the driver cannot have contracted to do something that is forbidden.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bargepole-spanks-ukpc-in-court-no.html

Both the above cases were decided on the facts of the signage, after the Beavis decision.

pixeLm

Thank you Fruitcake:

here are the photos provided by them:

1. i.imgur.com/1v7WN9R.jpg The car at the end of the road. Stopped next to the sign that couldn't be read from the inside the car according to the driver. The car is still running. At that point the driver realised that the road to go forward towards the station is blocked.

2. i.imgur.com/2peuyVt.jpg Passenger exiting. No clear signs say "no stopping". Road closure and no stopping markings visible ahead.

3. i.imgur.com/r6ZkVHy.jpg Passenger notices that is being photographed

4. i.imgur.com/IFQfI14.jpg driver exiting the car

5. - i.imgur.com/Ysheoyv.jpg

6. i.imgur.com/1dxwJIV.jpg driver asking if there is any problem - no response from the photographers

7. i.imgur.com/mSg2Cvi.jpg driver saying that there is no permission for photos to be taken - rude reply with no explanation

8. - i.imgur.com/dUninTn.jpg

9. i.imgur.com/khpy5PK.jpg Vehicle leaving the area

Sorry again for not being able to post links...

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.