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

Fruitcake

http://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.

http://i.imgur.com/2peuyVt.jpg

Passenger exiting. No clear signs say "no stopping". Road closure and no stopping markings visible ahead.

http://i.imgur.com/r6ZkVHy.jpg

Passenger notices that is being photographed

http://i.imgur.com/IFQfI14.jpg

driver exiting the car

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

6http://i.imgur.com/1dxwJIV.jpg

driver asking if there is any problem - no response from the photographers

http://i.imgur.com/mSg2Cvi.jpg

driver saying that there is no permission for photos to be taken - rude reply with no explanation

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

http://i.imgur.com/khpy5PK.jpg

Vehicle leaving the area

Fruitcake

Lovely pics showing signs that cannot be read from a car, and cannot be read on foot without a stepladder and spyglass.

dazster

OK, there's lots of meat here:

1. Tiny wording on the signs cannot be read from inside the vehicle. A driver cannot possibly know that stopping is forbidden unless he stops(!), exits the vehicle and uses a stepladder.

2. The wording regarding a £100 charge is so small as to be unreadable from almost any distance.

3. Even if the signs could be read from inside the vehicle (which they can't) the wording is "No stopping or waiting outside of the marked bays". This is forbidding, and not a contractual offer. Breaching such a term would simply render a driver a trespasser, yet the claim before us is for breach of contract.

4. A driver must be allowed sufficient time to read the signs (which means exiting the vehicle), digest them, and decide whether to accept the terms. If sufficient time is not allowed to read and understand the signs then no contract is entered into. The operator's own photographs show an elapsed period of just 2 1/2 minutes between the first and the last, which includes (as also shown in the photographs) time lost remonstrating with the predatory photographers.

Furthermore, from the operator's own photographs, the hoarding immediately behind the PCM signs carries many, many more signs. If a driver were to read all the signs before him on the off chance that one of them might say something about stopping or parking this would take him quite some time!

5. The operator's own photographs show that the road is marked with double yellow lines. This is misleading: on the public highway it is permitted to stop on double yellow lines to allow passengers to board or alight. Given that the signs are unreadable from within the car there is nothing to indicate to a driver that the double yellow lines have any meaning other than their standard, public-highway meaning.

6. The operator's photographs show how close the photographers were to the vehicle occupants. Why did they not simply direct the driver to move on? Clearly this is not a genuine attempt to prevent or deter a breach of contract but is entrapment for profit.

7. The operator's photographs are time-stamped but not date-stamped (and, furthermore, there is no evidence as to how the time stamps were applied or of their reliability/accuracy). Accordingly the photographs are evidentially worthless unless the photographer appears before the court to testify as to when and how they were taken and why the time stamps can be relied upon.

8. According to the operator's own evidence, the vehicle was never parked. Stopping to allow a passenger to board or alight is not parking. Accordingly Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (which is concerned solely with parking) does not apply, so only the driver could be held liable. No admission has been made or will be made as to who was driving.

If you have an insurance policy showing that multiple people are insured to drive the vehicle, say so, because it is evidence that the vehicle keeper may well not have been the driver, and say that a copy of the policy will be included when you submit your evidence.

9. The charge stated on the (virtually unreadable) signs is £XXX. The claimant is claiming additional "indemnity costs" with no explanation of what those costs are, how (if at all) they have been incurred, and why the defendant should be liable for them. It is suggested that this is nothing but a means of artificially inflating the value of the claim.

10. The claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and it is disputed that the claimant has authority to operate on this land and issue charges in its own name. At best the claimant is merely the agent of the lawful occupier and is therefore the wrong claimant. If the claimant believes otherwise then he must produce his full, unredacted contract with the lawful occupier which authorises him to so operate in his own name.

I really think you need to find out who owns this land. Looking at the photos it might be public highway, or it might be railway land. Either would give you significant additional defence points. You can probably find the owner from the Land Registry website, it'll cost you something like £3.

Note that everything I've said above is about the operator's own evidence. There is (deliberately) no discussion about what actually happened, or when, from your point of view or that of the driver. Avoid making yourself or the driver a witness if at all possible, stick to demolishing their (staggeringly shaky) case.

You'll get nowhere complaining about them taking photographs. There is no law against photographing people in public, or people on one's own property, even if they don't want to be photographed.

Unicorn51

Just to expand on item 6 above.

Mitigation of Loss

The rule of mitigation requires a claimant to take steps to minimise its loss and to avoid taking unreasonable steps that increase its loss. An injured party cannot recover damages for any loss (whether caused by a breach of contract or breach of duty) which could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps.

pixeLm

Thank you Unicorn51, Johno100, Castle, Coupon-mad, Fruitcake and dazster for replying and the time spent to help me. I cannot stress how important your help is!

dazster wrote: »

OK, there's lots of meat here:
7. The operator's photographs are time-stamped but not date-stamped (and, furthermore, there is no evidence as to how the time stamps were applied or of their reliability/accuracy). Accordingly the photographs are evidentially worthless unless the photographer appears before the court to testify as to when and how they were taken and why the time stamps can be relied upon.

Regarding this, there is a date stamp and location next to the time-stamp, I just removed it together with the faces so I don't reveal which case this is.

I've read all the posts, I'll reply when I get off work.

Thanks a lot everyone!

dazster

pixeLm wrote: »

Thank you Unicorn51, Johno100, Castle, Coupon-mad, Fruitcake and dazster for replying and the time spent to help me. I cannot stress how important your help is!


Regarding this, there is a date stamp and location next to the time-stamp, I just removed it together with the faces so I don't reveal which case this is.

I've read all the posts, I'll reply when I get off work.

Thanks a lot everyone!

Oh I see. Best ignore that point then.

pixeLm

dazster wrote: »

I really think you need to find out who owns this land. Looking at the photos it might be public highway, or it might be railway land. Either would give you significant additional defence points. You can probably find the owner from the Land Registry website, it'll cost you something like £3.

I tried finding the owner from the land registry website, but I couldn't get any results back with the postcodes I found on the map. I will try other ways later on.

Thank you very very much for your lengthy reply.

I managed to draft something up based on your comments and the failure to mitigate the loss mentioned by Unicorn51, but I don't know if it's in the right "spirit". I'm posting it here so you can provide some feedback if possible, and I'll submit it tomorrow. As per your advice I'm only dealing with evidence provided by them, and not adding anything else to the defence.

Also one recommended approach I have read is that in the defence I should only deny the Particulars of Claim, and leave all other points I have in my favour for the court day. What is your opinion on that?

here goes, please feel free to comment on the content as well as the grammar or expressions, as English is not my mother tongue

---

The claim is denied in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

According to the photographic evidence provided by the Claimant I believe that

1) The signage on the mentioned location is not readable from within the vehicle. A driver could not have known that stopping is forbidden unless the vehicle comes to a full stop and the driver exists the vehicle in order to get closer to the signs to read them.

2) The wording on the signs on the location mentioning the £100 charge was written with small characters making it non readable from a distance between the driver and the sign.

3) The wording on the signs that can be read only from a close distance mention the following: “No stopping or waiting outside of the marked bays at anytime”. The sentence indicates forbidding and not a contractual offer, which the Claiming is claiming a breach of.

4) A driver must be allowed sufficient time to read the sign, which obligates him or her to exit the vehicle to do so, understand the statements and conditions that apply, and choose to accept or reject them. If no sufficient time is provided to the driver, there can be no entry to a contract between the driver and the Claimant.

According to the date and time-stamps of the photographic evidence, a total time of approximately 2.5 minutes is elapsed between the photographs that the vehicle reached a full stop and the last photograph showing the vehicle leaving the area. That time includes a lengthy conversation made between the driver and the operators on site that is also shown in the photographic material provided by the Claimant.

In addition, the photographs show that there are multiple signs displayed on site behind the signs placed by the Claimant, for which a driver would require additional time to read and understand in order to conclude if parking, stopping or disembarking is allowed and under which conditions.

5) The road is marked with double yellow lines, which causes confusion as for which purpose the driver is allowed to stop, given the fact that unless stated clearly in road signs, picking up or dropping off passengers on double yellow lines is permitted in public highways.

6) The photographers were stationed very close to the vehicle and were in direct contact with the driver, yet they did not direct the driver to move on. I consider this as a clear indication that there was no attempt to prevent or deter a breach of contract, but the only motive in their actions was to entrap the driver for profit.
Additionally regarding the above, the evidence show that there was no attempt for Mitigation of Loss, which according to English law “The rule of mitigation requires a claimant to take steps to minimise its loss and to avoid taking unreasonable steps that increase its loss. An injured party cannot recover damages for any loss (whether caused by a breach of contract or breach of duty) which could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps.”

7) As shown in the photographs the vehicle was never parked. Disembarking a passenger cannot be considered as parking. As Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act does not apply, only the driver and not the keeper can be held liable. There is no admission regarding the identity of the driver during the events taken place on the mentioned date.

8) The sign shown in the Claimants evidence states that the amount of £100 is to be paid by the violators of the terms. Yet the Claimant is requesting indemnity costs without providing detailed explanation on what the additional costs are, if and how these costs occurred and the reason for which the defendant is held liable for them. I believe that an effort is made to inflate the value of the claimed amount in order to intimidate the defendant.

9) The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and it is disputed that the Claimant has authority to operate and issue charges on the mentioned location in its own name. If the Claimant believes otherwise I request for the Claimant to produce the full, unredacted contract with the lawful occupier which authorises him to so operate in his own name.

---

Thanks again everyone for the time you're spending on reading this! I'm amazed by this community! :T

pixeLm

Any feedback is greatly appreciated guys It's the last day I can submit this, and I don't want to screw it up.

Coupon-mad

Bumping your thread for others to see & comment.

Unicorn51

Item 2.

Quote Beavis

Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there.”