Calder Park, Wakefield PCN

l12345

Ahh so that's a little reassuring. Thought I'd get a CCJ no matter what happened.

What I'll do now is some searching around in the areas mentions and but a defense together. Having done nothing like this before, I'm just wondering how it all works. Do I just write my defense and someone from the county court will make the decision without me being there or do I have to attend anything?

Coupon-mad

You have to attend a hearing of course*...read other threads! YOU CAN DO THIS:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5407858

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5470683

HTH - also read Bargepole's advice linked in the NEWBIES thread under 'Small Claim?'. Read that first.





*unless they discontinue when they see you have a decent defence...

Redx

l12345 wrote: »

Ahh so that's a little reassuring. Thought I'd get a CCJ no matter what happened.

What I'll do now is some searching around in the areas mentions and but a defense together. Having done nothing like this before, I'm just wondering how it all works. Do I just write my defense and someone from the county court will make the decision without me being there or do I have to attend anything?

bear in mind that the initial defence is called a HOLDING (or SKELETON) defence , the "flesh" will be put on the bones later down the line

the "bones" contain the bullet points that are expanded upon later down the track in your FULL DEFENCE , a few weeks before any court hearing

later on , you can nominate a court local to you , it may get that far, or not

there may be some help in lay reps as I am sure people will help you with a "no stopping" issue court case brought by VCS and BW LEGAL , especially if it was JLA or Liverpool Business park (which this isnt but has a bearing on those places if you were to win I am sure , especially the latter which is similar to yours)

most people have "never done it before" , but you are not alone and the persons with knowledge and/or experience on here will guide you, providing you do some reading and research

you can start by reading this EXCEL / BW LEGAL , Peel Centre one as #39 and #40 may interest you as helping you on your way

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5505546

and the parking prankster court guide will help you too

Edna_Basher

.......and the parking prankster court guide will help you too

You may even get some help from the Parking Prankster himself when he sees this thread. I think that these "no stopping" cases are of particular interest to him.

l12345

Thanks everyone for the advice.

l12345

Hi, I've been doing a lot of reading on various forums and I'm struggling a little. So far I've modified the defense below to to try and give me a bit of a starting point but I dont really understand it. Having never wrote anything like this before I'm a little lost how it works. Do I just write a paragraph or does everything have to be bullet pointed?

Why I'm disputing the charge:

Basically I got some fuel at Calder Park. When I left at the T junction I turned left just to pull up and have a minute I wasnt feeling well. There was a "no stopping" sign on the T junction which was covered by a parked up caravan. I then went to the end of the road, pulled up and then I noticed another "no stopping" sign at which point turned around and moved on. Basically I stopped for about 20 seconds and got a 100 pound fine!

The PCN has 3 picture of the company van I was in and the time between the photos is about 10 seconds which is what they class as proof of stopping!


How do I put this into the defence below?

Also how do I complain about BW Legal not giving me time to reply and automatically applying for a county court?

---

Statement of Defence

I am My Name, defendant in this matter.

1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the parking of a white Peugeot Partner motor vehicle registration number AB12 CDE on 04/12/2015 at Calder Park, Wakefield that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the
Claimant.

2. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.

3. I deny any liability in respect of the claim.

3. In his Particulars of Claim the Claimant fails to disclose the head or heads of action in which these proceedings are based and in any event no cause is disclosed that has a realistic prospect of success. Furthermore the lack of detail prevents my being able to respond in more detail.

4. The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but smacks of a “Cut and Paste” approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant’s duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.

5. Additionally such scant Particulars leave Defendants to respond to what are at best vague details.

6. Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the above vehicle at the time of the alleged event it is averred that the Defendant was not the driver at the relevant time and the Claimant is put to strict proof in this respect.

7. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land or any demonstrable intention to occupy it sufficient to support this claim.

8. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.

9. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.

10. If it is so pleaded before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (the “Act”) the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a “relevant obligation” either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a “relevant obligation” existed.

11. In the absence of strict proof as to the existence or otherwise of a “relevant obligation” the court is invited to strike the matter out.

12. On the other hand it is believed that the Claimant may seek to rely on a rather unique interpretation of the judgment in Elliott –v- Loake and endeavour to persuade the court that the case created a precedent amounting to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver where no other evidence or admission exists and thereby prove his allegations.

13. I submit that this interpretation actually represents a very considerable reworking of the case and does not fairly convey the findings.

14. The reality is that no such precedent was created and that Mr Loake was found guilty (it was a criminal matter) on a surfeit of evidence including forensic evidence of being the driver at the time of a road traffic accident which he had previously lied to the police about. Crucially this evidence proved the case to a criminal standard not simply on a balance of probabilities as applies in the instant matter.

15. I will seek to argue a more detailed rebuttal should the Claimant plead the case cited but in any event submit that the case cited be disregarded.

16. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

17. In due course I will ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine –v- London Borough of Waltham Forest insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation.

18. Although the above case turned on the application of the principle of volenti non fit injuria as opposed to the creation of a contract to park I will submit that the test created is nevertheless relevant and is entirely applicable to the instant matter.

19. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimant’s signs that the most onerous term – the £100 parking charge notice – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule”.

20. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

21. It is further anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case ofParkingEye –v- Beavis. In due course I will seek to demonstrate that the instant matter may be distinguished from that case.

22. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.

23. In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim

Coupon-mad

1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the parking of a white Peugeot Partner motor vehicle registration number AB12 CDE on 04/12/2015 at Calder Park, Wakefield that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the
Claimant.

I do not think you should say it is 'common ground' that the car was PARKED. The way you have described the event, you should be denying the car was actually parked.

6. Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the above vehicle at the time of the alleged event it is averred that the Defendant was not the driver at the relevant time and the Claimant is put to strict proof in this respect.

Ahem... obviously NOT that sentence. Come on, this is not rocket science, nor is this something you 'can't understand' because you've 'never written anything like this'. It is simple stuff reading that sentence - YOU CANNOT SAY THAT! DO NOT LIE. You told the IAS who was driving:

The problem is an appeal by IAS didn't go in my favor as the company secretary ignored everything I said and simply stated I was ill! So now I have a company pursuing the "balance" saying that the IAS decision is final.

So very clearly, YOU CANNOT COPY A DEFENCE SENTENCE THAT SAYS 'it is averred that the Defendant was not the driver at the relevant time'! Please, just read it. You cannot use that defence point, can you?


Near the start of the defence - which isn't bad and yes, should be in numbered points - you as the keeper should be saying what your version of events was:

l12345 wrote: »

one of the signs entering the park was covered by a parked caravan. I argue that you have to be stopped to fully read and understand the sign, as the sign had small writing at the bottom. Once I had read this I moved on which is what I feel is unfair.

l12345

Sorry about that, was probably being a little lazy there!

Is this going in the right direction?

Statement of Defence

1) I am ???????, defendant in this matter.

2) I strongly object to the offence of “no stopping” at ???????????? on ???????. The vehicle in question was a white Peugeot Partner company vehicle registration number ???? ???. This in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the claimant.

3) I deny any liability in respect of the claim.

4) The IAS has dismissed my appeal which I feel is unfair as it was the company secretary who wrote my initial defence while I was working nights in Scotland. I explained what happened over the phone and she filled out the form but missed out vital information. Simply stating that I was ill.

5) My version of the event:

On the day of the “offence” I felt I needed to stop for a break as I had been feeling unwell throughout the morning. I decided to pull into Calder Park and have a break at the BP service station. I feel that the signs were not visible enough for me to read and fully understand in a moving vehicle as I entered Calder Park due to them being positioned on the busy roundabout and on the opposite side of the road. Once I had finished at BP I exited the car park but there was a caravan parked across the road which obstructed my view of the “No Stopping” directly in front of the junction. I turned left and continued down the road, stopping for a matter of seconds. As my vehicle was now stationary (with my foot still on the brakes – the brake lights were on and this can be seen in the image) I could fully read the sign which stated “No Stopping” at which point I immediately turned around and moved on.

6) The 3 images that are being used as evidence only show the vehicle stationary from 09:52:45 til 09:52:4. As stated I was still reading the sign at this point.

7) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.

8) The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but smacks of a “Cut and Paste” approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant’s duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.

9) I feel the legal specialists dealing with this case have acted un-professional on a number of occasions using shady tactics to bully me into paying the balance.

10) When I received the final notice on the 8th June 2016, I noted under the heading “County Court Proceedings” there was a paragraph which stated “”Furthermore this will result in a CCJ being entered against you. A CCJ may have a detrimental effect on your future creditworthiness and your employability”. I feel this is misleading as a CCJ only effects creditworthiness and your employability if the balance is not paid in full.

11) Again, on the 24 August I received another letter which stated: "You have stated that you had to stop to read the signs in order to understand our client's terms and conditions which are used to operate the area in question. Again confirming you stopped in a prohibited area and therefore are liable for the balance."

This is a catch 22 situation. I do not agree that I was “contractually bound” upon entering the site to Terms and Conditions that had been placed at the entrance to the controlled area and in other places throughout. However, it would be impossible for VCS’s signs to “contractually bind” any driver travelling at 30 mph (i.e. the maximum speed limit on the business park).

VCS’s standard entrance sign at Calder Park contains 62 words (excluding the small print at the bottom of the sign and the text contained within the graphics on the sign). According to the Department of Transport guidelines, it would take the driver 23 seconds to read these words (and even longer to read the small print). In a vehicle travelling at 30 mph, this is clearly impossible.

Based upon Department for Transport eyesight standards for driving (i.e. the requirement for a driver to be able to read an 8cm number plate at a distance of 20 metres), for a driver travelling at 30mph, the maximum possible reading times for the key wording on the VCS signs would be as follows:

"No Stopping": 2.05 seconds
"£100 CHARGE IF YOU STOP": 0.75 seconds
"PRIVATE PROPERTY": 1.12 seconds
"VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD": 0.56 seconds

12) I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimant’s signs that the most onerous term – the £100 parking charge notice – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule”.

13) In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

14) Furthermore, a the letter dated 24 August 2016 it states “We look forward to hearing from you within 7 days”. I then received a County Court claim form with an issue date of 26 August 2016. BW Legal did not give me enough time to respond and automatically assumed that I would not respond.

15) I feel that I was only able to read and full understand the signage once the vehicle was stopped and on these ground I dispute this charge.

16) In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim

Coupon-mad

4) The IAS has dismissed my appeal which I feel is unfair as it was the company secretary who wrote my initial defence

...is not talking about a defence, just the appeal stage, so it should be:

4) The IAS has dismissed my appeal which I feel is unfair as it was the company secretary who wrote my initial IAS appeal

And change this:

10) When I received the final notice on the 8th June 2016, I noted under the heading “County Court Proceedings” there was a paragraph which stated “”Furthermore this will result in a CCJ being entered against you. A CCJ may have a detrimental effect on your future creditworthiness and your employability”. I feel this is misleading as a CCJ only effects creditworthiness and your employability if the balance is not paid in full.

To this, because the really misleading part is surely them saying 'WILL' result in a CCJ:

10) When I received the final notice on the 8th June 2016, I noted under the heading “County Court Proceedings” there was a paragraph which stated “”Furthermore this will result in a CCJ being entered against you. A CCJ may have a detrimental effect on your future creditworthiness and your employability”. I feel this is misleading and contrary to the SRA Code of Practice, since a CCJ 'may' be the final outcome but certainly not 'will result'. It is my contention this is written to intimidate and mislead unrepresented Defendants.

This point is good but is in the wrong place, among a series of points about signage, so move it up:

14) Furthermore, a the letter dated 24 August 2016 it states “We look forward to hearing from you within 7 days”. I then received a County Court claim form with an issue date of 26 August 2016. BW Legal did not give me enough time to respond and automatically assumed that I would not respond.

I would put it as point #10, which seems to fit with the one before it. Then re-number the ones underneath.


I would confirm within this point that you were indeed feeling ill, which corroborates the appeal submitted to the IAS and shows you as a consistent and honest witness who is not changing his story:

6) The 3 images that are being used as evidence only show the vehicle stationary from 09:52:45 til 09:52:4. As stated I was still reading the sign at this point and had been taken ill, a fact of which this Claimant is fully aware.

Finally, add a statement of truth, as you see in other defences here.

Edna_Basher

You must amend Point 5) of your submission – i.e. the statement that “I could fully read the sign which stated “No Stopping” at which point I immediately turned around and moved on”.

There’s no way you could have fully read the sign given that it was so cluttered with different symbols and a multitude of words of varying text sizes, including a lot of small print which could not possibly be read from inside a vehicle (stationary or otherwise).

You must highlight the conflicting messages given by VCS’s signs and road markings at this site – importantly how VCS’s use of the Highway Code symbol for “No Stopping” conflicts with the double yellow lines* marked on the road, these being recognised in the Highway Code as meaning “No Waiting” as opposed to "No Stopping".

* unless VCS have repainted the roads in the last few months, double yellow lines are in place at Calder Park (unlike the double red lines on the roads at Robin Hood Airport and JLA).

Applying the rule of contra proferentem, a driver would be entitled to conclude that stopping (but not waiting) on the double yellow lines was permissible.

Even though VCS’s signs may try to specify a different meaning of double yellow lines (i.e. “strictly no stopping”) the text is too small to be read by any driver passing at 30 mph.

You can expand on this point in your full defence. The DfT booklet “Know Your Traffic Signs”, published in conjunction with the Highway Code, contains some useful information. This can be downloaded from:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519129/know-your-traffic-signs.pdf