Parking Charge Notice - Calder Park, Wakefield - Help

shaftonred

So one day to go until my court day and I am a little nervous to be honest. I have all of my documents in my file including another for the judge in case it was misplaced and a memory stick of the video footage of my driving onto the estate (after the event) to demonstrate the location of the cameras which werent at each point advised by BW Legal.


Fingers crossed, I am not in any way shape of form understanding the legal arguments but will be relying on the main points listed below which I will defend and stand by respectfully.


1) Signage: Inadequately located accross from junctions and on approaches to roundabouts, too many words and not located where they advised they were.
2) Grace period, none was taken into account for me to decide whether I accepted these terms set out by VCS... the amount of words, location of signs meant that its impossible for anyone to safely drive onto this estate and have time to read the signs so in effect this is encatchment and set up to allow them to catch motorists.


I will let you all know the outcome... I just need to work on my payment options should I lose in terms of what I can afford... hoping it doesnt come to this however as the original fine of £100 equates to £3.22 per second and losing this will then mean £14.12 per second... take it if I lose there is no appeal?

System

So one day to go until my court day

Are you sure this is still on? If it is, the two points you mention are key.

Could you upload their WS to Dropbox so we can see it. Bit late now but it will be useful later.

I just need to work on my payment options should I lose in terms of what I can afford...

IF the case is still on, and IF you lose, the judge will ask the question of affordability. It is usually about £10/week or £50/month for those on low incomes.

shaftonred

So i arrived today only to lose in a case which took less than an hour. The claimant didn’t turn up and instead had a representative from a sister company attend who conveniently was sat in a side room before the case hearing.





I took in with me all my evidence, was polite at all times (where as the beachball sized representative coughed, spluttered and looked untidy) and was informed that as BW Legal wasn’t in attendance, that I couldn’t cross examine the representative (yet he was allowed to ask me a question of how many times i had visited the site) but could have a look at the witness statement of the claimant and offer any response. He commented that I had the time to look down and see the nursery calling but didn’t have time to see the signs so wasn’t paying care and attention to where I was going and that as per the highway code should have found a safe place to stop (which i did having referenced this on the day and also in my witness statement)





It didn’t feel clear that because I was unable to ask questions of the representative. What I was able to say was any additional points to their witness statement, i had in effect responded to various aspects of theirs and addressed location of signage on site (that they were wholly inadequately placed and busy in terms of context) . I referenced the IPC code of conduct in terms of Grace Period in accepting the contract, the locations of the signs being in dangerous locations and not where BW Legal had advised in the case of entrance signs and pointed out the PO Box address on the signs contravened Companies Regulations 2008.





She then started to recap, talking through the case bit by bit and kept referencing Beavis v's Parking Eye, my points about size of wording on the sign (which wasn’t my main point) and case laws (all whilst the fat dwarf coughed and spluttered whilst sighing) before admitting that she had seen photos provided by me in evidence but not seen my video which I had submitted as evidence to how difficult it was to read signs upon approach. Then she awarded this in the favour of BW Legal whilst referencing that there were adequate signage and that I was familiar with the site (which I had told her that it was my first time on the site but had visited several times since to check the signage out).





To say I am disappointed is a massive understatement! I feel totally let down today by the judge in that she didn’t look at the video evidence and laboured on about the sign lettering size more so than the locations of the signs which posed a risk to motorists. I expected more of an in depth discussion around the main points from each party which didn’t happen……. Now I need to appeal to BW Legal to set up a payment plan despite me appealing to the Judge on account of affordability (I had the documents and costings with me) who told me to speak with BW Legal to set up. Kind of wishing I had paid this on the reduced £60 offer now.

System

Which court and can we see the Witness Statement?

that I was familiar with the site

Who claimed you were familiar as that will be the killer [if the WS has a particular case referenced]. Did they claim it or did the judge misunderstand?

shaftonred

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Which court and can we see the Witness Statement?




Who claimed you were familiar as that will be the killer [if the WS has a particular case referenced]. Did they claim it or did the judge misunderstand?

It was in Ipswich and I have attached the WS below. With regards to the familiarity it was the judge who mentioned this during her closing speech. She seemed to go on about the size of the signs as to my defence when the size wasnt a major issue, more so of the location of the signs.


In all honesty she didnt look at the video and I am surprised if she looked at my case in great detail at all... feel totally let down with the system in this case. Seemed strange that the representative could question me and suggest that as I looked down at my phone for a split second i missed the signs that i was driving without due care and attention despite.. when i went to defend this i was asked not to speak at this stage. It was all wrapped up with the short fat representative seemingly butting in whenever he saw fit.








In the County Court at IPSWICH Claim No. XXXX
Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)

-V-

XXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXX, of XXXXXX, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:





2. I make this witness statement in readiness for the hearing listed for XXth September 2018 at XX:00am.





3. Within this document I make reference to various documents. These are in the paginated bundle marked “XX”.








4. Before I describe what happened on the day I stopped on Calder Park, Wakefield, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
a. I did not breach the contract as to do so would have meant that I had sufficient time to read the inadequately placed and “busy” signs.
b. Even if I did breach the terms, the Claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association to apply grace period to park and read any signs so they make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. (Page 1 of XX1)


5. On Xth November 2016 I approached Calder Park, Wakefield, with the intention of getting fuel at the service station located within Calder Park. Immediately on exiting the roundabout from the main highway (Image 1, Page 2 of XX) my phone started to ring with a call from my 11-month-old daughter’s nursery. With my Bluetooth not activated, I decided to head towards the first available safe point for me pull up and answer my phone.


As you can see in image 2 (Page 2 of XX) the signs were placed directly at the approach to the roundabout where I needed to turn left and with a car directly behind me didn’t allow me enough time to read the amount of information detailed within the sign.


As I turned left onto the road having looked right on the approach for other traffic I noticed at the end of the road was a mound of soil which had been placed to signify the end of the road. Deciding that answering my phone in the grounds of the petrol station would not be safe and not wanting to park in the car parks of Starbucks or KFC when I did not intend to buy anything I decided to pull my car up at the end of the road in a position where no one would be obstructed. As the pictures on image 5 (Page 4 of XX) show, this is the safest possible place to stop without causing any obstruction.


Worried about the reason for the call, I returned a very quick call to the nursery to check up on my daughter that was over in a matter of 20-30 seconds. Whilst on the phone I noticed a sign directly in front, which I dually read before heading into the service station for fuel. My engine was running all the time given the short duration of the call, as there was never any intention of stopping following the call.





Approaching the road in question from the roundabout you can see in image 3 (Page 2 of XX) that the first sign is located on the right hand side of the road in a low position. Further, up the road in Image 4 (Page 3 of XX) you can see one additional sign, which is again on the right side of the road and directly opposite the approach of the exit to the fuel station and Starbucks, which could easily be obstructed by any large cars, vans or trucks.


5. The signage, which Vehicle Control Services refer to within their Witness Defence and their letter, dated 25th November 2016 (Page 5 of XX) were, in my opinion, located in locations, i.e. entrances to junctions, roundabouts, which in themselves could cause a risk to motorists trying to read their content. The locations of which appear to be placed in positions where drivers are likely to miss them through standard due care and attention whilst driving.


6. I refer to the video enclosed within the memory stick (labelled XX VD) which was a video taken within the last 6 months that clearly shows that the signs were located at points which would be very difficult for any driver to read whilst moving given the location and contents of the signs. In addition to this the locations shown on the sign locations within the site boundary (Page 6 of XX) isn’t representative of where the signs are actually located as shown in my video. I have highlighted within this document the actual locations of the signs, which I have marked on an image taken from Google Earth. (Page 7 of XX)


7. The signage within Calder Park are inadequate and as such, there could be no meeting of minds to form a binding contract. Crucially, drivers must focus on the road ahead as they drive rather than being distracted by considering the intricacies of illegible terms and conditions on a sign at the side of the road as they pass.

The Department for Transport (“DfT”) guidelines state that a road sign should contain no more than 6 words or directions, this being the number of words that can be scanned safely in 4 seconds (any more words would mean the driver's eyes would be off the road for too long). Reading time R is given as 2 + N/3 seconds, where N is the number of words or directions on the sign. 2 seconds are given for the eyes to settle on the sign and start reading.


The main entrance signs to the estate 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 DfT 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.

It is obvious that there can be no meeting of minds if the driver does not have time to read the sign, let alone have time to consider it, especially when their main focus must be on driving safely and not considering the intricacies of Contract Law.

The text on the signs was too small to have been registered by a driver approaching this location is 30 mph.

The main 'No Stopping' text is 11cm, the “Private Property” text is 6cm and the text of the other writing (including the disclosure of the £100 charge) is not more than 4cm.

The DfT eyesight standards for driving require a driver to be able to read an 8cm number plate at a distance of 20 metres. The road has a 30mph speed limit; a speed of 30mph equates to 13.4 metres per second. 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

The 4cm font becomes readable at 10 metres away, and the sign is passed just three quarters of a second later. According to DfT guidelines, two seconds are needed for 'settle time' before any words can be read. Allowing for a safe angle to view the sign from the roadway, even the largest “No Stopping” is only readable for less than 2 seconds. Therefore by the time the driver's eyes have settled, the sign has been passed without the driver being able to register any of the wording on the sign.

The signs did not clearly identify VCS as the contracting party
The name “Vehicle Control Services Ltd” only appears in the small print (3cm) at the bottom of the sign and would not have been seen by the driver. Consequently, the driver could not possibly have known that VCS was seeking to establish a contract with him / her. Furthermore, VCS is in breach of Companies Act Trading Disclosure Regulations; the signs provide details only of a P.O. Box address rather than the company’s Registered Office of 2 Europa Court, Sheffield Business Park, Sheffield, S9 1XE as required by the Regulations.


Having reviewed the signage in the comfort of my home I have timed how long it takes to read the sign, which equates to 20 seconds. I have returned to Calder Park several times with family and friends in the lead up to this case and have timed them whilst at the driver’s seat, driving at the permitted speed and due to the content within the sign and their position no one was able to even come close to reading the contents before having to look for oncoming traffic.





8. Whilst VCS may have included the "Clearway - no stopping on the main carriageway" symbol on its signs, the roads are marked with double yellow lines which have a completely different meaning on the public highway - i.e. no waiting rather than no stopping. This gives conflicting messages against what is stated within the Highway Code.


9. Despite requesting the details of the landowner several times so I could make a direct appeal to, this information was not forthcoming and wasn’t provided (Page 8/9 XX). Even though this was referred to on several occasions I was not informed by the Claimant that they were the operator of the site and that the landowner couldn’t cancel the charge. This was part of several pieces of information requested which could have easily being provided but was instead withheld for reasons only known to the Claimant.


9. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14. (Page 10, XX)









Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Hmmm, if this OP appealed, it wouldn't be HHJ Maloney's area, would it?

shaftonred

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Hmmm, if this OP appealed, it wouldn't be HHJ Maloney's area, would it?

:eek:

Sorry dont understand what you mean with this?

Umkomaas

shaftonred wrote: »

Sorry dont understand what you mean with this?

HHJ Moloney. Quite a significant contributor to the private parking debate.

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Judgment_1905-OCRD_2.pdf