County Court Claim - Clamping in Operation Sign at the Car Park

Coupon-mad

The 2018 date refers to a valid ticket issued in 2016.

Valid? People here would say they are never 'valid' from this scummy industry.

Would an incorrect date on the County Court Claim Form be enough to cause a breach of the KADOE contract?

No but it shows a lack of due diligence and the Defendant can state that proper information about the date has not been supplied despite this claim form emanating from a firm of solicitors who litigate these cut & paste robo-claims every day. So there can be no excuse for not properly informing an unrepresented Defendant about dates/details.

adamtbray

I had the case today and unfortunately lost. It didn't help that the case was in a full on courtroom; I had the idea it would sat around a table but in the reality the whole experience was rather intimidating being stared down by a judge!

I was cornered into a trap when the claimant started identifying me as the driver. The claimant had evidence from the landowner that I had been allowed to park on the car park overnight by the landowner (which I had), and the judge then started directly asking me why I had parked there in the daytime (she didn't appear to pick up on the fact that chasing me for keeper liability, then going to court and then being directly asked by a judge whether they were driving was a way to identify the driver). I felt I had to answer at that point and therefore identified myself as the driver as I panicked and didn't want to end up lying to the judge. I should probably have just said I would prefer not to answer that question, or something along those lines, but she would have then asked, who was the driver, or why did I not notify the car park operator who the actual driver was.

If anybody has direct advice for others on how to avoid this trap, that would be much appreciated.

I tried to argue that the ridiculously small signs didn't have planning consent, didn't agree to consumer contracts regulations, or the IPC code of conduct, but she was having none of it. She commended me for my "technical" defence, but was happy to move forward with a very "matter of fact" judgement, that I had been informally authorised to park there at night, yet not in the daytime, and that somehow resulted in me being liable for parking charges as there was a contract that existed between Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd and the landowner.

The annoying part was that the signs had mysteriously changed since I was ticketed (which I didn't realise until today) and when I went on site to take photographs of the signs to support my defence. The claimant said they had been "stolen" and the judge bought this.. shocking! These appear to be the old signs used by CPMS which identify two different company names, neither of which were Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd (the actual company name currently in use of the claimant). I had changed address, and therefore didn't receive the witness statement from the other side (containing the image of my car parked with the old sign), which I admit is my own fault for inadequately preparing and notifying the claimant of my change of address. If I had realised that the signs at the time of the parking violation were different to the existing ones, my case may have changed as I would have been able to prepare properly and argue that the different company names between what's on the signs compared to the actual company in existence, I may have won the case.

My whole experience of this has been that preparation is key, and I admit that I failed to adequately prepare myself and my witness statement. I feel if I had been better prepared I could have won it, but am still contemplating appealing.

Coupon-mad

That's a shame - it is extremely rare on here to read a reported lost case, but we didn't actually get to comment on your defence before you submitted it, which could have been improved in January if you had shown us.

If you'd been back more in between (January, then a big gap till 2 weeks ago) we would have helped in time with the WS and also could have given you some tips, such as challenging the rep's Right of Audience. Assuming the company sent a hired legal rep, it's possible they were not even entitled to act, if the PPC themselves were not there.

You have recognised where you missed a trick with the change of signs and some more preparation. What about that incorrect and shoddy particulars of claim with a 2018 date, was that allowed through as well as the suggestion that the old signs were 'stolen'?!

The fact you didn't see their WS and evidence because you moved house was a huge error. Does no-one younger than 50 pay the PO to redirect post these days? Why do people not get their post, and how come the Claimant sent the WS to your old address anyway? Did you not object to that when you found out?

Surely your new address was given in your defence and so there was no excuse to send the WS/evidence to an old one?

And in these circumstances we might have told you to defend this as driver, had we been able to comment on your draft defence as early as January. The POFA is not always worth hiding behind in multi-PCN cases with dodgy signs and (in your case) consent to park overnight which I don't think we knew about? A defence covering those details and less of the template arguments might have fared better but no point worrying about that now.

I hope you managed to argue against the added amounts plucked out of thin air, per PCN? These sums were not on the signs and are a clear attempt at double recovery, utterly unwarranted added *costs* bunged onto each PCN, when in the Beavis case it was held that £85 as a 'parking charge' more than covered the small costs of running a generic (mostly automated letters) parking system and allowing a profit for ParkingEye as well. So there are no 'losses' to add on to any parking charge.

Which court and Judge?

Appeals would be rare, unless you have a specific point of law where you believe the Judge erred. Surely the Claimant didn't get away with showing the NEW signs as evidence despite admitting the actual signs were *missing*? Was the first time you saw their evidence, in court? You missed a chance there.

System

Which court and Judge?

Manchester/DJ Khan(?)

4 tickets though. Signs would be a minor issue as how can you miss signs 4 times. Plus receiving paperwork 4 times too would have suggested that something was amiss with the OP parking there, even if the signs were not "legally accurate"

adamtbray

I know, I accept that this is my own fault in terms of poor preparation and I hold my hands up there.

It was actually somebody from the parking company who turned up to court, Mr Ian Hodgkiss. It appears that Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd, or “CPMS” to refer to for convenience sake, is a two man operation by a married couple (Ian and Lesley Hodkiss). The case was seen by District Judge Hovington at Manchester Civil Justice Centre.
I assume the reason why Mr. Hodgkiss pretended that the signs had been stolen is because they have changed from the BPA to the IPC (the signs referred to the BPA). Looking at other forums regarding the various entities which CPMS have exited in and poor stating of what the actual company name is on the signage, it appears that the signs may not have been entirely compliant due to stating three various company names on them. Because I had not looked at the sign in use at the time (due to not receiving the witness statement or taking photos before they were changed), I could not properly argue on poor signage grounds, and the judge believed Mr. Hodkiss when he said the signs had been stolen. She even had a copy of the old sign as Mr. Hodkiss had supplied this, and she didn’t question the inconsistencies between the various names. Here is a link to the old sign I’m on about: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=39326. All the judge seemed to care about was if the sign referred broadly to CPMS, and wasn’t really bothered about any sort of technical argument. It almost felt as if she wanted to just find out if I was the driver, why I was parked there without permission, and that was all that mattered. Shocking and appallingly unprofessional in my view.

When Mr. Hodkiss was speaking, he basically started directly referring to me as the driver, saying something along the lines of “Mr. Bray had been given permission to park overnight” (which I had been informally given permission by the furniture store to do so). He then proceeded to say, “CPMS were called out on four separate occasions to ticket Mr. Bray’s car when he was parked there during the daytime”. Judge Hovington then asked why I was parked there during the day, at which point I panicked and admitted I was the driver. How would I have got around this? Should the judge have fallen for this trap? If I’d have said I rather not state I was the driver, could this have been case closed so to speak, or would the parking company have still been able to hold me liable? I do refer to the case which coupon-mad posted earlier in this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=112475

Or should I simply have defended a case in these circumstances as the driver?
In terms of the poorly filled out claim form, the judge was happy with the wrong date being just a typo, and the fact it wasn’t specifically signed by a director, contrary to CPR part 22 (3.4) (apparently according to her it doesn’t apply if the form is filled in online on the money claim online website). It was almost like she had no legal training and wasn’t too bothered about technical issues. I quote her saying in a frustrated voice “these are very technical points you make”. It felt as if I could have turned up to court that day as a judge and done as good a job as she had. So much for years of legal training and an exorbitant salary ey? It didn’t help she had apparently shopped at Stockton’s furniture store and was probably therefore biased towards the landowner and CPMS from the outset. I guess on that kind of salary you can afford to buy overpriced furniture.

Is there anything else I can do at this stage? Can I complain to the DVLA or IPC? I feel that they would do very little however, and I have no evidence that CPMS were using outdated signs referring to the BPA when they were signed up to the IPC.