CPM Parking in work carpark space forgetting to display permit

Loadsofchildren123

In the Admiral case, we got hold of a copy of the Admiral-Excel contract (Excel must have taken a long lease of the site which gave them the rights to sublet). I think the Facilities Dept released it to the D when she asked for all the documents relating to her parking rights.


I think you need to get hold of the source contract between landowner and your employer, because the terms of this might be crucial. Can you ask your employer for a copy? If this grants rights to park which mention nothing about permits and a PPC then you might be onto something.


You would expect your employer to help given that there are lots of disgruntled employees. Can you get everyone in the same boat as you to chip in and put pressure on your Facilities/HR dept? Why should you be paying for parking and then penalised?

CBrown90

I will try again to get that document, do I need it when I submit my defence online? I'm aware I need to do that in the next few days.

Loadsofchildren123

Try and get it before, because it might impact on your defence if it adds new contractual arguments about the PPC’s rights

CBrown90

Still no luck getting any documents from my company. Apparently the car park is owned by the ticket company too. I don't think I have much of a chance here. Going to submit my arguements tonight and hope for the best (not paying £250) I think!

CBrown90

I'm struggling with finding the defence page. Nothing is around on my money claim online page. I can't see anything on newbie thread either. Can anyone help?
Cheers

Coupon-mad

You email your defence to the ccbcaq email addy. Easy to Google even if struggling on here.

Have you shown us the defence for comments? Can't see it above.

CBrown90

Ah thanks Coupon-mad! I was probably looking for the wrong thing.

My defense comments were taken from LoadsOfChildren's excellent post. I couldn't see anything more relevant on other posts and couldn't get any extra help at work. Hope that's ok?

So the defense is as follows:

1. I XXXX admit that I was the driver of a xxxxx, registration number xxxx on the relevant date.

2. I deny that I am liable for the entirety of the Claim for the reasons set out below.

3. No contract was entered into between myself and the Defendant.!

4. I did enter into a contract for parking, but it was with my employer and not the Claimant, as follows:
4.1 On xxxx I entered into an agreement with his employer xxxxx (“x”) by which x granted me the right to park in its staff car park as part of the conditions of my contract (“the Agreement”);

5. I did not enter into any contract with the Claimant in relation to the exercise of my rights to park under the Agreement and the Contract, or in relation to any other matter, and the Claimant therefore has no cause of action against me.

6. I cannot have entered into any contract with the Claimant, because the Claimant cannot have made any offer of parking to me – they already had the right to park by virtue of the Agreement and Contract with x. To the extent that any offer was made by the Claimant, I did not accept it. Furthermore, no consideration flowed between the Claimant and myself (the Defendant already having the parking rights, for which he had agreed to)

7. I admit that I was given a piece of paper containing the Claimant’s “terms and conditions” for the use of x’s staff car park, along with a permit. This was given to me by a member of x's Facilities Department after I had entered into the Agreement with x and signed a Contract. When I was given the Claimant’s terms and conditions, I had already acquired the right to park in the staff car park, by my employer x. Therefore, the terms and conditions cannot have formed part of that Agreement/Contract. Neither could I have entered into any further contract with the Claimant because there was no offer made, no acceptance of any offer and no consideration flowed between the Claimant and myself. The terms and conditions did not therefore bind me.

8. It is admitted that the car park contained a sign or signs which stated that it was to be used only by permit-holders/authorized users and a warning that unauthorized users would be charged £100. It is denied that such signage made any offer to myself, because its wording forbade parking for those not displaying a permit, rather than offering it, and those who had permits were already authorized by x to park there. The Claimant’s intention was not to make a genuine offer, the main purpose of the wording was to deter unauthorized parking by attempting to impose a penalty upon those who did not have a permit.

9. To the extent that the signage made an offer, I did not accept it because I was already entitled to park in the car park, and I took the warning in the signage to apply only to unauthorized users – it was clear to me that the sign was intended as a deterrent.!

10. It is denied that I was obliged by the Agreement or the Contract, nor by any contract with the Claimant, to display the permit in the manner prescribed in the Claimant’s terms and conditions, or its signage, or at all. Nor was I obliged to pay a charge for failing to display the permit (either to x or to the Claimant or any other entity). At no time did I accept the Claimant’s terms and conditions or any offer made by the signage and, as stated above.!

11. To the extent that any offer was made by the Claimant, I did not accept it by parking, and no consideration flowed, because I was already entitled to park in the staff car park.

12. In the alternative, should it be determined that I entered into a contract with the Claimant and that I did breach its terms, the Claimant’s terms and conditions failed to define what the amount of any “parking charge” would be, and this term must therefore be void for uncertainty. It is accepted that a “parking charge” of £100 was identified on the signage in the car park. However, the signage cannot have formed part of any contract which may have been created between the Claimant and myself by the terms and conditions. The terms of the contract have to be clear at the time the contract is made. Terms cannot be added later, other than by way of a collateral or new contract – both contracts require an offer, acceptance and consideration. If a contract was formed, then it was formed when the terms and conditions and the permit were given to the Defendant, and not later when I started to use the car park and read the signs.

13. Should it be determined that the Claimant’s signage was capable of making an offer, such offer was not accepted by myself, and there can have been no consideration, because I had already been granted parking rights in the staff car park by x and the Claimant was already obliged to provide car parking spaces pursuant to its contract with x.

14. I believes that the Claimant has already been remunerated for providing and managing the spaces in the x staff car park, and that the £100 charge (to which unspecified charges of £143.32 have been inexplicably added) is an unrecoverable penalty which is unenforceable and is an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Claim is distinguished from the facts in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. In that case, it was agreed that there was a contract between the driver and the Claimant, formed by prominent signage at the entrance to a car park which made a clear offer. The case turned on a unique set of facts regarding the location and interest of the landowner. Strict compliance with the Claimant’s Code of Practice was paramount. The site was a retail park and there was a free parking licence offered. There was a “legitimate interest” in the contract/parking charges being enforced so that visitors did not overstay the two hour free period in the retail park so as to ensure a turnover of visitors to the retail units, and a complex contractual arrangement by which the Claimant was not paid by the landowner and therefore had to make an income out of the management of the car parking. All of this together disengaged the “penalty rule”. None of those facts apply in this case - the charges claimed are quite clearly a penalty and are not recoverable. In addition, the Claimant’s compliance with its binding ATA AOS Code of Practice was deemed to be paramount in the Beavis case, whereas in this case the Claimant has breached its Code of Practice in several important respects. Compliance with the Code of Practice is a mandatory term and a condition of membership.

15. The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of all aspects of its claim, including:
15.1 Its contractual right, granted by the landowner or lawful occupier of the land, to manage the car park where I was parked on the relevant date, to issue charges to vehicles and to pursue court proceedings in respect of such charges;
15.2 The creation of a contract with myself by either the terms and conditions or by the Claimant’s signage or by any other means;
15.3 The manner in which I have breached such contract;
15.4 The loss suffered by the Claimant as a result of any breach(es);
15.5 The Defendant also challenges the addition of [£60] in additional costs and the interest of [£8.32]. The Claimant is put to full proof of the contractual term entitling it to add charges of [£143.32] to the sum claimed. In respect of the interest claimed, the court should not exercise its discretion to award interest where the Claimant has delayed by 11 Months in bringing these proceedings.

KeithP

Not sure how important it is, but defence statements are usually written in the third person.

For example:

I did enter into a contract for parking, but it was...

should be:

The defendant entered into a contract for parking, but it was...

CBrown90

Thanks KeithP, I thought that was because LoadsOfChildren was writing for someone else. Changed back and spotted a few other mistakes where I refer to he/she.

fisherjim

CBrown90 wrote: »

Still no luck getting any documents from my company. Apparently the car park is owned by the ticket company too. I don't think I have much of a chance here. Going to submit my arguements tonight and hope for the best (not paying £250) I think!

I just don't believe that, you are being fobbed off!

They are a car park management company, absolutely nothing about owning car parks on their web site, and they provide their services free to clients for the privilege of catching people out.

https://www.uk-carparkmanagement.co.uk/aboutus/our-mission

No property management mentioned here:

https://www.uk-carparkmanagement.co.uk/aboutus/meet-the-team