IAS APPEAL....feedback appreciated

Southernsoftie_jo

Ok great, many thanks!

Southernsoftie_jo

Update, as I write final draft for my defence.

Took another drive to the area in question this week while killing some time. My defence largely rests on inadequate signage (usual comments about signs too high/small etc to be aware had entered private land).

My main issue was that at this site you drive over a mini roundabout, and in crossing straight over you have now entered private land - but there was no signage to indicate this.

I note that there is now a large sign stating 'PRIVATE ROAD PARKING CONTROL IN PLACE' which is the size, visibility and height of that of a street name sign.

The parking company has seen fit to upgrade their signs of late - can I use this in my defence?

Can they use this against me if they produce evidence of this sign? I do have a photo of the entrance to the site showing the lack of this sign so I can prove it was not there at the time this charge was issued.

Thanks for any comments!

Southernsoftie_jo

Thoughts on this addition?

6.2 The placement and overall lack of signage is such that, upon entering land covered by the terms of parking, any driver would reasonably believe they are still on the public highway, having merely crossed over a mini-roundabout. The Defendant is aware that since the PCN was issued, a large sign stating 'PRIVATE ROAD PARKING CONTROL IN PLACE' has been erected at the entrance of the site, suggesting the Claimant was well aware of their insufficient signage and its inadequacy at establishing a legally binding contract with any driver.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good, and later, use the photos in evidence with your Witness Statement.

[Deleted User]

Ok can we get this clear or amend the precedent, please.

There is nothing wrong with the PPC asserting you are the driver and/or keeper. It is NOT a menu of choices but a permissible pleading in the alternative meaning you were any of driver, keeper or both. ALL must be responded to.

The defence could be clearer so as to deny or specifically put the PPC to proof in relation to all their scant points.

Unless I'm missing something, didn't you also say that the driver did, as it happens, park in a bay and move on within 24 hrs (as the signs you've now seen require)? If it were me I'd advance an additional secondary case - if which is denied, the signs could be sufficient to form a contract, the terms of any such contract were not breached. The claimant is put to proof.

Nothing on here about the wording of the signs that I can see. Since that is the contract you probably want people to take a look at that and any variation as between them.

Finally get a historic screen shot of the signs from Google Street view if you can.

Southernsoftie_jo

https://ibb.co/kgJrZT0
This is a close up of the sign which is 6 foot high and not visible to a driver

Google street view no help to me as the site was under construction when the Google images were taken, so just shows a building site!

Southernsoftie_jo

https://ibb.co/56qqQzf

This is the sign perpendicular to the road, so not noticeable to a driver looking straight ahead, not to mention illegible!

Southernsoftie_jo

Thank you for the feedback.

Just to clarify, the alleged breach of terms (this is not stated on particulars of claim however) is for not displaying a visitor permit on while parked on private land. It was not evident the Vehicle had entered private land, having simply gone over a roundabout, with no clear signage, therefore driver not aware of need for permit.

(Location was inspected by myself once PCN received)

Vehicle was parked no more than 10-15 mins. I have no evidence of this sadly other then offering my own witness statement, as I know when the car was taken/returned to me. I can recall the day and time in question clearly.

I'll re-look at the defence statement and remove point re driver/keeper.

Many thanks.

Southernsoftie_jo

Most recent version of my Defence....


It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident but the Defendant was not the driver that day.

The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

1. On the material date, the Defendant was at home and was not in the area claimed at the time claimed.

2. In order to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, the Claimant is required to comply with the strict statutory conditions set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). The Claimant has failed to do so, and cannot, therefore, hold the Defendant liable.

3. The Claimant has provided no proof the defendant was driving and has continued to send increasingly inflated formal demands for breaking terms, which the defendant did not enter in to.

4. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. Inspection of the location of the alleged incident by the Defendant, having received the initial PCN, identified that the two signs present at the entrance of the site (which have since been replaced) were badly damaged - with one completely illegible as half the sign was missing. Indeed the Vehicle would have at no point actually passed a sign indicating the land was private property, due to the damaged nature of the signs. It is therefore denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract with any driver and as such denied the Defendant can be held liable for any parking charge.

6.1 Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the contractual terms in a visible manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such an elevated position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. The Defendant denies a contract was established as the driver was not adequately made aware of any contractual terms.

6.2 The placement and overall lack of signage was such that, upon entering land covered by the terms of parking, any driver would reasonably believe they are still on the public highway, having merely crossed over a mini-roundabout. The Defendant is aware that since the PCN was issued, a large sign stating 'PRIVATE ROAD PARKING CONTROL IN PLACE' has been erected at the entrance of the site, suggesting the Claimant was well aware of their insufficient signage and its inadequacy at establishing a contract with any driver at the time this PCN was issued.

6.3 Furthermore, signage was inconsistent and outdated. Upon inspection of signage on 3rd April 2017, it was noted that the terms on one sign (but not others) require all vehicles on site to display a tax disc, however this has not been required under UK law since 2014.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Driver agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days, as stated in the Particulars of Claim. There is no legal basis for a contract to have been established between Claimant and driver, (reference points 6-6.2 above) and it is therefore denied that the Defendant can be held liable for any parking charge, or any additional charges made by the Claimant.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. This additional charge is not recoverable under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

Southernsoftie_jo wrote: »

Google street view no help to me as the site was under construction when the Google images were taken, so just shows a building site!

But you can change the date backwards on GSV, to see older images.