£860 Private Parking County Claim - Urgent Help!

Jonathon365

Hello regular posters,

I have gone through the dates in all 5 violations and made a timeline below:
I read in the POFA there is a clause about the 28 days limit for the NTK to be issued. Please can you clarify this for me? Do I have grounds to argue they were not issued in time?

1: Parking charge issued 35 days after the event.
Date of Event: 07/03/2016
Date Issued: 11/04/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

2: Parking charge issued 36 days after the event.
Date of Event: 04/04/2016
Date Issued: 10/05/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

3. Parking charge issued 36 days after the event.
Date of Event: 26/04/2016
Date Issued: 01/06/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

4. Parking charge issued 34 days after the event.
Date of Event: 04/05/2016
Date Issued: 07/06/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

5. Parking charge issued 36 days after the event.
Date of Event: 09/05/2016
Date Issued: 14/06/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

Jonathon365

Hello, thank you for your comments. I will amend the WS accordingly.

I have added to the WS to include that I am yet to see a contract between Lancaster University and First Parking. Please review the post again if you don't mind.

Please can you clarify your point on the additional charges? You're saying no additional costs must be included in writing in the contract between the University and the Claimant because I'm not covered by POFA? Please excuse any misunderstanding on my part.

@Johnersh please can you view my post above this regarding the dates of notice.

Thanks

Jonathon365

Update:

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all for the following reasons:

1.0. The Claim relates to 5 alleged parking events from vehicle (REG NUMBER) having been loaded at Lancaster University Campus (FULL ADDRESS HERE). These 5 events occurred on the following dates:
07-03-2016
04-04-2016
26-04-2016
04-05-2016
09-05-2016
First Parking are arguing that I have breached Lancaster University Parking Policy and therefore am bound by those terms creating a contractual charge.

1.1. Firstly, I have never been presented with a contract showing the authority of First Parking to issue tickets on behalf of Lancaster University. I suspect any "contract" that is shown during the hearing will be self-authorisation, where First Parking have written to themselves saying they have authority to issue tickets. I challenge First Parking to prove they have genuine authorisation from the occupier Lancaster University and not just a self-generated approval.

2.0. Second, the Lancaster University Parking Policy at point 20 (Exhibit A), allows cars to to stop for loading, as long as they are not unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time.

2.1. For each parking event, I did drive my vehicle onto Lancaster University property and stopped my vehicle for a short duration. Whilst I cannot remember the particulars of each case, the intention of stopping was so that I can collect and then load bulky books and other documents from the University Library and Management School into my vehicle. The vehicle was stopped in that same particular location on all 5 occasions, as it was a very short walk to collect the books and other documents from the University Library and Management School. On each occasion, I had been back and forth to the vehicle several times with different books, 'attending' the vehicle within 10 minutes each time, whilst I loaded more books and then went back to the Library or Management School to collect the remaining books.

2.2. On each occasion, whilst I was in the process of collecting the books and the vehicle was indeed left unattended, albeit for under 10 minutes - First Parking issued a parking ticket and did not consider the Lancaster University Parking Policy Point 20 that allows for 10 minutes of unattended stopping for loading to take place.

2.3. I challenge First Parking to prove the vehicle was left in contravention to the Lancaster University Parking Policy.

3.0. Moreover, the distinction between 'parking' and 'loading' was held by HHJ Charles Harris in Jopson V Homeguard (2016) who determined that it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time”.

3.1. HHJ Charles Harris provided a very detailed definition of 'parking' as opposed to a few minutes 'loading' and held: ''The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the defendant, loading awkward piece of furniture. [...]I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.''

3.2. I challenge First Parking to prove that I was not loading as allowed for in both the Jopson V Homeguard (2016) case and the Lancaster University Parking Policy.

4.0. The claim is for £800.00 of charges which represents additional charges and add-ons to the original charges. The original charges were £75.00 per parking event (total £375.00) and means First Parking have included £425.00 of disallowed additional charges.

4.1. These additional charges are not included nor quantified on The Lancaster University Signage or the Lancaster University parking policy.

4.2. Add-ons and additional charges were also not applied in the complex case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis (2015). In this case, only the £85.00 value of the original ticket and no additional charges were pursued. The attempt made by First Parking is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims cost rules.

5.0. The parking charge for each parking event was issued after the 28-day limit as set out under POFA. (Readers can you confirm this is the case? I'm very unsure, I doubt it to be the case but I need to check if the dates listed below are in any way significant)

5.1: Parking charge issued 35 days after the event.
Date of Event: 07/03/2016
Date Issued: 11/04/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

5.2 2: Parking charge issued 36 days after the event.
Date of Event: 04/04/2016
Date Issued: 10/05/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

5.3 3: Parking charge issued 36 days after the event.
Date of Event: 26/04/2016
Date Issued: 01/06/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

5.4. 4: Parking charge issued 34 days after the event.
Date of Event: 04/05/2016
Date Issued: 07/06/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

5.5. 5: Parking charge issued 36 days after the event.
Date of Event: 09/05/2016
Date Issued: 14/06/2016
First Parking County Court Legal Action Case Preparation letter notice: 01/03/2017

6.0. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissable under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Were all the occasions between 8am and 6pm, which are the permit 'applicable hours' there, according to their policy?

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/facilities/car-parking-policy/CARPARKINGPOLICY2015-16PRINCIPALDOCUMENT.pdf

Collecting bulky printing could be argued as 'loading' and the policy at #20, allows cars to stop for loading, as long as they are not unattended for MORE THAN 10 minutes at a time. You are saying your car was not left for more than that time, so that should be your main defence point:

In fact, if I were you then in your case (unusually) I would defend as DRIVER, unless it is likely that different drivers were using this car at University. I think to pretend you can't recall who might have been the driver, and then talk about loading bulky printed documents/files of work/books picked up and loaded into the car, in less than ten minutes on each occasion, from the adjacent library.

I think not to say you were that driver, bearing in mind you know it was loading and you really want to argue the car wasn't there more than ten minutes each time, would be seen through by any Judge.

So I would go with a far less generic defence, and for starters, I always advise people refrain from repeating the Claimant's case (why would we?!):

In view of the above I wouldn't be saying this, as it helps their case:

1.2. I was not made aware of the Lancaster University Parking Policy until after the said parking events had taken place. This was not provided to me in any University starter documentation that I would of received back in 2012 nor was communicated to me in the duration of my course.

Sorry to post and run; I really have other priorities right now.

But I think that section at #20 allowing loading, really helps you so don't throw that away by saying you never knew you could load for 10 minutes (who knows, some other students might have told you when you first moved in as a fresher).

As always it is for the Claimant to prove the car was parked in contravention and that they had a legitimate interest in charging you. Blast their 'legitimate interest' into the middle of next week and make them prove the car wasn't being loaded each time.

Jonathon365

Thank you @Coupon-Mad - I cannot say how much your comments have helped me deal with this and the stress the whole thing is causing me.

A primary issue I'm having in structuring my Witness Statement is the University parking policy, which as you know specifically says vehicles are only to be loaded for a maximum of 10 minutes. On each occasion, the vehicle was left for longer than 10 minutes and up to a maximum of around 30 minutes (albeit one of the occasions was 12 minutes). I'm worried that when I raise the point of the parking policy allowing the 10 minutes, the claimant will hit me with the above and show the evidence of the vehicle being stationary for longer. What's your opinion on this? From what you have said my knowledge of the policy still needs to be raised to show I had intent to load? Is this right?

To your second point - As far as I can see, the parking company has no way to 100% prove I wasn't 'loading' the vehicle on each occasion. However, It would be up to the judge to determine whether the car being stopped for up to 30 minutes can reasonably be viewed as 'loading' and I'm unsure if the Jopson case significantly supports me as was pointed out by an earlier poster. Again, can I ask for your opinion on this?

Reading the remainder of the current witness statement, albeit in draft form, can you see any gaping holes that need closing off or anything significant I should add? I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on point 5.0. regarding the additional fees, the earlier poster indicating this may not be the case for my situation.

Following your feedback above, I have added to the Witness Statement above (please read again) and have specifically asking them to prove the car wasn't being loaded each time.

Thank you

nosferatu1001

Massive gaping hole - pofa is irrelevant where the driver is identified.

Jonathon365

Ok so POFA needs coming out. Please can you suggest another way for me to argue against the additional charges? Is the fact that the signage does not mention nor quantity any additional charges sufficient?

Update - I've taken POFA out and stated that additional charges and not mentioned or quantified on the parking signs or parking policy. Is this enough? Please re-read the WS on page 4 on this post.

I am worried sick about this!!

Thanks!

Jonathon365

@Lamilad, @RedX, @Coupon-Mad - Please can I have your input? Your regular and frequent posts have helped me significantly and I require further support on the WS draft (most recent version on page 4 of this post). Please can you review?

This is being sent off on Tuesday and I don't feel it's strong enough / feel confident.

My primary argument is that on each occasion I was loading the vehicle with books and the vehicle was fined whilst it was left unattended (Between me going to the library to collect books and then taking back to the car). This is not in accordance with the University policy that allows for 10 minutes unattended stopping whilst being loaded. - Is this valid?

The POFA does not appear applicable in this case. Can you confirm the fact additional charges were not mention on either the parking signage or parking policy is reasonable grounds for them not be added? If not, is there another way for me to argue against these charges?

GOOGLE DRIVE REMOVED

I have the Lancaster signage and my WS in there. Please edit!

Lamilad

Is the fact that the signage does not mention nor quantity any additional charges sufficient?

That plus the fact that most of the additional charges that PPCs add on to inflate their claim are not recoverable in small claims.

AFAIK, the only charges they are allowed to claim are the £25 filing fee, and the hearing fee - £80 in your case. I believe they can, in certain circumstances, claim legal costs up to £50 but I believe they can (and should) be held to strict proof on that one.

Jonathon365

Lamilad wrote: »

That plus the fact that most of the additional charges that PPCs add on to inflate their claim are not recoverable in small claims.

AFAIK, the only charges they are allowed to claim are the £25 filing fee, and the hearing fee - £80 in your case. I believe they can, in certain circumstances, claim legal costs up to £50 but I believe they can (and should) be held to strict proof on that one.

I will add your comments above to the WS. From what you have said the worst case is I lose, pay £375 in actual parking charges (5*£75) and then £100 in additional charges. Is there anything else you think I should add / change / remove?

Thank you