£860 Private Parking County Claim - Urgent Help!

Jonathon365

Thank you Lamilad.


I will post an image of the claim form when I get home tonight so you can see in more detail what they actually say, but you're right very brief.


I'll add in your suggestions regarding signage, but may need more help with what pre action protocols they were in breach of. I'll update the post tonight.


I have a question on the following:

Lamilad wrote: »

In 4.0 you say you have not seen the contract between FP and the LU but what about the parking policy can they prove you have been given a copy? If not that should def be in there too. You cannot be held to account over a parking policy that you knew nothing about. They have to prove they made you aware.

Coupon-Mad said to include that I knew about the parking policy earlier in the thread as it shows I was complying with a rule I knew about. What are your thoughts? Do you still think the above?


Thanks

Jonathon365

Yes I've rang and they have paid the fee, so the hearing will go ahead

Lamilad

but may need more help with what pre action protocols they were in breach of

Read some of the recent CEL defences, they always contain some good detail attacking the poc and pre action protocols

Lamilad

I'll add in your suggestions regarding signage

This post tells someone how to attack signage and contains a link to a WS for a case that was won by the defendant attacking signage

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=112462&view=findpost&p=1309756

Castle

Lamilad wrote: »

Policy states your vehicle should not be unattended for anymore than 10 mins when loading/unloading. It does not say that you vehicle can only be stopped for 10 mins -

in fact it makes no ref to how long the vehicle can be stopped as long as it's not left unattended for more than 10 mins. so you refer to #20 and deny any breach of this as you vehicle was not at any point unattended for a period of 10 mins and the claimant is put to strict proof otherwise

As I read the policy in #20; there's no time limit on loading/unloading, only that the vehicle can't be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at any one time. So you could have made two or three trips from/back to the car over a 30 minute period.

Jonathon365

UPDATE 17/10/2017:

Added feedback and suggestions from Lamilad and other posters. I think I've made it really clear re. section 20 and allowing the 10 minutes of unattended parking. I do think this will be the major factor.


Have a read and let me know.

Between

(Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, (NAME AND ADDRESS) am the defendant in this case.

1.0. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2.0. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

3.0. The claim relates to 5 alleged parking events from vehicle (REG) for allegedly ‘parking’ on Lancaster University Pendle Avenue (referenced as a. below) and Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue (referenced as b, c, d and e. below) on the following dates:
07/03/2016 - Lancaster University Pendle Avenue
04/04/2016 - Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue
26/04/2016 - Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue
04/05/2016 - Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue
09/05/2016 - Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue
f1rst Parking Limited are claiming that I have breached the Lancaster University Parking Policy 2015/2016 that they were supposedly enforcing.

4.0. F1rst Parking issued me with continuous PCN letters throughout 2016. Having never ‘parked’ at Pendle Avenue or Grizedale Avenue, and, as the letters did not look very official – like those issued by a Local Authority or Council – and after further research and discussions with others attending the University and using their vehicles for similar purposes as those set out below, I followed the prevailing advice that these PCNs were a scam. I therefore disregarded all further correspondence regarding this matter. No adverse inference can be drawn from this.

5.0. Secondly, I have never been presented with a contract showing the authority of F1rst Parking Limited to issue tickets on behalf of Lancaster University. I suspect any "contract" that is shown during the hearing will be self-authorisation, where F1rst Parking have written to themselves saying they have authority to issue tickets. I challenge F1rst Parking to prove they have genuine authorisation from the occupier Lancaster University and not just a self-generated approval.

Jonathon365

5.1. As such, the claimant has not produced a contract or any evidence that they have a contract or a chain of contracts connecting them with the landowner granting them authority to enforce parking, or issue charges at the site, or to sue people in their own name. In the absence of the claimant producing a full unredacted contract of such the defence asserts that they had no authority and only the landowner would be allowed to take action in this case, and then only for trespass.


6.0. For each parking event, I did drive my vehicle (REG) onto Lancaster University campus 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 could collect and then load bulky books and other documents from the University Library and adjacent Lancaster University Management School into my vehicle.

6.1. The vehicle was stopped on both Pendle Avenue and Grizedale Avenue on all occasions, because these roads were the closest in proximity to both the Lancaster University Library and Management School, where space was widely available for a vehicle to be stopped. The timeline of all parking events runs from March 2016 – May 2016, which is the primary exam and revision term at Lancaster University and supports my statement that I was stopping to collect and then load books to support my revision for my final year examinations.

6.2. On each occasion, I walked to either the Lancaster University Library or Management School to collect books and other documents before returning to my vehicle (REG). I then proceeded to load these books and documents into the vehicle, before again leaving the vehicle and returning to the Library or Management School to collect further books and documents. Each time, the vehicle was not left unattended for more than 10 minutes and I challenge F1rst Parking to provide strict proof that suggests otherwise.

6.3. The Lancaster University Parking Policy at Point 20 (Exhibit A), specifically states: “Where vehicles are being loaded or unloaded in other areas, including car parking areas, vehicles must not be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time. This includes moving students belongings in and out of Campus accommodation’. In fact, the policy makes no reference to how long a vehicle can be stopped for, as long as it’s not left unattended for more than 10 minutes.

6.4. Therefore, by attending my vehicle and not leaving it unattended for more than 10 minutes whilst I collected and loaded bulky books required to complete my revision, I was complying with the Lancaster University Parking Policy 2015/2016 (Exhibit A). I challenge F1rst Parking to prove the vehicle was left in contravention to such policy (Exhibit A). Photographs of the vehicle being stopped, does not constitute a proven contravention of the parking conditions.

6.5. Moreover, in support of my case, the distinction between ‘Parking’ and ‘Loading’ was held by HHJ Charles Harris in Jopson V Homeguard (2016) (Exhibit , who determined it was possible to draw a real distinction between stopping to enable awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving the car for some significant duration of time. 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”.

Jonathon365

7.0. The Lancaster University Parking Policy 2015/16 (Exhibit A) makes no mention of charges for breaching the policy and only states that you may get a “PCN”, so this cannot form any contract where I have agreed to pay parking charges.

7.1. The Lancaster University Signage (Exhibit C) is entirely inadequate and fails the test set out in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis (2015) (Exhibit D) as being ample and prominent. The text is, mainly, small and difficult to read, does not even say there “will” be a charge for breaching terms and only says “may”. It is also white text on a black background – The opposite of what BPA recommend as a good example of highly visibly signage.

7.2. Furthermore, The Lancaster University Signage (Exhibit C) does not state any terms or make any offer to someone who is loading/unloading, only people who are parked which I was not. Therefore, no contract was ever offered to me, no consideration of a contract took place and certainly no terms were accepted.

8.0. The claim is being made for a total of £800.00 of charges, or £160.00 for each parking event. This is despite the original charges set out in the Notice To Keeper being £75.00 for each parking event and a total of £375.00. The difference in these sums is a total of £425 in additional charges that are not included nor quantified on either The Lancaster University Signage (Exhibit C) or The Lancaster University Parking Policy 2015/2016 (Exhibit A).

8.1. The Claimant is well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such additional charges to be recovered in the Small Claims court. They are unjustified and should be struck out as unrecoverable.

Jonathon365

8.2. Add-ons and additional charges were not applied in the complex case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis (2015) (Exhibit D). In this case, only the £85.00 value of the original ticket and no additional charges were pursued by Parking Eye. The attempt made by F1rst Parking is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims cost rules.

8.3. In the Beavis case (Exhibit D), the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background, where the signs were ‘unusually clear’. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges. As for the Lancaster University Parking Signage (Exhibit C), this is certainly not the case, where the £75 original charge is in a very small font size, it does not even say there “will” be a charge and the £160 that F1rst Parking is claiming, is most definitely not stated.

8.4. I also wish to reference the Aziz test (as my case is different to that of Beavis v ParkingEye) in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.” And as for whether average consumers 'would have agreed' to pay £75 had there been negotiations in advance, the answer here is a definitive no. Although I did not park, one could have parked for free on both Grizedale Avenue and Pendle Avenue between 6pm-8am. There would have been no justification or negotiation that could have possibly have persuaded an average consumer to pay £75 to F1rst Parking to purely load their vehicle with books required for study.

Jonathon365

8.5. Furthermore, This case can be easily distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis (2015), which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice was paramount, and Mr. Beavis entered into a contract to pay £85. None of this is applicable to this case. Additionally, of the Beavis case, the Judges held it was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes, and F1rst Parking have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.



8.5.1. The Beavis judgment relies on the signage being obvious and the amount of the penalty being known to the consumer so they could make their decision whether to park and risk a huge penalty. Here are a few of the references to signage from the judgment:

8.5.2. Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there.”

8.5.3. Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85”

8.6. Case Law from Beavis leads to the conclusion that a vital ingredient is that the signage is ample and crucially the charge clear. I once more assert this is not the situation in my case, where the Lancaster University Signage (Exhibit C) does not even mention there will in fact be a charge and makes no offer to someone who is loading / unloading.

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

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