New Generation Parking - County court claim

Ped_Mota

Hi guys

Here are the signs that were on display:
i67.tinypic.com/15wc4z5.jpg

Here is the sign from the car: when my car was parked it was actually further back than this so even less legible:

i66.tinypic.com/1r99xl.jpg

Also I've noticed that on their PCN they refer to being a member of the IPC but on their sign it says they are member of BPA. Coupon-mad's link above refers to judgement against NGPM for their signs showing BPA membership where actually they are no longer a member!

What do you think?

Coupon-mad

I think, nasty, they have dressed up a penalty as if it is a tariff, to try to get around contract law:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1r99xl&s=9#.WXTv6YjyvIU

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=15wc4z5&s=9#.WXTwIIjyvIU

Avoid the place.

This is a very good spot, gives you a reason to complain to your MP and Trading Standards:

Also I've noticed that on their PCN they refer to being a member of the IPC but on their sign it says they are member of BPA. Coupon-mad's link above refers to judgement against NGPM for their signs showing BPA membership where actually they are no longer a member!

Complain to the right authorities, and include the NGPM criminal case in your defence. They will not want a Judge sniffing around that.

Have you done the AOS to buy more time to defend?

Ped_Mota

Yes I've done the AOS already so will have more time to prepare my defence.

When you say right authorities in terms of reporting NGPM, who would that be exactly?

Another question, the sign says you may be issued a 'parking tariff notice' - I've been issued a 'parking charge notice' so im the absence of the PTN and LBC, as far as I'm concerned the only legitimate document that I've received in the process was the county court claim.

I mean if they can't follow their own signs then why do they expect anyone else to?

Ped_Mota

Bump -

Can I use any of the above in my defense?

Coupon-mad

Depends what you mean by any of the above. Not the point about it being a PTN, not a PCN, that's nothing. They can call it what they like.

Copy from another similar defence linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, either a permit one or an 'own space' one, like the one I linked there yesterday by Johnersh (you can find it when reading the NEWBIES thread post #2). Adapt it to suit, then show us.

Ped_Mota

Hi all,

Here is my draft of the defence. Let me know if you think I need to edit it in any way. I will need to submit this by 21st so please let me know your thoughts ASAP.

My defence in short is that:
- primarily the signs that apparently form the contract in the premises are not clearly visible. They do however have bigger red signs that only say "resident parking and access only" with no referral to the signs that I've posted above.
- they have not clearly specified in the claim which terms of the supposed contract I've contravened.
- they have not proven the period of time the car was parked there thus leaving no time to obtain a permit.

Appreciate your help


Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. 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. Indeed the particulars
of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

a. The Defendant is not clear of any times that the alleged contravention took place nor are there any distinct details provided as evidence; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

3. Having not received a letter before claim, the Defendant notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

4. The Claimants solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. It is believed that their conduct in many of their cases is currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

5. In June 2017, the claimant, pled guilty to displaying BPA membership when in fact they were not a member of the organisation. As per the evidence supplied, at present the signs at this particular site continue to display BPA membership.

Authority to Park

6. The vehicle was at all times when at the residence, properly parked and it is believed it is common ground that it was neither causing an obstruction nor was it unauthorised; being parked at the permission of a permitted resident. The claimant has not provided any evidence to the contrary.

7. Even if the Court is minded to consider that a visitor must display a permit there must be a reasonable 'grace period' time allowed for fetching it from the resident (which involves 2 flights of stairs) and there is no evidence that this time was allowed. Immediate ticketing or lack of a fair grace period is contrary to the IPC code of practice, being a predatory and unfair business practice. His Honour Charles Harris QC remarked in the Jopson appeal case decision that life in a resident’s block would be unworkable if visitors, delivery drivers etc. were expected to park immediately obtaining a permit (which a visitor would not have).

Alternative Claim – Failure to Set Out Clear Parking Terms

7. The defendant avers that the red signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

9. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:

2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code

10. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above.

11. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.

12. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
13. It is also denied that in addition to the parking charge of £100, there was any agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.

14. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.
15. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Ped_Mota

The red signs that I've noted in the statement look like this:

tinypic.com/r/2pritqw/9

These signs which are conveniently a lot more visible that the signs that supposedly form a contract. Per the IPC code of conduct, these signs are required to include the a reference to the other parking signs and also include the name of the operator. In this case they do not!!!

As you can see from the photo below, where my car was parked was literally next to the red sign so I was more likely to see that than the other much smaller sign.

tinypic.com/r/2i7n1n7/9

I don't think my defence really argues the points above so will probably need to add to it.

Any suggestions on wording?

Ped_Mota

Bump - any advice? Will need to send this tomorrow so it reaches the northampton office by 21st August.

Coupon-mad

No you don't, we email defences to the CCBC (signed & dated & scanned PDF attachment). You have the weekend yet.

I could not get your links to work.

Ped_Mota

Ok that's good. I thought it would be best to post it but PDF is good enough.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I could not get your links to work.

Here are the links again:

The car next to the red sign:
https://i.imgur.com/YW9oLIE.jpg

The red sign itself:
https://i.imgur.com/yk7AVYQ.jpg

The only sign I would have seen at the time would have been this red sign... as I said it doesn't refer to the other signs which set out the terms. Questions is how can I incorporate this into my defence?