PArking CCJ over 10 in a car park

Coupon-mad

In the Northampton county court Claim number: D3XXXX5

It's not in the Northampton County Court, unless that's where you happen to live.

All online county court claims start at the CCBC in Northampton as a handling centre, nothing more. The Northampton Court doesn't come into the equation unless you live there.

deshulina

Thank you @Coupon-mad I wasn't sure if it had to be the exact same at the top, shall I put the name of the court that the case will be dealt with (I know this could sound very silly but I am really confused at present)/

Thank you !

Coupon-mad

Don't send that Recorded Delivery, never ever send 'signed for' to a scum firm who won't sign!

Email the final, signed/dated copy to PE:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Send by post (proof of posting) or personally hand deliver the court's copy to them.

But this is ParkingEye and I am reading a load of stuff that has nothing to do with PE in that draft! Remove all the stuff about Gladstones cases, roboclaims, Hayes & Harlington, ''unenforceable penalty'' (don't go there!), none of which makes any sense for a ParkingEye case.

The only part of #4 I like is:

4.1. The signage cannot be safely read while driving. There can therefore be no meeting of minds and no contract by performance.

Remove the rest of #4, which comes across as waffle not relevant to this case.

The parts about no grace period, and what actually happened (that you left and didn't accept any contract) are good. Keep them in!

As you have a chronic condition that affects your mobility in daily life, you are considered to meet the definition of disability, in the Equality Act 2010. Therefore the very fact that a service provider has attempted to charge you for the time taken, and not made any 'reasonable adjustment' for people with protected characteristics like you in the population at large, is illegal and discriminatory.

You should have a section saying that, and please read the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers (Google it).

Search it for the word 'tours', which gives you an example of why an arbitrary time limit is illegal, even when the service provider does not know/could not have known about an individual's mobility problems. That's not a justified lawful excuse for indirect discrimination (arbitrary time limit), because INdirect discrimination does not need the service provider to know about an individual's condition, or mobility needs.

It places a legal duty on them to extend 'anticipatory' policies in advance to make premises accessible for disabled people (and that doesn't mean bunging in some disabled bays, it covers EVERY aspect, including time limits). Failure to make a reasonable adjustment of time.

deshulina

@Cupon-mad you have been absolutely brilliant I will edit the statement and take all of your advice on board ! !

Thank you so very much !

Coupon-mad

Take the EHRC CoP re the Equality Act with you and highlight the bit about ''tours'' (time limit being discriminatory to people with mobility issues), and highlight the bit about INdirect discrimination.

PE have pulled the wool over a Judge's eyes before about the EA and bleated that ''we could not have known'' about a medical condition, and so (they lied) ''there could be no discrimination''. That's only true of direct discrimination, where the person's condition is known. You need to read about 'INdirect discrimination' to understand the service provider's anticipatory duty to the (unknown, faceless) disabled population ''at large''. It is no justification to say 'waaah, we couldn't have known...'.

deshulina

I just came up with the following but what got me thinking is the fact that there were no disabled bays to begin with and the fact that they have been guilty of both direct and indirect discrimination and they have used discrimination based on my disability..... I take longer to walk because of m cronic condition ..... they issue a fine....
The Act says that treatment of a disabled person amounts to discrimination
where:
!!!8226; a service provider treats the disabled person unfavourably;
!!!8226; this treatment is because of something arising in consequence of the
disabled person!!!8217;s disability; and
!!!8226; the service provider cannot show that

There is an other side of things in which I could have been dyslexic and took longer to read the sign or couldn't understand the sign if I was foreign so on the given bases they are not considered in an shape of form of all disabilities in different shapes and sizes..... am I wrong ?



Furthermore I believe that this parking charge notice was issued in beach with the equality act 2010. As I have as mentioned I suffer from a chronic condition that affects my mobility in daily life and I am considered to meet the definition of disability, in the Equality Act 2010.

Therefore the very fact that a service provider has attempted to charge me for the time taken, and not made any 'reasonable adjustment' for people with protected characteristics like mine and the population at large, is illegal and discriminatory.



I believe given the facts stated prior this parking charge notice is in direct breach of EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers underChapter 5: Indirect Discrimination and Chapter 6 Discrimination arising from disability of the code. (copies of which provided in Annex X ).

The claimant has not complied with the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers as the parking charge notice was issued for !!!8220;remaining in a car park for longer than permitted time!!!8221; and no consideration was made towards people with disabilities and the issue of this parking charge notice was made in a discriminating nature as the delay in my actions was due to my chronical condition which was used against me.

What is discrimination arising from disability?
What does the Act say?
6.3
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]!!!8220;The Act says that treatment of a disabled person amounts to discrimination[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]where:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]!!!8226; a service provider treats the disabled person unfavourably;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]!!!8226; this treatment is because of something arising in consequence of the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]disabled person!!!8217;s disability; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]!!!8226; the service provider cannot show that this treatment is a proportionate[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]means of achieving a legitimate aim !!!8220;[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Furthermore I believe that this parking charge notice was issued in breach [STRIKE]with[/STRIKE] of the Indirect Discrimination and 'reasonable adjustments' section of the Equality Act 2010.

You need to refer to their anticipatory statutory duty to make and adjust policies in advance, to allow for the fact that people with protected characteristics will visit, and will take longer to get to a machine (in fact that's also in the BPA Code of Practice, go and read that too, take your time). Get the quote from the BPA CoP about disabled people taking longer...

There is an other side of things in which I could have been dyslexic and took longer to read the sign or couldn't understand the sign if I was foreign so on the given bases they are not considered in an shape of form of all disabilities in different shapes and sizes.

Not a good argument, it is speculative and signs only have to be readable to an average driver who is expected to be able to read a sign, in order to be driving. So forget that bit.

Concentrate on your mobility issue when mentioning the EA but you MUST be very familiar with the fact that there is no excuse of them saying 'we didn't know and couldn't have known' about your condition. Quite right, they could not have known, but individual needs are not the point of indirect discrimination and their anticipatory duty under statute, to make provisions in advance so that premises are accessible (disabled bays and time allowances greater than an able-bodied person would need).

deshulina

Great,
I will print everything out and read it on my way to work tomorrow including the bit of the CoP of BPA and will concentrate on my mobility issue.

I will base the statement around the fact that :

They have not met the reasonable adjustments duty stated by the Equality Act 2010 and how they failed to fulfill their anticipatory statutory duty to make and adjust policies in advance.

I will print out the relevant information for the court as well so I can send the paper copies over too.


Thank you Coupon-mad, you are a star !!

Ps

Please excuse my previous post I have been up from very early and it's starting to take it's toll on me !

deshulina

Hi everyone I managed to pull most of the statement together, I highly appreciate all of your support in this. I have very recently lost my grandad and have been overwhelmed with emotions so it has been a right struggle to put this together.

I managed to come up with the statement bellow and I just hope the judge has some mercy, the only thing I am not quite sure about is how to structure the conclusion and would highly appreciate any feedback:

I wish to appeal on the following reasons:

1) No contract
2) Lack of visible signage
3) Breach of Pofa2012 and BPA CoP
4) Breach of Equality Act 2010

I was, at the relevant date, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question registration number
XXXX. Below is a summary of my version of the events:

The car park had a sign which was nearly at 3 meters height making it hard to read from the ground. So I had to pull in and get out of the car to try and read what the sign said to be able to understand the term and conditions of the car park.
Unfortunately the print on the sign was too small and unclear for me to read so I walked to the entrance of the car park to in my attempt to find a readable signage.

Once I realised that the car park doesn't take notes but only coins and phone payments I realised that I have to go back to my vehicle parked at the bottom of the car park 34 meters from the entrance to be able to obtain my debit card in order to make a payment. (Please note that I have a chronic condition which disables me from walking at normal speed so I take longer to walk a distance of such compare to an average adult.)

Upon returning to the car I realised that my debit card was absent so I had to try and find change in order to be able to pay for the amount of time I was planning to leave my vehicle in the carpark for. Realising that I wasn't able to pay for the parking and unwilling to abuse the car park I got back into my vehicle and left the car park as I was unable to pay for the time I was initially planning to stay at the car park for.

I was subsequently shocked to receive an unexpected Notice to Keeper from the Claimant, alleging that a charge of £100 was due. Whilst at my old address, I did send an appeal to the Claimant and appealed the parking charge in good faith, and expected it to be cancelled since the car was only actually stopped briefly to read the signs and decide whether to stay and accept the contract (I did not) or leave (which I did).

1.
No contract had ever been agreed and this case can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, a complex and completely different case, where the Defendant stayed, having read and accepted the parking licence and conditions.

1.1
The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.


1.2
The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.

1.3
The sign does not contain an obligation as to !!!8216;appropriate parking time!!!8217; nor the !!!8216;permitted time!!!8217;, therefore there was no breach of any !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; or !!!8216;relevant contract!!!8217; as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.

1.4
In the absence of !!!8216;adequate notice!!!8217; of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.


1.5
I did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
I deny that would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

(2)
It is not possible that a valid parking charge exists for the following reasons:

2.1
The signage cannot be safely read while driving. There can therefore be no meeting of minds and no contract by performance.

2.2
The sign does not contain an obligation as to !!!8216;appropriate parking time!!!8217; nor the !!!8216;permitted time!!!8217;, therefore there was no breach of any !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; or !!!8216;relevant contract!!!8217; as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.

2.3
Even if there was a contract the signage fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014, and so any contract would be non-bindng on the consumer.

2.4
There was therefore no valid reason to apply for my keeper data from the DVLA.

2.5
Additionally the operator contract with the DVLA only allows them to obtain data for parking contraventions and not for briefly stopping.


2.6.
My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protections Act (DPA). The Claimant has misused this data by attempting to claim a charge when there is no possibility that a lawful reason exists. Additionally, this data may only obtained and used from the DVLA for parking, and not for stopping.

2.7.
This is therefore a breach of data principle 1 (data must be used lawfully) and 2 (data must only be used for the purpose provided)



3.
I rely upon the Grace Periods section within the British Parking Association Code of Practice, and the fact that this was agreed by the BPA to include at least eleven minutes merely for the action of leaving a car park ('the grace period') as stated in an official BPA published article, which is in addition to and separate from the 'observation period' on arrival, the extra minutes also to be added, to physically park the car then read the signs and decide whether to accept the contract.

Both the observation period and the grace period are stated to be fluid, depending upon the facts of the case, and can be more than ten minutes each:

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between !!!8216;grace!!!8217; periods and !!!8216;observation!!!8217; periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

!!!8220;An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA!!!8217;s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator!!!8217;s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,!!!8221;

!!!8220;No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability. [...] If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.!!!8221;


3.1
Furthermore the grace period was been stated in the official BPA CoP page 10 section 18 Signs:

Section 18.5
!!!8216;If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.!!!8216;
A resealable grace period in any car park should be given from the period of stopping. /this grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
!!!8216;

(4)
Furthermore I believe that this parking charge notice was issued in breach of the Indirect Discrimination and 'reasonable adjustments' section of the Equality Act 2010.
As I have as mentioned I suffer from a chronic condition that affects my mobility in daily life and I am considered to meet the definition of disability, in the Equality Act 2010.

Therefore the very fact that a service provider has attempted to charge me for the time taken, and not made any 'reasonable adjustment' for people with protected characteristics like mine and the population at large, is illegal and discriminatory.


I believe given the facts stated prior this parking charge notice is in direct breach of EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers under Chapter 5: Indirect Discrimination and Chapter 6 Discrimination arising from disability of the code. (Copies of which provided in Annex X ).

The claimant has not complied with the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers as the parking charge notice was issued for !!!8220;remaining in a car park for longer than permitted time!!!8221; and no consideration was made towards people with disabilities and the issue of this parking charge notice was made in a discriminating nature as the delay in my actions was due to my chronicle condition which was used against me.




(5)
Conclusion


On the basis that the Beavis case can be fully distinguished, and that the BPA Code of Practice (considered akin to regulation, by the Supreme Court) renders this 12 minute 'charge' effectively unrecoverable, I contend that there are high prospects of this claim being successfully defended


Thank you !

Coupon-mad

deshulina wrote: »

Hi guys,

I sat the case yesterday. PE did not turn up as they stated.

The judge was very brief and it seemed like he didn't want to spend the time to actually hear the case. He got much of the information wrong and I had to correct him, however I did manage to satisfy him that the court papers were served at the wrong address and he only wanted to see the copy of my driving license and the date of issue.

He had a brief look through the rest of the paper and said that there is no witness statement, I pointed out to the one I have written down and he said, he can't accept it as it's missing a signature at the bottom.

He said he will set the CCJ aside for now , but wants be to submit my new witness statement in 14 day period and to present a copy to PE as well.

He also mentioned that the section of it being a unenforceable penalty does not work in my favour and this is the update so far.

I wish to appeal

It is not an appeal, don't use that word. You've had a CCJ set aside haven't you, so this is your WS, and it needs setting out like this:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/standard-directions/general/witness-statements

You do need to state in the WS that it will be no lawful justification for the Claimant to reply that they 'could not have known' because blah blah (same as I already told you in previous posts!).

You need top pre-empt what we know PE will say to pull the wool over the Judge's eyes.

and you need to attach evidence (things referred to in the WS) like:

- the indirect discrimination section of the EA statutory Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers
- the reasonable adjustment section of the same
- the 'tours' example in the same statutory CoP, as it shows an example of a discriminatory time limit
- the BPA CoP (the version for the RIGHT DATE OF THE PARKING CHARGE!) and highlight the section on Disabled drivers where it says that operators must realise that it may take people with mobility issues longer to get to machines & signs, and to read terms if high up.
- the BPA CoP on Grace Periods
- Kelvin Reynolds' article about Grace Periods
- evidence to prove your mobility condition, to show it is chronic and continuing
- photos of the high sign, if you have them
- a photo of the Beavis case sign, as a comparison (Google it, the Parking Prankster site has it).