Parking charge - permit on show but not in bay

safarmuk

Thanks Safarmuk! I nearly just put it in the letterbox. Shall do this instead as I am sure they will try to get away with these things

No worries, I always get the free "proof of posting" when I post anything official or important and I often tell the recipient that I have it so they know they can't pretend it never arrived.

Also when you get "proof of posting" the cashier takes the package off you right away so there is that surety that it has made the mail that day.

Laura_Higgs_76

Hi all - update;

I have had the two claims merged and my court date is in January

My main arguing points where I would need evidence are;

1)
a)The fact that visitor bays were blocked off and some were supposed to be visitors but weren't in place when I received my ticket - therefore lack of V bays. So my evidence I would provide is;
- Evidence someone at Barratts home who owned the land told us that the 10-15 extra spaces on the road were planned to be visitors but they were waiting for construction to finish - hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/2qnxzzl.jpg
- I also have evidence that this was always on plan here, so should have been available - hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/dy8yme.jpg
- BUT I don't have evidence that these weren't in place at the time of my tickets - is this still OK?

ALSO the fact that 3 visitor bays we had been using were blocked off for construction work
I don't have evidence of this however - I have chased and chased and Hyde/Barratts and they will not provide confirmation of this. Would witness statement signed by everyone in our block be sufficient? Or is this a waste of time

2) Signage not clear - our lights weren't working and they definitely have increased the number of signs since. Again, I received my court cases 9 months later once this was done so don't have the evidence. Would witness statement be sufficient again?

ANY OTHER EVIDENCE NEEDED?

Few other points I feel are my strongest defence, but want to check they are valid and do not incriminate me;

- They can't prove who was driving - but doesn't this then come down to keeper liability? And look bad that I didn't respond to letters?

- My main point is I was not blocking anyone and therefore no commercial loss so they can't justify £100 tickets - BUT whilst I say this, I am also admitting liability and therefore this may go against me?

- On Parking Prankster they mention " The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company." In this case, they say you must be in visitor bay, so does this mean because I wasn't in a visitor bay, I was trespassing instead and therefore I could argue that the landowner can claim not PCN?

ANOTHER COURT CASE!!!
I have now just received a THIRD court case! This is for one ticket that was the same time as the others and to be honest, I don't remember receiving. As my court date has been set, am I not able to get this merged with the others?

LASTLY
Now you may be thinking I am an idiot by now, but due to lack of space everyone parked in an area on the road that had no bays marked out. They have been parking there for a year now without any issues. One day Hyde decided they no longer wanted anyone parking there so told PCN to issue us tickets without any warning. I received one (paid it as I am so stressed with the others I have) and I have a video evidence of around 10-12 people receiving a ticket - is this good to use to show they abuse the system?

Thank you all!!

Coupon-mad

the fact that 3 visitor bays we had been using were blocked off for construction work

Sounds like the situation in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd - [2000] All ER (D) 2009:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

Penultimate link, use that transcript, printed out in evidence. Read it, there are similarities.

BUT I don't have evidence that these weren't in place at the time of my tickets - is this still OK?

Yes, it's not your case to prove; it's the Claimant's burden to disprove the elements of your defence. And if you attend and come across as an honest witness in front of the Judge then facts you state will be believed unless disproved.

This will help, especially if one or more resident agrees to come with you as a Witness in person:

Would witness statement signed by everyone in our block be sufficient? Or is this a waste of time

Re this:

My main point is the car was not blocking anyone and therefore no commercial loss so they can't justify £100 tickets - BUT whilst I say this, I am also admitting liability and therefore this may go against me?

That (above) is most certainly NOT your main point; don't even say it. 'No loss' has no legs!

One day Hyde decided they no longer wanted anyone parking there so told PCN to issue us tickets without any warning. I received one (paid it as I am so stressed with the others I have) and I have a video evidence of around 10-12 people receiving a ticket - is this good to use to show they abuse the system?

Yes, especially if one of those persons is your witness who might agree to come with you (after all, it will help them a lot with their case, to see what happens in your case!).

I have now just received a THIRD court case! This is for one ticket that was the same time as the others and to be honest, I don't remember receiving. As my court date has been set, am I not able to get this merged with the others?

Yes, ask specifically for this to happen, in a short covering letter (specifying this claim number AND the other claim number, clearly explaining how unfair two hearing would be and how much of a financial and time burden it would cause the court). Enclose it with your witness statement and evidence in a nice neat, paginated ring binder file for the Judge to read.

Whereas the claimant's solicitor just gets everything in several emails with attachments (keep proof of sending). Have they sent you their WS and evidence yet? What date must you do that by?

[Deleted User]

ALWAYS copy the Claimant in to your correspondence with the Court. It clearly makes sense for the Court to deal with cases involving similar facts/issues to be heard together. As Coupon alludes to above, the overriding objectives at Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules - having regard to Court resources and dealing with cases cost effectively and fairly would all be met if the multiple claims were heard together.


If you have photos of other cars similarly affected by PCNs, can you identify their drivers? I would seriously consider trying to get statements from all of them as to the closing off of the parking bays and/or change of parking rules/enforcement if those are relevant issues. Whilst one of your cases may be nearing a hearing (and the statements are done), if that is not the case with the more recent claim, that is where you will be able to adduce those statements. Then if the cases were heard together...

Laura_Higgs_76

Thanks again for all your help!

I have put Saeed in my defence too so will definitely print that off.

No witnesses can be there - is a statement enough? Also, to save them all writing a statement, could I write one statement and they all sign it with the date and their addresses to show that they agree? All of them have their own court cases - some 3 like me, and they all are fully aware of what the visitor bays were like when we got the tickets.

I just received a letter over Christmas stating Gladstones have until today to pay the court fee otherwise it is closed (I guess they always do this on time). I will be preparing my witness statement and all documents requirement today and over the weekend but here is the outline of what I was going to include;
1) All three claims
2) Defence
3) Witness Statement
4) Witness statement of other residents in my block
5) Evidence - email from hyde stating visitor bays should be available after construction
Evidence - lease and plans showing visitor bays were always supposed to be available
6) Supporting documents used in defence etc;
a) Saeed V Plustrade and other cases
b) CPR 16
c) [FONT=&quot]ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (2015) UKSC 67
d)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s (‘IPC’) Accredited Operators Scheme (in defence)
e) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]POFA Schedule 4 (is this needed now they have been merged? I am keeper so guessing they still should prove I was driving?).
If above is relevant, I will include -[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper.[/FONT]
f) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5)
g) any letters I have from Gladstones - I did not reply to these as was reading wrong information to not respond or acknowledge. Will it go against me that I ignored these? Should I leave these out?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]"photos proving the scarce and illegible small print signs in your case, a view showing the lack of entrance signs, etc." I do not have this from the original time and they have significantly improved this since
[/FONT]
The court asks that we try our best to settle - could you confirm that I should by no means contact Gladstones and wait for them to contact me?

Should I include the email where I offered them £550 without accepting liability, which they rejected and offered £800? (The silly solicitor was the only reason I did this)?

I will wait for the claimant's witness statement to prepare a skeleton argument too.

If there is no parking unless in visitor bays, does this therefore mean there is no contract if you weren't in a bay? Therefore this should be treated as trespass rather than parking issue?

Is there anything else I should include?

Thanks all!![/FONT]

nosferatu1001

If they state you cannot park in visitors bays, they’re not making an offer. By definition there can be no contract.

Get individual statements. Much better. Why you’d skimp I don’t know.

Laura_Higgs_76

Thank you - there are lots of people in the flat and many I doubt would be willing to spend a lot of time of this. But I will definitely try as this would be better! In theory, they would all say the same thing, that was all.

nosferatu1001

15 statements looks better than 1, especially as no one will be turning up, apparently. Why not I don’t know, as it sounds ok,e they’re all in a similar boat.

[Deleted User]

Provide an example to your witnesses, but they really ought to use their own words.

Nothing looks dodgier than statements in identical terms - it becomes generic and loses any value.

Laura_Higgs_76

Could I please get feedback on my witness statement? I used a template from the newbies page;

[FONT=&quot]IN THE XXX COURT[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Claim Number: XXXXXX[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
and XXXXXX (Consolidated together)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Parking Control Management Ltd (PCM)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Claimant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]-AND-[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]XXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Defendant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I, XXXX, of XXXX will say as follows:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]I am the Defendant in this matter. I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court before. In this statement I will refer to the documents contained in exhibit A[/FONT][FONT=&quot], by page number, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Claimant’s Accredited Trade Organisation (ATA) (International Parking Community) Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, by section numbers.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
  
  [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]On the 30th October 2016, 15th January 2017, 20th January 2017, 18th January 2017 and 19th January 2017 the defendant’s vehicle with registration number XXX XXX was parked at XXXXXX. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event was a year ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. As you can see on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the defendant’s insurance policy has 2 named drivers[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Due to the length of time, the defendant is also unaware who was driving.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]On all dates mentioned, the visitor parking was inadequate and did not come close to the plans signed off by the residents and housing association. See page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot] showing visitor parking plans. Area A highlighted on these plans shows the spinal road where 10 visitor bays were supposed to be assigned, however these were out of use and temporarily designated to specific residents whilst construction was ongoing. See email evidence on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot] from the Senior Technical Co-ordinator from Barratts confirming that the bays on the spinal road were temporarily allocated bays but were supposed to be visitor bays, as they are in the plans when buying the property, due to construction. Area B on the parking plans on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot] also shows 3 visitor bays highlighted which were also temporarily blocked off for construction work ongoing in the gardens of 546 and 518. This is unfair that ticketing was still allowed to continue whilst a total of 18 visitor bays were out of use, but the same competition for bays remained.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]I now refer to the Saeed Vs Plustrade Case on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot] which concerned a dispute over the alteration of a lease which allowed cars to be parked on an estate car park. The finding here was that the substantial reduction in the car parking spaces available under the lease would void the lease. The Defendant avers that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]It is clearly incumbent on the Claimant, if it accuses drivers of improper parking, to install and maintain clear signage informing drivers that they operate the relevant part of the car park, and about what terms apply to the parking. There was no such signage at the entrance of the car park, labelled C on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the parking plans. There was inadequate lighting in place to highlight signs, and signs were few and far between, with the text being too small to read as shown in the picture of the signage on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot] – the signage was definite not easy to read from a car (a breach of the Code of Practice on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot]). Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee (of which the Claimant is a member), clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign". The signage is not as per the code. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
  [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
  I should emphasise that compliance with the Code is a compulsory condition of the Claimant’s membership of its ATA (and without membership the Claimant would not be allowed to request keeper details from the DVLA which allow it to pursue private parking charges). Compliance has also been held by the Supreme Court to be compulsory if a private parking company like the Claimant wishes to recover what is effectively a penalty charge (rather than a lower sum designed to reflect its actual loss) (case of Parking Eye v Beavis, paragraphs 96 and 111) which is included on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. In the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. The defendant argues that this is not the case as XXXX is a residential site, of which all named drivers including the defendant are residents of. The defendant also states that the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. See witness statements on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX [/FONT][FONT=&quot]confirming this. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
  
  [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]I did not pay the charges on any occasion mentioned, and I received numerous threatening demands from Gladstones solicitors. On the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XXX February 2017[/FONT][FONT=&quot] I received a further demand with increased amount owing with no explanation for the increased amount, and this letter threatened me with further debt recovery ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]page XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot]).
  
  [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]On the 14th August I received two separate court cases. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 per ticket equalling £500, to a charge of £1,048.60, split between the two cases, as you can see on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The charge is steep considering this is not commercial land and a visitor permit was on show. The parking company should be to deter non-residents from parking. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts. The fact that the Claimant originally raised two separate claims appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4, on page[/FONT][FONT=&quot] XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot], specifically disallows. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5), on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot], states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper on page XX.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim set out in the Claim Form do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies what the terms of the alleged contract were, or how they were breached. The Particulars are not “clear and concise” as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. The claimant also [/FONT][FONT=&quot]failed to provide a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). Furthermore, no indication is given as to the Claimant’s contractual authority to operate the car park, another thing that is required by the Claimant’s compulsory ATA Code of Practice - paragraph B1.1 states as follows:
  
  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. [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]On 8th September 2017 I visited a solicitor with the threatening letters to gain legal advice as I was scared and very stressed, and he declared that if I had the money and wanted this over and done with, the easiest route would be to offer £524.35 without accepting liability, as you can see on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. I by no means was at fault and this was simply to get the cases over and done with as soon as possible as I was very stressed which was affecting my work and personal life. This offer was quickly rejected by Gladstones, who proposed a new value of £770 if paid in full that day. I rejected this offer and retracted my offer as I felt Gladstones bullied me into making my initial offer by their threatening letters whereas I believe my case is strong and I should not have to pay anything. [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]On 9th October 2017, I emailed Gladstones asking them to provide a list of information and documents (photographs of the car, the signage, a plan of the site showing where the car was parked relative to the signs, the contract with the landowner etc), shown on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. This was ignored.
  
  [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]The Claimant has simply not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contravention ever occurred. No photographs taken of the contravention have ever been seen by me, despite a request for more detailed evidence. [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £50 Solicitors costs for each case, totalling £100, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable. The claimant has described the charge of £50 as ‘legal fees’ not ‘contractual costs’ CPR 31.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.
  The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum claimed has been calculated, or the conduct that gave rise to it.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]The Claimant’s 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. Evidence on page [/FONT][FONT=&quot]xx[/FONT][FONT=&quot] shows another resident who parked in Phoenix quarter and received 20 tickets when the visitor bays were out of action, showing that the Claimant issues tickets regardless of the situation as a money making scheme. Similarly, witness statements on pages[/FONT][FONT=&quot] XX-XX [/FONT][FONT=&quot]shows the number of tickets a few of the other resident’s have received and their court cases they have ongoing. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true


Signed:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]