Claim Received - Which Case Law

bargepole

There's so much wrong with the wording of that sign.

Unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a parking charge notice

Unauthorised parking? If you have access to the key or code for the gate, you are, by definition authorised.

May Result? In what circumstances?

Your vehicle receiving a notice? How can a vehicle pay an invoice?

Parking without Permission? If you don't have permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract. It could only be a trespass, and only the landowner could sue for that, and only for a nominal sum.

Additional charges? How much are those, then?

The whole thing is complete nonsense, and on that wording is incapable of binding anyone to its purported contractual terms. Void for uncertainty of terms is the legal description.

The_Deep

Unauthorised parking? If you have access to the key or code for the gate, you are, by definition authorised.

Not necessarily, I own a flat in a block where several ex tenants have kept their keys and still park without authority.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

Unauthorised parking? If you have access to the key or code for the gate, you are, by definition authorised.

Not necessarily, I own a flat in a block where several ex tenants have kept their keys and still park without authority.

OK, if we're going to be that pedantic:

If you have the keys or access code, and are a current employee (or tenant), you are, by definition, authorised.

geordiebill

Thanks again for the above!

Another detail I've noticed (and I'm wondering if this is significant):

The date on the particulars of claim is not the date that the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was parked on Day 1, the PCN was issued (via post) on Day 8. It states the vehicle was parked on Day 1, but the particulars of claim say:

"The driver of the vehicle...incurred the parking charge(s) on XX/XX/XX (Day 8) for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXXX."

The particulars of claim do not cite the date of the alleged contractual breach i.e. Day 1.

geordiebill

Morning folks. Apologies for bumping the thread, but I could really use a pointer. As per the post directly above, the wrong date is on the particulars of claim and there's no detail about what the alleged breach of contract was. On the date they've listed, I wasn't at work as it was a Bank Holiday (with an invoice as evidence). So, do I...

1. Initially concentrate solely on the date and put them to proof that I was in the car park on the day in question and initially set aside the rest -

OR

2. Defend based on the stuff listed above in previous posts - signs, contract etc.

I've had a look through other posts on the site concerning the wrong date and have seen there's a line of attack, but would that initially exclude all the other stuff? I don't want to give them a free pass on the date. Is there perhaps a third way?

Thanks - GB

Coupon-mad

Include all of it. Both.

geordiebill

I've just got out of court in Bradford and I'm delighted and proud to report that the judge dismissed the claim and awarded me costs! UKCPM didn't attend the hearing.

I'd attacked the claim on a number of fronts and thankfully the judge agreed the car park and signage was a shambles and that I had permission to park.

Thanks to the forum members here who steered me in the right direction and to those who have taken the time to make case law available online. It was a massive help. And hi to the forum member who advises on this forum who sat in on the hearing and offered some helpful advice going in. It was lovely to speak to you!

Fruitcake

Well done Bill, and well done to all the forum members who helped. This is why we come here, to get a result like this.

Thanks for letting us know.

If you can spare the time would you be able to provide details of the case, especially what the judge aid, as this will be really helpful The Parking-Prankster woud I'm sure be ibterested in this as well.

Coupon-mad

Which claim number?

Did you bump into anyone there who was watching/on your side?

Well done!

geordiebill

Fruitcake wrote: »

Well done Bill, and well done to all the forum members who helped. This is why we come here, to get a result like this.

Thanks for letting us know.

If you can spare the time would you be able to provide details of the case, especially what the judge aid, as this will be really helpful The Parking-Prankster woud I'm sure be ibterested in this as well.

Thank you! I'm absolutely delighted. It's Dan in real life. Bill was just a temporary nom de plume. Happy to share the details. I've taken your advice and emailed PP.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Which claim number?

Did you bump into anyone there who was watching/on your side?

Well done!

Yes, I bumped into a friendly face who was there for the day! Was it you that I met?

Claim number: D0GF19EK

Based upon the advice I received above, I threw everything at them. I hope that was why they didn't send anyone today. In his judgement, the judge agreed with every point I managed to get across. We didn't even get into any case law as I suspect he'd heard enough.

The main thrust of it was:

• the Particulars of Claim had the wrong date (and the judge said he could have struck out the claim on this basis alone);
• there were clear untruths in the witness statement of the Claimant (e.g. they stated the Parking Charge number was in the Particulars - it wasn't);
• I was authorised and permitted to park at all times (apart from being an employee with an issued key fob to open the gate, I pointed out that I was authorised to park when measured against UKCPM's own definition of "unauthorised parking" on its own website);
• the terms on the signs said a fee was only payable if you parked without permission (I had permission);
• the BPA AOS logo on the signs (which they've had two-and-a-half years to amend) was misleading to drivers as their rights were altered after the conclusion of any parking contract;
• there were signs from two other operators in the car park;
• the signs didn't meet the IPC Code of Practice;
• the agreement between UKCPM and the residential management company had been signed as the freeholder when Land Registry documents showed they were in fact a leaseholder (so no landowner authority);
• no authority had been either sought nor granted for them to offer parking contracts ("relevant contracts" as per POFA and the IPC CoP);
• the residential management company had confirmed in writing to me that they, not UKCPM, were in fact managing the land.

There was quite a lot!

I had issued a full rebuttal to their Witness Statement in my own. Thankfully, theirs arrived in enough time to give me the chance to do that. In it, I had also countered all the case law (Beavis, Vine v Waltham Forest, VCS v HMRC, ParkingEye v Somerfield) but none of it came up at the hearing. I had also provided evidence of the relationship between the IPC and Gladstones (Companies House docs and the discussion in Parliament) and the evident conflict of interests, but we didn't get to that.

In the run-up, Gladstones claimed I had not sent them my documents in time, yet they mysteriously turned up minutes after I emailed them the Royal Mail tracking details, evidence of signature and confirmation of delivery at their office.