MCOL Defence

cooleb91

Hi,

Appreciate any guidance anyone has for this. I was going to do it all myself but have seen from reading other posts that gaining more opinions only can help. It is a long post but I thought it best to give as much info as possible rather than you having to ask me lots of questions (though any questions are welcome).

The Driver of my car received a parking charge for parking in an Odeon car park in Beckenham (S.E. London/Kent). Operated by London Parking Solutions Limited.
The car park was pretty much empty and is a pay & display car park. The charge was issued at 21:38, at which time the car park is free to park in. However, unbeknown to the Driver, there are apparently three bays reserved for those with 'permits only' (staff). Ignoring the fact that this is a complete sham of a charge considering the rest of the car park was about 10% occupied, there are several reasons why I think the charge invalid:

1. Signage - The Driver did not see it at all. Signs on fence with small writing on them. Reversed car into space and walked away in opposite direction. Lighting was awful - doesn't meet IPC Code of Practice IMO. Separate sign also just says '3 reserved bays' - not near where the Driver parked and impossible to know which bays this refers to (the Driver didn't see this sign anyway).
2. No contract entered into with the Driver - sign with largest font states '3 Reserved Bays; Odeon Cinemas Permit Only'. Believe this is forbidding as in PCM v Bull.
3. No marked bays - even if signage is deemed sufficient, the lines to indicate bays have 99% disappeared and really cannot be seen at night.
4. Operator does not know where vehicle was parked - In the my back and forth with LPS Ltd through the "Independent" Appeals Service, they submitted a site map, which actually shows that where my vehicle was parked is a pay and display area and that the permit only area is in a different location completely.

Interestingly, and I believe something which strengthens this case significantly, all the bays in the car park have since been repainted and the bay where the Driver was parked painted in a different colour with big 'STAFF' lettering on the ground. I have obviously taken pictures of this.
The lighting has also been upgraded, however I am finding it hard to show a before and after of the specific lights as the Driver didn't take pictures of the lights at the time the charge was issued.

I (Keeper) have now received the claim form from County Court Business Centre.
Claimant: London Parking Solutions Ltd.
Solicitor for claimant: CSB Solicitors Ltd.
Issue Date: 19/09/17 – AOS done so extended to 28 days (+5 for service)
Particulars of Claim: ‘The claimants claim against the defendant is for non payment of a contractually agreed sum. In respect of a parking charge notice issued to the vehicle ***** (reg number) on 5 April 2017 at Odeon Car Park, High Street, Beckenham, BR3 1DY; for the following reason; not displaying a valid parking permit. The terms and conditions to which the defendant agreed to be bound by using the site were clearly displayed in prominent places throughout the site. The claimants claim is inclusive of recovery costs as per the terms and conditions, notice of which was given to the defendant by way of a parking charge notice numbered … and the claimant claims £160.00. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% a year from 05/04/2017 to 18/09/2017 on £160.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.03.

I have uploaded most of what I have to Google Drive so that you can understand the situation better:

Text link as new user: hxxps://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwnGaHHG37fiV24tZFZsRG9iTm8

I am posting to see if anyone has any suggestions to add to my defence. I wanted to get ideas from people with a lot more experience than me before I submit my defence.

Any help is much appreciated.

Redx

edit the above to remove any hint of who the driver was (unless the driver has already been "outed" ? ) - use the terms THE DRIVER and THE KEEPER only

if the driver has not been outed, then POFA2012 may well be the winning hand here

and the signage/bay issues are another winning point too

plus no contract etc (forbidding signage , no contract to park was offered - trespass only)

and any other issues , like POFA 2012 for example

was a windscreen notice issued on the day ?

was an NTK posted out to the keeper ?

how long between the contravention date and the NTK date ?

draft your defence and post it (minus personal info) on here for critique , after copying and pasting into notepad first, then copy from notepad onto here and adjust any formatting issues

Lamilad

Text link as new user: hxxps://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwnGaHHG37fiV24tZFZsRG9iTm8

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwnGaHHG37fiV24tZFZsRG9iTm8

cooleb91

Windscreen ticket was issued on the day (05/04/2017). No response was made to it - just waited for NTK. NTK was sent on 09/05/2017 and notice was deemed to be served on 11/05/2017. Therefore 36 days from contravention to NTK (including weekends/bank holidays). 25 working days.
I have not 'outed' anyone as driver. In fact, on the Independent Appeal Service, I specifically only identified myself as keeper and refused to identify driver.

Thanks for help so far. Will post draft defence later.

cooleb91

This is my first draft. Appreciate any comments:

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No: *****

BETWEEN:

LONDON PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

***** (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

1. Inadequate signage:
The signage at the site is not visible by drivers when using this car park. The text is in extremely small typeface – impossible to see from a moving or stopped vehicle. In fact, a driver would have to walk right up to the sign to be able to read it.
Signs are not lit and therefore cannot be seen or read in low light. Signage therefore fails to meet the requirements of the International Parking Community Code of Practice, of which the claimant is an Accredited Operator.
Signage is ambiguous – one sign states ‘3 Reserved Bays’ but it is impossible to know which bays this sign refers to. This sign is also not located close to the vehicle in question and it is therefore unreasonable to expect a driver to see it when parking a vehicle where the vehicle is parked for this alleged ‘contravention’.

2. No contract formed:
The signage with the largest font at the site states “3 Reserved Bays; Odeon Cinemas Permit
Holders Only.” A further sign with much smaller writing states “Odeon Staff Permits Only.” If these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer then, as they are forbidding, they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal (the landowner), is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

3. No marked bays:
There is no bay around the vehicle and therefore if it was held that the signage was contractually valid and legible from the location of the vehicle, the signage is not relevant to the location of this vehicle as there is no marked bay that the signage could be referring to. This has clearly been identified by the Claimant since the alleged ‘contravention’ as the bays in the car park have now been re-painted.

4. Vehicle not parked in permit holders only area:
The Claimant has confirmed, via its own site map, in previous communications with the Defendant that the vehicle in question was, in fact, not parked in a permit-holders only bay.

KeithP

cooleb91 wrote: »

I have not 'outed' anyone as driver. In fact, on the Independent Appeal Service, I specifically only identified myself as keeper and refused to identify driver.

Then as advised earlier, you need to edit your original post.

At the moment it is easy for anyone - a PPC representative say - reading it to come to a wrong conclusion as to who the driver is.

cooleb91

Hi KeithP, thanks for that. I misread the first post and thought the poster was advising to change that when I draft the defence statement. Edited now.

KeithP

cooleb91 wrote: »

4. Operator does not know where vehicle was parked

They will when they see your Google Drive photo annotated with an arrow showing exactly "where my car was actually parked".

I suggest you remove that photo.
The other photo, without the big arrow, is enough.

cooleb91

Anyone have any suggestions for the defence statement? Would rather get it submitted in next couple of days.