Gladstones - Directions questionnaire - hx parking management and their misleading

Illiterateplonker

Gosh! I should probably proof read before I post things. Apologies for the silly spelling and autocorrect mistakes

Coupon-mad

So do I submit a defence that makes no mention of the verbal confirmation I received previously to state payment was not needed for using the facilities

No, state that you were told on a previous visit that you did not need to pay, etc.

Show us you defence(s) again, as this is getting confusing.

Include this:

request that the Judge uses the court's case management powers to order that claim no Dxxxxxx is listed to be heard together with the other claim(s), given that they all turn on essentially the same facts in all respects. For this Claimant to have negligently or wilfully filed these as separate claims indicates the robo-claim model used by this industry, with no evidence of detail checks, a lack of fairness and due diligence, as well as a flagrant disregard for the added burden on the Court, not to mention the Defendant's own significant distress in having to put their life on hold, to separately fight three unconscionable and meritless 'charges' and face more than one hearing, doubling the potential costs, as well as increasing the time spent and inconvenience endured by a litigant in person, hitherto unfamiliar with the process.

Loadsofchildren123

Id put in a mention of the notoriety of the site, but that's information for your WS rather than the defence

claxtome

I think it would be good to see you drafted defence again as it is now not easy to find. (As C-M states).

The one comment I have before posting it again on here is - The PPC is an IPC firm but your current version of your defence mentions BPA:

f) The defendant believes the signs have been placed to cause confusion with motorists. BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 18.3 ‘You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the sight, so that drivers are given a chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle’.

Suggest you read the IPC guidelines and quote a similar paragraph from there

Illiterateplonker

• It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
• It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety.
• It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to HX Parking Management, and no proof has been provided.
• The Defendant has requested copies of all paperwork as per Section 7 of the data protection Act 1998, and despite being received and signed for on the 27/10/2017, no copy documentation has been received by the Defendant. The Defendant believes this is a deliberate attempt to ensure the Defendant is unable to successfully defend themselves.
• 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.
  HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
  I believe the term 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.
  I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
• The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
• This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
  Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
• It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.
• It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
• The Defendant has been using the Claimants car park for a number of years and no notices have ever been erected to advise of new parking conditions. IPC Code of Practice Part E, Schedule 1 – Signage – Changes in Operators Terms and Conditions ‘Where there is any change in the terms and conditions materially affecting the motorist you may place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently inccur parking charges. The signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required.
• It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: a)Site/entrance signage – Has been placed within tree branches which would not be visible in the height of Summer when the trees are in full bloom. (Exhibit a) The Defendant was only made aware of these signs when returning to the site in October to take pictures for evidence. The Defendant also notes the sign has not only been placed within the branches of a tree but it is also green and white thus not making it clear to read. The Defendant refers to the Terms and Conditions that are almost unreadable as they are displayed in such small font. Contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, schedule 1 - Signage “Contrast and Illumination, signage - Black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast”.
  b) There is no warning on signage that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made to DVLA for the keeper’s details, contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, Schedule 1 - Signage, Other signs, condition 3.
  c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
  d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
  e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
  f) The defendant believes the signs have been placed to cause confusion with motorists. IPC Code of Practice Part E schedule 1 states ‘The signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist. The Defendant refers to (Exhibit b) where no signs are visible in a 360 degree turn.
• The Defendant was aware a new machine had been installed in the car park (which is not managed by the claimant) but was not clear which car park the machine related too. The machine had been placed within the car park not managed by the Claimaint which the Defendant believes is to mislead customers. The Defendant however brought a ticket in good faith until the Defendant could sought clarification. The Defendant sought clarification upon immediately entering the soft play of the Claimants premises. The Defendant was advised by the Claimants employee that parking was free for people using the facilities, and the machine in question was for ‘Rendesvouz Casino Customers’.
• The Defendant has since received 2 further parking tickets which have been direct consequences of the miss information that was received from the Claimants employee.
• The Defendant does however deny any claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons
• 
  Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief

Illiterateplonker

Evening All,


Please find my amended response above.


My original illiterate response was not set out as above (Although Im aware I need to tidy the above up with Fonts, Titles Etc) it was more just a paragraph of what happened.

'I have been parking in this car park for a number of years when using the facility as there was never any parking restrictions. The only parking restrictions were in Car Park 1 which you have to enter to get in to Car Park 2. I noticed a new machine had been placed in Car Park 1which has parking restrictions and is used by the Casino. I read the signs surrounding it and was confused as to what car park the machine related to. One sign said you could park if you was a Casino customer and the other said you needed to pay. As they were all placed in Car Park1 I found it very misleading, however I purchased a ticket and sought clarification. I was then advised by an employee that as I was using the softplay I did not need to purchase a ticket so did not top up when my time ran out. I then used the car park another 2 times before I was made aware by receiving a parking ticket. I immediately returned to the premises only to be told by another member of staff that I was given incorrect information and all parking now has to be paid for regardless if you use the facilities or not. I admit I should have responded sooner however I had a baby on the 28/07 and it had been a bit traumatic. I will however pay £20 to cover not paying enough or at all as full and final settlement. I have taken pictures to prove the signs are misleading, and have been made aware of a facebook page which others have expressed their anger at receiving tickets when the signs are so misleading. It would be beneficial for the parking company to place signs in separate car parks so its clear for customers to understand which it relates to in future.






So above is my initial 'rushed' defence which I typed in a frenzied panic upon receiving the initial court summons and before I found the wealth of information on this site. I am aware I shouldn't have offered to pay a dime, or inform them of a baby arriving but it was too late by then.


Do you think my amended defence is ok, and can I use the same one for my other 2 parking tickets as long as I take out the part about purchasing a ticket?


Thanks again everyone for your time

Illiterateplonker

Having read through my defence I’ve realised I haven’t included your advice Coupon-Mad, so I shall include that now. I’m guessing the best place would be after the ‘robo-claim’.

I shall be submitting my defence this evening so if any body could give me any final advice I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Do you think my amended defence is ok, and can I use the same one for my other 2 parking tickets as long as I take out the part about purchasing a ticket?

It's getting there, but you need to get someone to check your typos and grammar, as there are errors; more than I have picked out below.

I would have this much higher up, as point #1 or #2, and break it into shorter lines:

1. The Defendant was aware a new machine had been installed in the car park (which is not managed by the claimant) but was not clear which car park the machine related to. [STRIKE]too[/STRIKE].

1.1 The machine had been placed within the car park not managed by the [STRIKE]Claimaint [/STRIKE] Claimant, which the Defendant believes is a deliberate tactic to mislead [STRIKE]customers[/STRIKE] consumers.

1.2 The Defendant [STRIKE]however[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]brought[/STRIKE] purchased a ticket in good faith, [STRIKE]until the Defendant could sought clarification[/STRIKE] then the Defendant sought clarification upon immediately entering the soft play area of the [STRIKE]Claimants[/STRIKE] premises.

1.3 The Defendant was advised by the onsite [STRIKE]Claimants[/STRIKE] employee that parking was free for people using the facilities, and the machine in question was for ‘[STRIKE]Rendesvouz[/STRIKE] Rendezvous Casino Customers’.

1.4 The Defendant followed that clear instruction, with no reason to disbelieve the information from the employee at the location. The Defendant relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppel in this regard.

And don't miss the bit about asking the court to list one single hearing for all claim numbers.

claxtome

If still not too later to alter....
Exhibits (Evidence) get submitted at the witness stage so remove from the following the bits in red:

a)Site/entrance signage – Has been placed within tree branches which would not be visible in the height of Summer when the trees are in full bloom. (Exhibit a)

f) The defendant believes the signs have been placed to cause confusion with motorists. IPC Code of Practice Part E schedule 1 states ‘The signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist. The defendant believes the signs have been placed to cause confusion with motorists. IPC Code of Practice Part E schedule 1 states ‘The signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist. The Defendant refers to (Exhibit b) where no signs are visible in a 360 degree turn.

Illiterateplonker

You guys have been absolutely amazing, and I appreciate every bit of help you have given me. It’s been especially helpful as I’ve had a whole house of sick children so I had not been able to give this my full attention. I shall update you all with how I get on. Thanks again for being so wonderful.