CPM PCN at IAS stage

KeithP

Tristanito wrote: »

Yes, I've read all the instructions and Bargepole says that "the Northampton Business centre will send a Directions Questionnaire (form N180) to both Claimant and Defendant.".
My issue is that I never received the Defendant DQ to fill in, only the completed Claimant DQ.

Like you, the Claimant has to send a copy of their completed DQ to the other party.

The Claimant is just trying to keep the pressure on you.

I have just updated the list in post #16 above to include:

• Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
  
• Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Tristanito

Hi all,

I am now at the Witness Statement stage and I wanted to ask for a last bit of help to make sure I'm on the right tracks.

I will be relying on the following evidence at the hearing:

- Pictures of the CPM signs VS Beavis case signs, clearly showing how bad the CPM signage was.

- Copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA, as I'm defending as keeper.
QUESTION: Aside of the maximum sum of £100 that may be recovered from the keeper, are there any other points I should call out using the POFA as evidence?

- Copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability', as I'm defending as a keeper.
QUESTION: What's the best way of using this document in my defence? Is it mostly to show that the claimant is struggling to identify a Cause of Action. How does that compare to "compliance with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.", which I initially stated in my defence? Should I also provide copies of these two documents as evidence?

- Copy of PCM v Bull case.
QUESTION: I want to make sure that this is a good enough evidence to support my case as the CPM sign wording appears to be slightly different compared to the Bull case. It literally just said:
PARKING CONDITIONS
Private Property - T&Cs
- A valid UK CPM Permit must be clearly displayed etc.
- You must park wholly within marked bays etc.
- if unsure please seek further advice from CPM or refrain from parking
Parking charge of £100
...and then some very small print that I can't even read on the picture I have.
Can I assume that the sign offers no contract and use the CPM Vs Bull case as evidence?

- The IPC Code of Practice as evidence of Grace Periods being ignored by CPM.

If you could help me out with the 3 questions above, that would be really brilliant!

Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

I think PACE v Lengyel will help, if the car had no permit - it's more relevant to your case by the sounds of it, than PCM v Bull, IMHO.

Find that transcript in the Parking Prankster's case law - read it and use it as evidence.

Aside of the maximum sum of £100 that may be recovered from the keeper, are there any other points I should call out using the POFA as evidence?

Really important to get this across. The pre-requisites for Schedule 4/keeper liability have not been met:

no 'relevant contract' (the terms cannot apply to a non permit holder)
no 'relevant obligation' (as above, it can't be relevant to a non permit holder!)
no 'adequate notice' of the parking charge (sparse signs not seen)

Tristanito

Thanks for clarifying this.

I'm working on my witness statement and something is still unclear to me. I initially said in my appeal that the driver would not be identified and then again in my defence I always referred to "the driver".
I read all the WS examples in the newbies thread and they are either claiming that due to the length of time since the event they can't recall who the driver was, or they admit that they were the driver. Part of my defence relies on the fact that the claimant wasn't able to identify the driver, and I also explain that the driver had to park the car to read the signs before deciding to leave. How should I refer to myself in the witness statement?

Coupon-mad

How do you want to address this in court?

Do you want to defend as an honest witness who was there, was the driver (if you were) and can talk about the lack of signs, lack of grace period, predatory ticketing, etc.?

Or, are you confident about defending as keeper and saying it's too long ago for you to recollect for sure who was driving (if true) and have a clear idea how to answer, if the Judge says, ''Tristanito, let's clear this up, were you the driver, yes or no?''

Tristanito

Thank you. I'm definitely more confident with option one!

Here's my Witness Statement. I would really appreciate your feedback, before I submit it to the Court.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
XXXXXX (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
________________________________________

I, XXXX XXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXX, am the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience. I will say as follows:

1. On XX/XX/XXXX, I drove my vehicle (registration number XXXXX) into the XXXXX car park (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX).

2. As I entered the car park, I wasn’t able to see the Claimant's small signage displayed at the entrance, which happens to be located below a driver's eye level and therefore cannot be seen or read from a passing vehicle (see exhibit XX). I then spotted a small sign inside the car park (see exhibit XX). In order to read this sign, I parked my car, exited the vehicle to read the Terms and Conditions, and upon realising it was a private car park, decided to leave.

3. I would like to call out that unlike the Beavis VS Parking Eye case sign (see exhibit XX), the terms on the Claimant's signage were displayed in a font which was too small to be read from where I was parked, and in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would have been unable to do so easily.

4. A few weeks later, I received a Parking Charge Notice. I chose to appeal against it, however the Claimant rejected my appeal, and after a series of harassing letters, elected to pursue this matter via litigation. The Claimant's aggressive business practice has caused me and my family significant distress over the past year.

5. In my appeal, I asked the Claimant to prove that they had sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that they had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Claimant stated that they were under no obligation to provide the requested information and only stated that they held a legal contract that authorised it to monitor the parking area on behalf of the landowner. As per the transcript of the Pace VS Lengyel case (see exhibit XX), “a relevant contract means a contract between the driver and a person who is (a) the owner or occupier of the land, or (b) authorised to enter into a contract with the driver”. I do not believe the Claimant has the power to authorise parking in this case.

6. In addition to the above, the Claimant’s signs themselves do not refer to a contract with the driver but simply state “terms and conditions”, which as per the Pace VS Lengyel case transcript (see exhibit XX), are not synonymous with a contract. Furthermore, the opening words of the sign appear to be designed more to ward off trespassers, than to enter into a contract with the driver.

7. The Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), and the IPC Code of Practice clearly states that “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.” (see exhibit XX). The IPC grace period was not taken into account by the Claimant, who sent me a Parking Charge Notice. When responding to my PCN appeal, the Claimant stated that "It is the driver's responsibility when leaving their vehicle unattended to observe the area and check parking is permitted”, which, again, is precisely what I did.

8. From the very first letter, the Defendant was only able to identify me as the keeper of the vehicle XXXXXX. These assertions indicate that the Claimant failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (see Exhibit XX) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, other than "time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge". It therefore appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Finally, and in summary, the pre-requisites for Schedule 4/keeper liability have not been met:

- No relevant contract (the terms cannot apply to a non-permit holder)
- No relevant obligation (as above, it cannot be relevant to a non-permit holder)
- No adequate notice of the parking charge (sparse signs not seen)

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed XXX
XX/XX/XX

Coupon-mad

I would really appreciate your feedback, before I submit it to the Court.

...and the Claimant, of course.

I think remove #8 as it doesn't matter, you are defending as driver.

Move #7 up as it's more important. Make it number 2 and move the rest down.

I think you need to say more about how long you were deemed to be parked, as your WS doesn't mention how many minutes were in play, and thus, it's not clear whether you left within a reasonable grace period without the Judge having to search for the info.

Tristanito

Hi all,

My court hearing is only a few weeks away and I would need your expertise on the following.

After I submitted my witness statement Gladstones sent me theirs, and one of the points they are making is that they have pictures of both my vehicle and the claimant's sign, and on none of the pictures I can be seen walking around, which means that I must have been parked for longer than the 3 minutes I mentioned in my witness statement.

Now the irony of it is that it was a rainy day and on the picture of my vehicle you can clearly see the rain drops all over my car (except on the windscreen, which indeed shows that I had literally just left my car), as well as the wet tarmac everywhere. However, the picture of the sign was taken on a bright sunny day, with dry tarmac all over.

I can therefore easily argue that the pictures were taken on 2 separate occasions and do not prove anything.

But I remember reading somewhere in the Forum that nothing should be called out on the day of the hearing that isn't already logged into the case. Is that correct? Or should I definitely discuss the point above when they bring it up?

Mahone1302

On the day you'll be allowed to counter points that they've made in their WS. You just can't bring in anything that isn't mentioned in your WS or theirs, nor produce anything as evidence on the day that hasn't previously been served.

Castle

Tristanito wrote: »

Now the irony of it is that it was a rainy day and on the picture of my vehicle you can clearly see the rain drops all over my car (except on the windscreen, which indeed shows that I had literally just left my car), as well as the wet tarmac everywhere. However, the picture of the sign was taken on a bright sunny day, with dry tarmac all over.

I can therefore easily argue that the pictures were taken on 2 separate occasions and do not prove anything.

Are their photos date and time stamped?