*URGENT HELP* Appealing Parking Charge taken to court

GiaPetite

I have a problem. The driver was visiting a tenant in the flat and parking in a visitors space in the flat car park and I am trying to get the owner of the flat to write a statement that they lived there and the driver was visiting their tenant but they will not help. Will a statement from the tenant be enough?

nosferatu1001

Yes it will be.

GiaPetite

Hello,

I've spoken to the tenant and he doesn't want to help me either as he doesn't want to get the landlord in trouble as they weren't registered to live there with the council. I can only use a statement from the driver but I fear that won't be enough. You would have thought they'd be willing to help me take the cowboys down.

GiaPetite

In the County Court at
Claim No.
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
and
(Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am __________, of _____________________ , and the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On 23/05/17, I was the registered keeper of _____________ but not the driver on the day of the alleged offence.

3. On 23/05/17, the driver visited a resident living at _____________________ and parked the vehicle registration no. _______________ in their car park at _________________ in a designated visitors space.

4. Parking spaces within the car park are numbered according to the flats. There is an allocation of visitor spaces marked with a V. See photo 1.

5. The claim for monies relates to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms + conditions. Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with (T+Cs) of use. However the terms and conditions were not displayed on the signage, they are clearly inadequate and therefore incapable of binding the driver. See photos 3 and 4.

BPA CoP breaches; At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

The initial sign in photo 3 says "refer to car park signs for T&Cs" however there are no terms and conditions listed on the sign that include information on time restrictions or visitor parking. The signs in the car park only say "********** RESIDENT PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY". See comparison of the sign to the sign in the Beavis judgement. As the driver was parked in a designated visitor bay whilst visiting a resident and owner of the flat, this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.

The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association's (BPA) Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum; and in addition, the sum pursued exceeds £100.

The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.

6. As evidenced in Photo 5, the penalty charge was present in huge letters in the largest font on the signage and with high contrast black on yellow, and was therefore found to be transparent and obvious to the motorist.

The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case), insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. This case can be distinguished from the Beavis case, which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage, none of this applies in this material case.

It is denied that the driver was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Lease/Tenancy Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. The Defendant avers that there was at the very least, a prior and overriding grant of a licence to park, and indeed believes there was an absolute entitlement to park, deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide residents and visitors with the right to park a vehicle on this private land, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays'.

The Defendant avers that the operator signs cannot:

(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.

Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

Accordingly it is denied that:

12.1 There was any breach of contract or of any relevant parking terms. The Claimant's claim is wholly misconceived.
12.2 The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss

The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. In fact, the existing rights of residents and their visitors should have been protected.

7. As evidenced in the letter from the driver, whereby it is stated that the driver was visiting, it is proven that the driver was not in breach of any parking conditions.

It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

7. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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

Can someone please help me edit this as its probably too long. I've been doing this for 2 days and I am struggling. I have to get this in by the 22nd and tomorrow I start work long days. Please can someone help me do this as I am stressed out and it is depressing me. I would really appreciate it.

GiaPetite

I need advice, my partner was driving the car and visiting the resident and parking in the visitors space. I cannot get a letter from either the tenant or the owner however my partner has written a letter to confirm he was visiting. Will this mean they pursue my partner instead?

GiaPetite

Your Honour,

My name is ________ and I am an Occupational Therapy Assistant working for West London Mental Health NHS Trust at Broadmoor Hospital, situated in Crowthorne, Berkshire. I have been the partner of the defendant for 4 years. She is an upstanding member of society, who also like me, works at Broadmoor Hospital as a Sports and Leisure technical instructor.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm that I, ___________, the defendant!!!8217;s partner, was visiting a close friend at his flat on the 23/05/2017 and I parked in a designated visitors parking bay, as instructed by my friend, the owner of the flat. I had visited my friend and parked in the visitors parking bay on numerous occasions before without any issues and there is no information on the signage that displays terms and conditions of visitor parking.

Through this ordeal of being pursued and summoned to court, my partner has experienced undue added stress on top of her already stressful and dangerous job. I hope that you will take this into consideration and the fact that I was visiting and parking in a designated visitors bay.

Respectfully yours,

________

This is the draft he has written. Can we have some advice if it is ok and if anything needs changing?

GiaPetite

Hi please please can someone help me. I have to get this in to the court and claimant by the 22nd. I am worried that they will take it further from the recent thread I've read from someone.

GiaPetite

Hi there,


I urgently need some help with my witness statement. I have a learning difficulty and it has taken me days and hours to get this far and I still feel it needs a lot of editing. It is urgent as it needs to be received before the 22nd. I am hoping someone will help me. Here is what I have written (sorry its long):


In the County Court at
Claim No.
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
and
(Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am __________, of _____________________ , and the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On 23/05/17, I was the registered keeper of _____________ but not the driver on the day of the alleged offence.

3. On 23/05/17, the driver visited a resident living at _____________________ and parked the vehicle registration no. _______________ in their car park at _________________ in a designated visitors space.

4. Parking spaces within the car park are numbered according to the flats. There is an allocation of visitor spaces marked with a V. See photo 1.

5. The claim for monies relates to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms + conditions. Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with (T+Cs) of use. However the terms and conditions were not displayed on the signage, they are clearly inadequate and therefore incapable of binding the driver. See photos 3 and 4.

BPA CoP breaches; At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

The initial sign in photo 3 says "refer to car park signs for T&Cs" however there are no terms and conditions listed on the sign that include information on time restrictions or visitor parking. The signs in the car park only say "********** RESIDENT PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY". See comparison of the sign to the sign in the Beavis judgement. As the driver was parked in a designated visitor bay whilst visiting a resident and owner of the flat, this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.

The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association's (BPA) Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum; and in addition, the sum pursued exceeds £100.

The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.

6. As evidenced in Photo 5, the penalty charge was present in huge letters in the largest font on the signage and with high contrast black on yellow, and was therefore found to be transparent and obvious to the motorist.

The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case), insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. This case can be distinguished from the Beavis case, which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage, none of this applies in this material case.

It is denied that the driver was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Lease/Tenancy Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. The Defendant avers that there was at the very least, a prior and overriding grant of a licence to park, and indeed believes there was an absolute entitlement to park, deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide residents and visitors with the right to park a vehicle on this private land, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays'.

The Defendant avers that the operator signs cannot:

(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.

Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

Accordingly it is denied that:

12.1 There was any breach of contract or of any relevant parking terms. The Claimant's claim is wholly misconceived.
12.2 The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss

The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. In fact, the existing rights of residents and their visitors should have been protected.

7. As evidenced in the letter from the driver, whereby it is stated that the driver was visiting, it is proven that the driver was not in breach of any parking conditions.

It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

7. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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



I also need advice, my partner was driving the car and visiting the resident and parking in the visitors space. I cannot get a letter from either the tenant or the owner however my partner has written a letter to confirm he was visiting. Will this mean they pursue my partner instead? Will the evident I have be enough? Here is a draft of the letter:

Your Honour,

My name is ________ and I am an Occupational Therapy Assistant working for West London Mental Health NHS Trust at Broadmoor Hospital, situated in Crowthorne, Berkshire. I have been the partner of the defendant for 4 years. She is an upstanding member of society, who also like me, works at Broadmoor Hospital as a Sports and Leisure technical instructor.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm that I, ___________, the defendant!!!8217;s partner, was visiting a close friend at his flat on the 23/05/2017 and I parked in a designated visitors parking bay, as instructed by my friend, the owner of the flat. I had visited my friend and parked in the visitors parking bay on numerous occasions before without any issues and there is no information on the signage that displays terms and conditions of visitor parking.

Through this ordeal of being pursued and summoned to court, my partner has experienced undue added stress on top of her already stressful and dangerous job. I hope that you will take this into consideration and the fact that I was visiting and parking in a designated visitors bay.

Respectfully yours,

________

Can we have some advice if it is ok and if anything needs changing?


Thanks for your help. Sorry this is war and peace but I am very stressed out and I am working long days (currently at work now) and I don't have the time or focus anymore. My learning difficulty makes this hard for me and I'm really worrying. (Sorry I made another thread but I wasn't sure if people could see my new posts on my old thread.)

Quentin

You need to keep everything in the one thread


You can see how busy this forum is, and you can't expect us to switch between your threads to see your circumstances


Copy and paste the above into your other thread and let this one die

GiaPetite

It is there but nobody is answering me so I thought maybe people couldn't see it and I'm getting concerned that I am running out of time. Could you help please?