Court Claim - Few Questions before defence

pattar

Hi, I received county court claim form but have few questions before preparing my defence or to give up and pay the said amount though i feel I am right as they were unclear signs and no repeater signs.

My initial appeal was as below.

To whomsoever it may concern.
I have come to drop my friend and entered in to the street from west side and after parking the car I got down from right and did not see any private parking signs to my right and walked away. There is advertisement board (Images attached) but not any parking signs attached to the railing or anything clearly displayed on the right side of the path. Based on the below I would like to appeal the PCN and this will be my only correspondence to you.If you think the appeal doesn't stand please send me the IPS details.
1. The sign fails to comply with the ‘Contrast and Illumination’
2. Sign not visible or there is no sign at all for anybody leaving via north exit.
3. Can you also tell me how much loss you incured because of my parking in your land.
4. Can you send me copy of your contractual agreement with land owner that states that you if you park you have to pay 100 pounds.(How did you arrive with that figure)

Reply to my appeal by parking company.

The signage at the site is clearly visible and the information on the signage informs the driver of the parking conditions at the location. Signage is prominent throughout the parking area. Signage location, size, content and font has been audited by the Independent Parking Committee.
It is the driver’s responsibility, to check for signage, check the legality and obtain any authorisation for parking before leaving their vehicle.
Whilst we appreciate the circumstances, your vehicle was observed at the time the parking charge notice was issued parked in a no parking area. The photographic evidence supports the issue of the parking charge. Please refer to the photographic evidence which can be viewed on ...... which clearly shows your vehicle in a no parking area.
Having viewed the photographic evidence, your vehicle can be seen close to a sign stating the parking regulations. Signage clearly states that parking is not permitted at any time. This relates to the whole area and is not specific to one side of the road.
We will answer each of your points in turn:
1. Signage is prominent throughout the parking area. Signage location, size, content and font has been audited by the Independent Parking Committee.
2. As above
3. We would refer you to the 2015 Supreme Court of Appeal Upper Tribunal ruling in the case of Beavis vs. Parking Eye Ltd the judgement is readily available to view on the HMCS website 4. Charges are industry standard and confirmed as acceptable. We would refer you to the Supreme Court of Appeal Upper Tribunal Ruling 2015 PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS.

IPS APPEAL -

To Independent Adjudicator,

I am basing my appeal only on facts and evidence only.

Fact is Signage of Parking and Property Management LTD at ###### is not complaint with Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice.
1. The sign fails to comply with "Contrast and Illumination" Section of the schedule 1 - Evidence - Please refer to attached photo (No illumniation) which clearly shows that there is no illumination to the only Sign put at the entrance.
2. Penalty was issued in the hours of darkness (21.44 PM) and the area gets little light due to tall buildings and as per "Contrast and Illumination" of schedule 1 - if parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is other sufficient lighting. Evidence - All photos taken by them shows the time and they were taken with flash on to show that there was full of light but if you see the pictures taken carefully you can see that all street lights have been switched on and my photo (Noillumination.jpg) which I took today at the 21.30 clearly shows that the sign at the entrance is not illuminated today or on the date of penalty.
3. Sign at entrance is attached behind a government's legal road sign paid by the taxes of public and because it is a road sign it is at a height where HGV's can see the sign which obviously makes the parking sign being placed above the normal height where people cannot read - Evidence - if you see my photo (Noillumination.jpg) it will show you how high the sign is at the entrance and there is good chance to miss it during night and also unreadable at night due to the small text and no light.
4. As per schedule 1 of IPC COP - Signs must be place in such a position (or position's) such that driver of the vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or paking in the site - If you see in the background of the picture (ParkingTicketPhot7.JPG) there are road works around that main road which clearly obstructs the sign on the left side of the road and when we enter the private road from the east and park to the right and leave via the north exit. There is only one sign on the right which as per above is not illuminated and in a position where we cannot see it clearly.
5. Repeater signs - As per schedule 1 of signage IPC COP - there is no repeater signs to the right of the road which clearly is doesn't get the information to attention of the motorist - Evindence - If you see all the photos taken by the company you can see that there is no one photo which clearly shows a sign near to the vehicle or to the right side of the vehicle. and my photo (NoRepeaterSigns.jpg)
6. Parking and property management is avoiding the necessity of justifying the pre estimate loss by quoting beavis case and £100 pounds far exceed any genuine loss on sunday at 21.44 PM

---Operator's Prima Facie Case

The Operator Made The Following Comments...
Whilst the defendant appreciates the circumstances, the appellants vehicle was observed at the time the parking charge notice was issued parked in a no parking area. The photographic evidence supports the issue of the parking charge. Please refer to the photographic evidence which can be viewed on ....... which clearly shows the appellants vehicle in a no parking area.

Having viewed the photographic evidence, the appellants vehicle can be seen close to a sign stating the parking regulations. Signage clearly states that parking is not permitted at any time. This relates to the whole area and is not specific to one side of the road.

The defendant will answer each of the appellants original appeal points in turn:

1. Signage is prominent throughout the parking area. Signage location, size, content and font has been audited by the Independent Parking Committee.

2. As above

3. The defendant would refer the appellant to the 2015 Supreme Court of Appeal Upper Tribunal ruling in the case of Beavis vs. Parking Eye Ltd the judgement is readily available to view on the HMCS website

4. Charges are industry standard and confirmed as acceptable. The defendant would refer the appellant to the Supreme Court of Appeal Upper Tribunal Ruling 2015 PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS.

The defendant believes the appellant is fully liable for the charge.

--MY FINAL RESPONSE TO IPC


Respected Arbitrator,

I have raised my first IAS appeal on the fact that signage doesn't comply with schedule 1 of the IPC code of practice and provided clear evidence but the operator has comeback saying signage was audited by Independent parking commitee.

In this appeal i would also like to challenge the operator with regards to auditing which he is claiming based on the proofs he provided in his prima facia.

1. if you look at 932839 site image 1 uploded by the operater there is parking sign to the wall which operator claims to be present to cover the right side of the road but if you see my image NoIllumination.jpg you can clearly see that sign is missing.
2. if you look at 932839 site image 4 uploaded by the operator there is no sign at all and particularly there is not repeater signs on the right side of the road. I have loaded more images to show the current state of the site with regards to right side of the road with anytime fitness board and no parking signs.

I have raised below points in my first appeal straightly saying operator violated schedule 1 of the ipc code of practice with proofs

1. No illumination with proof
2. Charge was issued in the hours of darkness and there was no illumination to only sign with proof
3. only Sign to the right is at a height not visible to read with proof.
4. Not visible for customers entering and leaving north exit with proof
5. No repeater signs with proof.

I am asking the operator where is the proof that sign was illuminated and where is the proof that they followed schedule 1 of the IPC code with regards to illumination, visibility and repeater signs. I can't see any proofs and also his photos uploaded also are different to what they are currently at the site.

I think there is serious difference to the site if audited and because operator only claims that few signs would cover the whole sight would go against the schedule 1 of the IPC Code.

based on the facts provided by operator and my proofs i dont think i am liable for the charge as it is clear violation of the code.

ADJUDICATORS DECISION

It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and the Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.

The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events.

From the site images provided I am satisfied that there are clearly parking restrictions in force on site. There are signs in clear view of the Appellant’s vehicle, stating that ‘No parking at any time’ is allowed, regardless of whether the driver feels they have permission to park or not. I am satisfied that this sign was clearly visible when approaching the position of parking. The aforementioned signage exists in the location in which the Appellant’s vehicle was parked and therefore I am satisfied that the terms of parking were made reasonably clear to the Appellant at the time of the parking event.

I am presented with photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle clearly showing it to be parked in contravention of the terms and conditions of parking. The Appellant’s vehicle was clearly parked in breach of the displayed terms. I am satisfied that the signage is capable of creating a contract between Operator and driver. I am further satisfied that the Operator made the Appellant sufficiently aware of the parking restrictions. By parking in contravention of the displayed terms the Appellant agreed to pay a charge.

The Appellant also raises the issue of damages for loss caused. As the Operator does not allege a breach of contract they do not seek damages for loss. In fact they seek payments pursuant to a specific contractual term which I am satisfied was made reasonably clear to the Appellant at the time of parking by way of the signage on site. Demonstrating a genuine pre-estimate of loss is therefore not necessary. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

I note the Appellant’s comments to this stage of the appeal however I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the prima facie case has been proven. Whilst having sympathy with the circumstances the Appellant found themselves in, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.

Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

FINALLY MY APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. I IGNORED THE DEBT COLLECTOR LETTER AND NOW FINALLY GOT COUNTY COURT CLAIM FORM WHICH I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE

But before i write my defence I have few questions

1. Because i Have admitted myselft as driver, Have I lost the case already ?
2. I can clearly defend the case from my photos that signs were unclear but parking company feels that it is drivers responsibility to ensure he checks all signs around. How can that be ?
3. Parking company shared photos during IPS appeal that showed parking signs across the left and right side of the road but in reality signs have been removed on the right side. I doubt IPC would have audited the site as parking signs get removed randomly. Do I have a case where i can show the judge both photos with and without parking signs on the right side and win the case ? When i parked there was no sign on the right side.
4. Finally, i read that if we loose and pay the amount we will not have any record but i just read from Moin in other thread that he could see it in public register. How is that possible ?

I would like to defend this case as I have done nothing wrong but wanted to double check whether it is a good case to fight.

Thanks in advance for you replies.

Regards
Pattar (Not my real name)

Redx

1) NO , because the driver can make a case about no landowner contract , poor and inadequate signage , any IPC CoP failures , not the same as BEAVIS etc


there are many legal arguments that a driver may win on, not just keeper liability or POFA2012


in future, DO NOT REVEAL WHO WAS DRIVING


2) argue that in court , once it is in your defence


3) probably , yes , so do so



4) it is put in the register on the day , if it is paid IN FULL within one month it can be struck from the register - job done , no CCJ , no credit rating issues


so if you lose, pay it within a month and that is the end of it

pattar

Thanks Redx,

I am acknowledging the claim online and can see a box

I intend to contest jurisdiction - Should i tick this box ?

waamo

On what grounds are you contesting jurisdiction? Unless you have grounds don't tick it.

pattar

my bad....i got your point waamo..
I will not be contesting jurisdiction as i am in UK.

KeithP

Pattar, are you following the guidance in post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread?

There is a pictorial guide on exactly how to do the AoS in a dropbox link.

pattar

Hi Keith,
Yes, my bad i scrolled through the AoS screen shots and missed the point. Thanks for redirecting to post#2.
I am now preparing my defence and would post here for your thoughts.
Regards
Pattar

System

Your defence should be on the signs as above. You have named yourself as the driver so your comments about the signs will be accepted as genuine whereas the comments by Gladstones can be challenged as they won't put up a witness.

1. The sign fails to comply with "Contrast and Illumination" Section of the schedule 1 - Evidence - Please refer to attached photo (No illumniation) which clearly shows that there is no illumination to the only Sign put at the entrance.
2. Penalty was issued in the hours of darkness (21.44 PM) and the area gets little light due to tall buildings and as per "Contrast and Illumination" of schedule 1 - if parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is other sufficient lighting. Evidence - All photos taken by them shows the time and they were taken with flash on to show that there was full of light but if you see the pictures taken carefully you can see that all street lights have been switched on and my photo (Noillumination.jpg) which I took today at the 21.30 clearly shows that the sign at the entrance is not illuminated today or on the date of penalty.
3. Sign at entrance is attached behind a government's legal road sign paid by the taxes of public and because it is a road sign it is at a height where HGV's can see the sign which obviously makes the parking sign being placed above the normal height where people cannot read - Evidence - if you see my photo (Noillumination.jpg) it will show you how high the sign is at the entrance and there is good chance to miss it during night and also unreadable at night due to the small text and no light.
4. As per schedule 1 of IPC COP - Signs must be place in such a position (or position's) such that driver of the vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or paking in the site - If you see in the background of the picture (ParkingTicketPhot7.JPG) there are road works around that main road which clearly obstructs the sign on the left side of the road and when we enter the private road from the east and park to the right and leave via the north exit. There is only one sign on the right which as per above is not illuminated and in a position where we cannot see it clearly.
5. Repeater signs - As per schedule 1 of signage IPC COP - there is no repeater signs to the right of the road which clearly is doesn't get the information to attention of the motorist - Evidence - If you see all the photos taken by the company you can see that there is no one photo which clearly shows a sign near to the vehicle or to the right side of the vehicle. and my photo (NoRepeaterSigns.jpg)

pattar

Can anybody please check my below defense.
I have done 2 things wrong as this is my first parking ticket which i will be fighting in court.
-Accepted myself as driver.
- Did not reply to Gladstones letter before claim.

IN THE COUNTY COURT CASE No. BLAH BETWEEN
Parking and Property Management Ltd and
BLAH
________________________
DEFENCE
________________________


1) The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
2) The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.
2.2) The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charge in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute. The Claimant responded to the appeal by mostly ignoring the points made and instead re-asserting the supposed breach of terms by the Defendant..
2.3) The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant’s Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently (they have resigned since the Claimant’s parking charge was issued). They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the Independent Appeals Service, an organisation with no scrutiny board and, evidently, no independence from the IPC or its members.
2.4) Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.


3) The Defendant denies any amount is owed to the Claimant in relation to the incident described in the Particulars of Claim.
4) The Defendant contends he has not entered a contract with the Claimant and so cannot be in breach of any terms.
5) The Defendant denies 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, lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
6) The Defendant denies that Signage at Galena and Topaz Apartments were complaint with Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice as per below.

No Contract and No Breach
7) The Claimant issued Parking charge notice in the hours of darkness (21.44 PM ) with Images taken from camera with Flash and the area gets little light due to tall buildings and as per "Contrast and Illumination" of schedule 1 - if parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is other sufficient lighting. Hence claimant’s sign fails to comply with "Contrast and Illumination" Section of the schedule 1 – of the IPC Code of Practice.
8) The defendant also claims that there were no Repeater signs - As per schedule 1 of signage IPC COP – In fact there are no signs at all to the right side of the road which clearly doesn't get the information to attention of the motorist.
9) No warning that charges might apply were given upon entering the site. On the date in question, there were no signs to one side of the road that a driver might see after leaving the car IF they exited walking one way. Given that there are many exits from this road it is unreasonable to assume that a driver would exit only one way and so see any signs.
10) The claimant claimed that “A series of images were taken showing the location of the vehicle in relation to the signs on site, but do not show my vehicles location in proximity to any signage. The defendant claims that there was no full terms and conditions signage at all to the one side of the road.
11) The defendant denies that signs were clear, Prominent and readable entering the road in as they are placed too high behind the government’s legal road sign with small print and also under the tree with no light. The parking charge are hidden within the small print, it is not a clear and prominent charge. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract because Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practise of the Independent Parking Committee clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font, that can easily be read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”
12) The claimant is also avoiding the necessity of justifying the pre estimate loss by quoting beavis case and £100 pounds far exceed any genuine loss on Sunday at 21.44 PM
13) The claimant also claims that Signage was has been audited by the Independent Parking Committee and Defendant would like to challenge the auditing process with exhibits showing the changing state of the signs in this particular location.
14) The defendant also claims that road works entering this road clearly obstructs any signs on the date in question.
15) The claimant failed to send a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says
15.1) If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.


Wholly Unreasonable and Vexatious Claim
16) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
17) It is the Defendant’s belief that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.
18) The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant’s solicitor, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).
19) The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success. The Court is also invited to consider reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/2016, where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing due to Gladstones’ template particulars for a private parking firm being ‘incoherent’, failing to comply with CPR 16.4, and ‘‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’’.
20) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm the facts stated in this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge.


NAME
”

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?
You must be very close to the filing deadline now.

2.3) IPC = International Parking Community.

12) The claimant has no need to justify the pre estimate loss.

pattar

Claim issued - 01/06/2018
letter received on 04/06/2018.

So i think it is 28 days from 05/06/2018

Is this correct ?