PCN at High Point Village, Hayes

Skimad247

Hi, I'm hoping you can help me. I went to pick up my colleague at Hayes Station (High Point Village) and inadvertently parked in the space operated by Parking Control Management (PCM) (UK) LTD. I parked up, waited a few minutes then rang my colleague who said he was running a bit late and would be there in 20 minutes. I did not get out of my car but as i was parking up I noticed a sign saying 20 minutes but not the small text beneath it, as it has been there roughly 8 minutes I drove off as to not exceed the 20 minutes. I returned 15 minutes later to pick up my colleague and I was parked up for approx 3 minutes.

A few days later I received a Parking Charge Notice in the post telling me that I had exceeded the 20 minutes. I went onto the PCM website to view the evidence. They show my car parked up facing Outwards at 10:45 then they have some more photos of my car facing the other way at 11:07 when I returned.

The sign says "20 mins max stay in marked bays, no return with 1 hour". I appealed on grounds that I was not parked for longer that 20 minutes (8 minutes initially then 3 minutes to pick up my colleague". I have asked for photos of the Vehicle or the spaces between 10:45 and 11:07 but they did not provide.

They rejected my appeal simply saying that the signs clearly state "20 mins max stay in marked bays, no return with 1 hour" and the vehicle was observed for longer than 20 minutes.

They are placing the photos of the 2 different occasions together to imply that I was there from 10:45 to 11:07.

On the rejection letter it says that if I do not agree with the decision then I can appeal on theias.org (Independent Appeals Service). I have been trying to log an appeal for well over a week but it says I cannot log an appeal until I verify my email. I have tried this so many times now with various emails but nothing arrives in my inbox hence I cannot log an appeal. I've tried several times to contact theias.org but their online contact form does not work, they have no phone number and their email bounces back (seems like a fake website?). I have also written to the International Parking Community which PCM is a memeber of and runs theias.org to complain that I cant log an appeal but have not received any response.

I've written to the Landowners Ballymore complaining that their agent is aggressively targeting innocent motorists, i also sent a copy to the local MP John McDonnell as I have read he is aware of this agent issuing unfair charges.

I am now expecting PCM to send me chaser letters and threatening that debt collectors will be in touch.

I'd like some advice please about my next course of action?

Thanking you in advance.

Redx

forget the IAS


ignore the debt collectors


as its a station, byelaws apply so string it out past the 6 month deadline for the TOC (not the PPC) to try magistrates court (penalties apply due to bylaws at railway stations)


read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum


read other railway station threads over the last 6 to 12 months to bone up on bylaws issues and how to string it out past 6 months


after 6 months , nothing will happen, as civil court has no jurisdiction due to the bylaws

Coupon-mad

Same advice as on all other PCM threads. Read a load and come back at claim stage.

Skimad247

Hi, I've just received my County Court Claim Form on behalf of the claimant Parking Control Management.

I will acknowledge the claim as per the newbies thread - some help would be appreciated on the defence please.

Thanks,
E

Quentin

See #2 in the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum for advice on how to defend

Post your draft defence here for comments before sending it

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Skimad247

Hi, This is my draft defence. Any other avenues you think I should go down would be greatly received.

Issue date is 7th Nov 2018.

Claimant
Parking Control Management (UK) Limited
The Courtyard
1A Cranbourne Road
Slough
Berks
SL1 2XF

Address for sending document s and payments (if different)
Gladstones Solicitors Limited
The Terrace, High Legh
WA16 6AA


Particulars of claim

The driver of the vehicle registration XX07 XXX (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on 26/06/2018 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at High Point Village
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the keeper of the Vehicle.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £3.65 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day.



1. I am the Defendant, ???? , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at ?????? and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.
2. The Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

4. The claimant has previously stated in pre-action correspondence that the car was observed in the space for more than 20 minutes. I was initially at the site for 8 minutes to meet a colleague from the train, I rang to find out where he was and he said he would be 15 minutes so I drove off. I then returned 15 minutes later and was there stationary in a marked bay for 3 minutes before driving off. The claimant has put the first photo and the last photo together to try and show I was there for 24 minutes. I have asked for the photos of my car between the times of 10:45 and 11:06 which the claimant has failed to produce.

5. I did not see any signage on either occasion as I did not get out of the vehicle as I was waiting for my colleague. Since re-visiting the are the signage next to the parking bays is illegible without getting out of the vehicle as it is 3.2m above the pavement. Again whilst sat in the car at an eyeline height of 1.15m this is not readable.

6. The entrance signage is of very small text and placed at a height of 2.8m above the ground which is far too high to read whilst driving in a car – the height of my eye line in the car is 1.15m. This is against The Independent Parking Committee - Code of Practice – PART E which states -

7. The signs within the parking area have over 300 words on them measuring 0.6m x 0.3m at a height of 3.2m above the pavement. The text size is extremely small in the order of 2 – 5mm in height and some wording at the bottom is less that this and is illegible. There is a repeater ¼ of the size of this sign which again is unreadable.

8. I did not have any ability to appeal the complainants decision through the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) as to log onto the IAS service needed a verification email from IAS. Despite requesting one numerous times over several days and complaining to both IAS and the claimant that I could not log on I still did not receive an email, therefore I could not appeal. I have several screen shots of my attempts and my complaints through the IAS’s online form as they do not have an email address or phone number.

9. The claimant is a member of the International Parking Community, whose company Directors are William Hurley and John Davies. The IPC’s independent appeal service, called the Independent Appeals Service, is run in-house by the IPC. These Directors also oversaw my failed IAS appeal as the IAS would not verify my email giving me no way to appeal. Gladstone Solicitors Limited company directors are also Will Hurley and John Davies. It is submitted that this chain of events is founded upon a conflict of interest and operates in breach of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and is contrary to good faith.

10. The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. Given that there is person stationed here during day time hours to photograph any and all cars entering the area the parking attendant could have came and spoke with me as I did not exit my car during the time I was stationary, and he is responsible for issuing the 2 photos to try and show that my car was there for 24 minutes which it was not.

11. Section 15.1 of the IPC ACCREDITED OPERATOR CODE OF PRACTICE states: 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. The person taking the photographs will have seen that I did not exit my car to read any signs so I did not know I entered into any contract.


12. Additional Costs
The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original ‘parking charge’. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a ‘contract’ into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

13. The Particulars of Claim include £50 for ‘solicitors costs’ yet all I have received from the Claimant’s solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these ‘solicitors costs’ are justified.

KeithP

Skimad247 wrote: »

Issue date is 7th Nov 2018.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th November, you have until Monday 26th November to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Monday 10th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. 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.

Le_Kirk

You have written your defence in the First Person, to be honest it looks a bit like a Witness Statement. Defences should be in the Third Person.

Skimad247

Thanks for your advice - I have logged on to Acknowledge the service so I now have 14 days.
I have reworded my defence to put myself as the 3rd person.

Any other advice or rewording would be really well received. Or any other avenues you think i should pursue? I really do not want to lose to these cow boys!

Thanks,
E



Claimant
Parking Control Management (UK) Limited
The Courtyard
1A Cranbourne Road
Slough
Berks
SL1 2XF

Address for sending document s and payments (if different)
Gladstones Solicitors Limited
The Terrace, High Legh
WA16 6AA


Particulars of claim

The driver of the vehicle registration XX07 XXX (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on 26/06/2018 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at High Point Village
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the keeper of the Vehicle.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £3.65 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day.






1. I am the Defendant, ???? , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at ?????? and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. The Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. On the basis of the above, the defendant requests the court strike out the claim.

4. The claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), whose company Directors are William Hurley and John Davies. The IPC’s ‘independent’ appeal service, called the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), is run in-house by the IPC. Gladstone Solicitors Limited company directors are also Will Hurley and John Davies. It is submitted that this chain of events is founded upon a conflict of interest and operates in breach of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and is contrary to good faith.

5. The claimant has previously stated in pre-action correspondence that the vehicle was observed in the space for more than 20 minutes. The defendant was initially at the site for 8 minutes to meet a colleague from the train, the defendant enquired to find out where he was and understood he would be a further 15 minutes, so the defendant drove off as to not occupy a space for longer than needed. The defendant then returned 15 minutes later and was there stationary in a marked bay for 3 minutes before driving off. The claimant has put the first photo of the defendant arriving at the site and the last photo of the defendant leaving together to try and show the defendant was in the parking space for 24 minutes despite the photos showing the vehicle in separate parking spaces and facing alternative directions. The defendant has previously requested photos of the vehicle between the times of 10:45 and 11:06 which the claimant has failed to produce.

6. The defendant did not see any signage on either occasion as the defendant did not get out of the vehicle. Since re-visiting the site, the signage next to the parking bays is illegible without getting out of the vehicle as it is at a height of 3.2m above the pavement. Once more whilst sat in the car at an eyeline height of 1.15m this can not be seen and is not legible. The defendant did not knowingly enter into any type of contract.

This is against The Independent Parking Committee - Code of Practice – PART E which states – “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”

7. The entrance signage is of very small text and placed at a height of 2.8m above the ground which is far too high to read whilst driving in a car – the height of the defendant’s eye line in the car is 1.15m.
This is against The Independent Parking Committee - Code of Practice – PART E which states – “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”

8. The signage within the parking area have over 300 words on each sign measuring 0.6m x 0.3m at a height of 3.2m above the pavement. The text size is extremely small in the order of 2 – 5mm in height and some wording at the bottom is less that this and is illegible.

This is against The Independent Parking Committee - Code of Practice – PART E which states – “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”

9. Section 15.1 of the IPC ACCREDITED OPERATOR CODE OF PRACTICE states: 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. The parking attendant that the claimant employs to take photographs of vehicles and their occupiers will have seen that the defendant did not exit the vehicle to read any of the signage. The signs are too high, and the text is too small to read from within the vehicle so the defendant did not knowingly enter into any type of contract.

10. The claimant employs a parking attendant to stand across the road from the 4 parking spaces it operates to discreetly take photos of any vehicle that pulls up in the 4 spaces it operates. The only revenue stream that the claimant has for operating these 4 parking spaces at this site is by issuing Parking Charges to drivers that unknowingly park here hence it has a vested interest to ensure drivers do not realise their actions in order to issue Parking Charges. It is submitted that this is predatory and misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.

The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’.

11. The attendant that is stationed at this site (employed by the complainant) during day time hours to photograph any and all cars entering the area, the attendant could have approached the defendant and informed the defendant of the signage and terms as the attendant would have seen that the defendant did not exit the vehicle. The attendant is responsible for taking the 2 photos to try and fraudulently show that the defendants car was in the parking space for 24 minutes which it is not true. It is submitted that this is predatory and misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.

The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’.

12. The defendant did not have any ability to appeal the complainant’s decision through the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) as to log onto the IAS service needed a verification email from the IAS. Despite the defendant requesting one numerous times over several days and complaining to the IAS, the IPC and the claimant that the defendant could not log on, no email was received and no response to the online complaints; therefore I could not appeal the claimants decision.
The defendant has several screen shots of the attempts and complaints through the IAS’s online form as they do not have an email address or phone number.
It is submitted that this chain of events is founded upon a conflict of interest and operates in breach of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and is contrary to good faith.


13. Additional Costs
The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original ‘parking charge’. The defendant has no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a ‘contract’ into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

14. The Particulars of Claim include £50 for ‘solicitors costs’ yet all I have received from the Claimant’s solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these ‘solicitors costs’ are justified.

KeithP

You don't need your date of birth nor address in a Defence.

Para 4. is no longer true - check again on who holds directorships where.