Defence Letter

Coupon-mad

Do we take it from the lack of reply, you failed to serve any WS or evidence, not even the Blue Badge, or proof that this is land owned by Salford City Council which cannot be operated as if it was private land?

Never mind, at least you have the advantage that this is Manchester Court, whose Judges understand that PPCs operate a scam, and are good at listening to Defendants and finding in their favour! You couldn't ask for a better court.

You must still attend and pull apart their evidence instead and prepare yourself a skeleton argument to see you through. You have no choice, if all you fielded was a defence in 2018 and nothing since.

Take a skeleton argument, and a copy of your defence and the Blue Badge, and proof the place is owned by Salford Council, and a printout of the DVLA letter and Robert Goodwill's letter (see link to the NotoMob site below), plus a printout of an EXCEL PARKING logo (see below as to why!).

And take a WAGE SLIP to prove your loss of leave/salary, to claim costs if you win!

Anyway here is an example of a template VCS Witness pack pulled apart (see posts #14 and #15, THIS IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS YOURS):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75657555#Comment_75657555

My main points when i speak in court will be that the double yellow lines are deceitful as they imitate double yellow lines implemented by the council, which confused me into thinking i can park there with a disabled passenger.

Secondly the section showing the disabled sign it extremely small and has tiny words saying 'not exempt' if they wanted to make it clear they would have put a cross going through the sign. It was night time and extremely hard to see the sign, never mind the tiny writing at the bottom.

Yes, and also:

1. use all the info in the link I gave you to explain how Kumari and Vine (with Roch LJ being quoted out of context) are irrelevant, and

2. the 'witness' who wrote the statement will not appear in court so their statement is hearsay and provably wrong, as twice they've said the car wasn't parked at Double Yellow lines - but it was, and

3. the 'witness' is not the ticketer, who is clearly an Excel employee (look at the logo on his van in their own photos, and do an Excel Parking Google image search and you'll see that logo!), and

4. Pointing out that the contract they've shown is with a non-landowner (the landowner, as they admit, is Salford City Council) and

5. Pointing out the contract was expired (May 16 - May 17 'fixed term' it says!), and

6. Pointing out that land owned by Salford City Council cannot be operated as if it was 'private land', so say the DVLA and the Dept for Transport (the letter from Robert Goodwill MP is show here):

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=4861.0

7. and as mentioned above, the ticketer who slapped the card on the car is from Excel Parking, not VCS. They are owned by the same person, but they are completely different companies which cannot share consumer/driver data (that's against the DPA and GDPR). The presence of an EXCEL employee and van, plus the expired VCS contract suggests that Excel are ticketing there now, not THIS Claimant, and

8. the signs and lines create HUGE uncertainty. Despite the WS, the car IS shown at a layby with otherwise unmarked DYL, and this is Council land, so a person displaying a Blue Badge can definitely park there. Councils can't pretend DYL have a different meaning on Council land when a parking firm enforces the 'rules', and

9. the sign is unclear because it allows loading/unloading, and on Council land where loading is allowed and DYL exist, Disabled badge holders can park for 3 hours as you said in defence, AND the sign is further ambiguous because a disabled person would interpret the sentence near the top that says ''IF a permit is needed...'' that disabled persons are 'not exempt' from displaying their permit, the Blue Badge!

Here's the argument about ambiguity (of the sign and of the 'NOT A PCN' card which forces a driver to appeal but then they claim it was never a Notice to driver!), for your skeleton:

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
and Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings:
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Issuing what looks like a PCN, which is clearly a 'Notice to Driver' telling them to appeal or pay, yet then denying it was a PCN and getting the registered keeper lease firm's data anyway (even though they had the driver's name & address already) would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made
Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2) -
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''

It is far from 'apparent' that the NTD is not a NTD(!) and regarding the signs & lines, it is far from apparent that the painting of ordinary DYL plus a sign allowing loading, with the sentence starting 'if a permit is required...' somehow precludes the exempt activity (assisted boarding/alighting of a disabled person whilst displaying a Blue Badge) that Salford Council would have to allow, if they were not playing at operating this land as if it was private land, which the DVLA and Dept for Transport have told all enforcement authorities that they CANNOT.

ellie.52

Hi

Thank you so much for your reply.

I had not submitted a witness statement as i was planning to attend.

I have drafted a skeleton argument based on your comments.

Court is at 2pm tomorrow, they wrote it should take an hour and 30 minutes.

Ill update you with my results.

Skeleton Argument
Point 8 – The Land Owner
- Having double yellow lines on private land is deceitful as they imitate double yellow lines implemented by the council, which allows disabled parking
- The claimant have advised that their cl
ient is in fact Salford City Council c/o Urban Vision who is the landowner
- However the contract they have shown is with themselves, who by there own admittance do not own the land
- As the land is owned by Salford City Council, it cannot be operated as private land – as advised by the DVLA and the Department of Transport in Robert Goodwill MP’s letter
- The signs and lines create HUGE uncertainty. Despite the warning sign, the car is shown at a layby with otherwise unmarked double yellow lines and this is council land, so a person displaying a blue badge can definitely park there. Councils cant pretend double yellow lines have a different meaning on council land when a parking firm enforce the rules.
- The contract shown between them is a fixed term contract from May 16-17 so has expired

- Point 37 – The sign
- The sign is also unclear because it allows loading or unloading, and on council land where loading is allowed and double yellow lines exist, disabled badge holders can park for 3 hours.
- The sign is further ambiguous because a disabled person would interpret the sentence near the top that says ‘IF a permit is needed’ that disabled persons are not exempt from displaying their permit, the blue badge!
- Where ambiguity exists the rule of contra proferentum shall apply and be construed against those wishing to rely on it
- The section showing the disabled symbol is extremely small and at the bottom of a sign, which even more so at night is extremely hard to see. Furthermore the sign indicates disabled parking is permitted until you read the tiny words under it which say ‘not exempt’. How on earth are you meant to read that!

- Point 41 – The ticketer

- The car WAS parked on double yellow lines which is denied in the witness statement, however the witness is not present and the statement is hearsay.
- Furthermore the witness was not the ticketer, who is clearly an Excel employee – see logo on van in the photos and logo I printed.
- The ticketer works for Excel Parking, not VCS. He cannot share consumer/driver data as this is against DPA and GDPR. The presence of the Excel employee and van, plus the expired VCS contract seems to suggest Excel are ticketing there now, but the claimant here is VCS.



- Point 42 – The charge notice
- They have issued what looks like a PCN which is clearly a notice to driver telling them to appeal or pay.
- Yet they are denying it was a PCN and getting the registered keeper lease firm’s data anyway
- This is considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator ‘fails to identify its commercial intent’

- Point 36 – Precedent under Vine v Waltham
- This has been quoted out of context and is misleading
- The court goes on to note that the signage was insufficient in vine. This is fact specific.
- Roche LJ continued to say in Paragraph 19 that:
It has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped.

I just wanted to add:
- I am the first person to admit where I am wrong and face up to the consequences, however I feel like I am being unfairly treated by a big company who are known to do everything in the books to intimidate people to pay unfairly
- As you can see I am heavily pregnant, a part time student and work full time
- All I am trying to do is secure a better future for my family
- I cannot afford to pay this parking ticket which is why I have had to take the day off work to attend which my boss is extremely unhappy about
- This whole situation has caused me extreme anxiety which has heavily impacted my pregnancy and life in general

Coupon-mad

I had not submitted a witness statement as i was planning to attend.

Yes but...the Court letter told both parties to submit your WS & evidence earlier this month. You didn't have a choice. Your Judge did not direct you: ''if you are attending, don't bother to file anything, you can just rock up and ambush the other side''.

The NEWBIES thread has always told everyone that defence is not your only job.

Anyway, do your best and take a copy of your defence and their WS & evidence (with highlighter pen to help you find things like the expired contract and misquoting of Vine) and that Skeleton Argument as your crib sheet, a copy of Dad's Blue Badge, a copy of your wage slip for loss of salary/leave and proof of your travel costs for attending.

Get there half an hour early as Manchester is a very large court and you have to get through security and you might want the loo and to sit with a drink of water to calm yourself & read your paperwork.

Don't agree to discuss the case with their rep, you will be intimidated, they will push you to settle and will lie that you face higher costs if you go into the court room (all lies). Don't be told that your case is hopeless as you didn't file a WS and evidence (although sorry to say, you REALLY missed a trick there, bad move, it was in the court letter AND in our NEWBIES FAQS).

Tell them anything to be said can be said in front of the Judge and that you will not settle.

ellie.52

Ok will do.

Now I feel stupid and nervous I didn't submit it.

Ill try my best.

Thanks so much for all your help on this

ellie.52

I lost

Ordered to pay the £160 + £10.something interest + £50 court fees.

Coupon-mad

Sorry to hear that.

So sorry you were not better prepped just before the hearing. I wish you had stayed on the forum and/or come back much earlier, as you'd have had much more of a chance with a well-written WS & evidence, especially as Manchester Judges understand the PPC scam.

How did you lose, given the stuff I gave you in #12, things like an expired contract, the confusing meaning of the signs, and the fact you can park at DYL with blue badges?