UKCPM, Gladstones. No permit displayed in work car park. Defence stage

hateUKCPM

Cheers Keith, I'm on it.

hateUKCPM

hi guys long time no see, had a bit of a problem with the court trying to change the location of the court despite me specifying where I wanted it in the directions questionnaire....

Anyway, I've received the witness statement from UKCPM and have a few questions before I write one myself. Am I correct in saying that I am allowed to counter the evidence in their witness statement with my witness statement or not? if so I was going to say the following:

1) They have included a nice little picture with the area they are allowed to enforce circled in yellow. The thing is, the site layout has changed in the time I got my ticket and present day and they have included a picture of the present day site which, if i overlayed a picture of old vs new site, my parking location would be outside their current designated area. Can I argue in my witness statement something like how can you say I was illegally parked if you are telling me this is the area you cover and I was outside it?

2) their sign is gash. Its this one: *cant post the link as im a new user *
I was going to argue the following; where the sign says "terms of parking without permission" it seems to me like there are no terms that follow, AND I had permission from my employer at the time. That sign doesn't say that a permit is the thing that grants you permission to park there.

3) Almost 32 months have passed between the parking ticket being issued and the letter before claim. In that time I have changed job and moved location across the country so how am I now supposed to go back and gather evidence ESPECIALLY because the site layout has changed in that time? Also as I've changed companies I no longer have access to company emails that would be invaluable to help my defence.

If anyone could let me know if I'm on the right track here that would be great.

Cheers

Coupon-mad

Am I correct in saying that I am allowed to counter the evidence in their witness statement with my witness statement or not?

Yes, absolutely.

Your points #1 and #2 are worth saying, but not #3, except in passing.

Show us your draft WS and the list of evidence you are thinking of filing.

You can show us broken links easily. Just put an image in Dropbox or Imgur, and then where you'd normally share the URL with us, charge the http to hxxp and just type it freehand here in a reply (don't try to attach image).

Coupon-mad

http://i.imgur.com/1kmtORV.jpg

Is that the only version of evidence sign? All versions showing BPA membership of the AOS scheme? Nice. Then they have shown NO EVIDENCE of the signs in situ in 2016.

You said the PCN was from 2016, but UKCPM joined the IPC on 01/10/2015:

https://theipc.info/aos-members/u

Why then, you will be asking their hapless rep AT THE HEARING (BUT NOT TIPPING THEM OFF IN YOUR WS!) have they failed to show any signage evidence at all, that existed in 2016, which CANNOT have been BPA signage, as they had left the BPA the year before!

Don't forget. NOTHING about that in your WS or they might throw a supplementary WS at you with new signage pics, and try to get away with it in court.

hateUKCPM

ah sorry, deleted my post after you replied, heres what I said:

excellent, thanks.

heres the link to a photo of the sign they have submitted as evidence hxxp://i.imgur.com/1kmtORV.jpg (I didnt want to run the risk of getting banned for evading forum rules)

I've got in contact with an old work colleague to see if I he can find the plans that were sent round letting us know of the change of layout of the site, and the date the work commenced. Unfortunately he's not around until the 18th so I've got to wait a bit for those.

I'll start writing something up over the next few days.

sorry that sign was a similar one I got off the internet but upon closer inspection is slightly different to my one here hxxps://imgur.com/a/rLgqSlI - this is the actual one they submitted as evidence, still has the BPA logo though! and yes, thats the only evidence of the sign they have submitted

Why then, you will be asking their hapless rep AT THE HEARING (BUT NOT TIPPING THEM OFF IN YOUR WS!) have they failed to show any signage evidence at all, that existed in 2016, which CANNOT have been BPA signage, as they had left the BPA the year before!

absolutely smashing news! this sounds like a winner. The judge wont mind if I keep this in the back pocket until the hearing?

My hearing is at the start of August if you're interested.

Coupon-mad

https://imgur.com/a/rLgqSlI

The judge wont mind if I keep this in the back pocket until the hearing?

Nope, not a problem to pull apart their evidence, when it is your turn to question the rep on the evidence supplied! That's what you get the floor for. That sign is your silver bullet.

Also print off that link to the IPC join date from the IPC website, and put it in your exhibits with your WS now, (useful to have fielded that, in case they say you are wrong on dates, when you raise the silver bullet and fire on the day!). You can say:

''ahem! well if you look at my exhibit number xx you will see the Claimant was not even in the BPA in 2016, so those BPA AOS signs must be obsolete archive ones, thus the Claimant has completely failed at the first hurdle of proving the contractual terms that they say existed on the material date''.

However, simply refer to it in your WS as evidence, stating that you have researched and found that the Claimant is in the IPC and then go on about how they have failed to comply with the IPC CoP, maybe on grace periods, if they only waited 2 minutes to take a few rushed photos?

What is the actual allegation? Not displaying a permit for 2 minutes? Parking in a section they decided is not for parking?

What can you get to put in as an exhibit to prove this (below):

Hamworthy Heating Limited has 100 car parking spaces allocated to them under the terms of their lease.

These spaces are paid for by Hamworthy Heating Limited and are available for employees only.

The defendant was employed by Hamworthy Heating Limited on the date specified and had permission from Hamworthy Heating Limited to park in any of these spaces.

On the date specified, Hamworthy Heating Limited had not agreed to, or signed up to, any agreement with the Landlord or the Claimant to police these leased spaces.

Have you searched the forum for UKCPM WS or Gladstones WS and found out that the entire WS you have there is a template, ripped apart on here umpteen times before, in other people's WS that you can copy?

hateUKCPM

Its a tempate? they fooled me, it definitely sounded like they knew what they were talking about lol. I've not done a search for other witness statements yet, I guess thats the next job!

Give me a few days and I'll update this thread with what I've managed to get written.

thanks so much, I'm in a good mood now :beer:

Coupon-mad

Hilarious that people think that template WS is bespoke! Search the forum and laugh!

hateUKCPM

Hello again everyone.

I've gone off, done some reading and put this thing together. Any thoughts or advice on this would be most appreciated. C-M, I know you said not to add how their sign was out of date, but I thought I'd put it in at the end otherwise I'm liable to forget what to say and when, when it comes to crunch time.

The PCM v Bull hearing I reference can be found here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=43971
I think I've managed to grab the relevant bit from that. I saw Bargepole referenced that hearing with success as well, here: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2018/03/court-report-uk-cpm-lose-on-pofa-and.html

Exhibit 1: Google earth of site on the date specified
Exhibit 2: Google earth of site on the date specified (shows site change)
Exhibit 3: email sent from colleague detailing when new parking places take effect due to building works
Exhibit 4: Image attached to previous email showing a 'new unit' located where the vehicle was parked
Exhibit 5: Google earth image cross referencing background data from their photos to prove where the car was located (not sure this is going to work but I thought I'd try...)
Exhibit 6: Google earth image of site with entrances marked.
Exhibit 7: payslip from the month the PCN was issued showing I was employed there.
Exhibit 8: PCM v Bull Hearing transcript
Exhibit 9: Screenshot of the IPC member database showing UKCPM join date of 01/10/2015

Phew. Anyway, onto the Witness Statement:

In the Northampton County Court
Claim No. -redacted-

Between
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
and
-redacted- (Defendant)

Witness Statement

I, -redacted-, the Defendant in this matter, will say as follows:

1. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

2. The car park layout at Fleets Corner estate changed between the dates 15/04/2014, Exhibit 1, and 26/05/2017, Exhibit 2. I have been provided with email evidence, Exhibit 3, that the site works to change the layout of the site would begin on 29/07/2016. Exhibit 4 shows the new site layout with a new unit situated on the area where the vehicle in question was occupying. Exhibit 5 shows the approximate location of the vehicle by referencing prominent background features based on the photos the Claimant has provided on pages 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of their Witness Statement. The Claimant provides details of the boundary of the enforcement area in the Self-Ticketing Agreement that the Claimant has with the Freeholder of the land. This boundary is shown in yellow in the Claimant’s Witness Statement on page 11. It is clear that the vehicle was parked outside of the boundary that the Claimant claims to enforce, on the date the PCN was issued. Further, the Claimant has shown no evidence that they were in charge of the area of land the vehicle was parked on prior to the site layout change.

3. The two entrances to the car park from the road are shown in Exhibit 6. When driving in to the estate the location of the signs are not clear, as seen on page 11 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement. The Claimant has provided no evidence of signs being present at the entrance to the site. Further, with the vehicle parked in the location as shown on page 21 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, the sign is barely noticeable from the vehicle.

4. The sign referenced by the Claimant on page 10 of their Witness Statement states that a Permit must be displayed in the vehicles windscreen, it then goes on to say that a fee of £100 is applicable to those parking without permission. At no point does the sign suggest that a lack of displayed permit indicates a lack of permission to park. By being a full time employee at Hamworthy Heating on -redacted date-, Exhibit 7, and parking in their designated spaces, I had permission to park as required.

5. The Claimant references Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) on page 3 of their Witness Statement. I counter this with Exhibit 8, Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull, where District Judge Glen says the following:

17. Why is this important? It is important for this reason. In the Beavis case the scheme
was categorised by the permission the ParkingEye gave Mr Beavis to be in the car park
for a limited period of time. So whether you call it a contractual licence or whether
you simply call it a contractual permission, as Lord Mance in the end did, that was the
consideration and the consideration flowing the other way was Mr Beavis’s agreement
to be bound by those terms.

18. I am afraid that in my judgment that analysis just does not work in this case. It does
not work for this reason. If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was
saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree
with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core
consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that
this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against
parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out
of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for
anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass
on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the
form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be
damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land
in order to proceed in trespass.

6. It is my position that the signage that the Claimant relies on to bring this Claim was forbidding and claiming for an alleged parking breach is therefore perverse. There was prohibition of parking except for ‘those with permission’ which indicates that there was no contractual offer capable of acceptance by the motorist, or alternatively no contractual licence which could be construed from this wording. The Claimant refers to ‘the Contract’ (i.e. the Sign) in paragraph 16 but the picture of the sign, on page 10 of their Witness Statement, shows it is forbidding rather than contractual.

7. I have performed some research and found that the Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) as of 01/10/2015, Exhibit 9. The IPC Code of Practise states the following:

15.1 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.

15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or
permitted period of parking has expired.

8. On page 12 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement it can be seen that the Claimant only allowed 11 minutes between initial observation and issuing of the PCN. This is insufficient time to read the signs, walk across the site, enter reception, get the attention of the site manager, request permission to park and return to the vehicle.

9. The sign referred to by the Claimant on page 23 of their Witness Statement, taken on -redacted date-, indicates they are a ‘BPA Approved Operator’ and a ‘Member of the British Parking Association’. Exhibit 9 shows that they have been a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) as of 01/10/2015, thus the Claimant was not a member of the British Parking Association on -redacted date- when they claim the photo of the sign was taken. The signs referenced by the Claimant must be obsolete archive ones, thus the Claimant has completely failed at the first hurdle of proving the contractual terms that they say existed on the material date.

10. 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.

Signature:


Print:

Date:

Coupon-mad

Exhibit 1: Google earth of site on the date specified
Exhibit 2: Google earth of site on the date specified (shows site change)

I never use Google Earth. Doesn't GoogleStreetView give better evidence, as you can change the date on that to look back at the signs as they were before?