Parking "fine" - court letter

sellwin90

Has anyone else got anything more I can add to this as it needs to be filed in 4 days time.

sellwin90 wrote: »

CLAIM No: xxxxx

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company BRITANNIA PARKING at Lambhay Car Park, Plymouth, and had a valid ticket to be parked in that bay.

3. To the best of the drivers knowledge, they fully complied with the car park rules by entering the vehicle registration number and purchasing a ticket within the initial grace period allowed by the British Parking Assoication’s (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) and left within the minimum 10 minutes grace period allowed by the BPA CoP at the end of the parking period.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. The POC is inadequate as it does not provide any hint as to what rule the driver is alleged to have breached. It is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct, however any driver of the vehicle did, as a ticket was purchased.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The lighting surrounding multiple signs in the Claimant’s car park is insufficient. The lighting over the tariffs board is intermittent and flickers. In addition to this, the outer box which highlights the tariffs provides a shadow underneath making it even more difficult to read the particulars when the light is in it’s “on” stage of the flickering. This is not confirming to the British Parking Associations, Code of Practice, nor the rules that were issued after the outcome of the “ParkingEye V Barry Beavis” case.

8. a) The Claimant has failed the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so the defendant is not liable under the POFA 2012.
b) The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not followed the correct procedures outlined in the Protecion of Freedoms Act 2012 by identifying who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore the Defendant, as keeper, is not liable for the charge.
c) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £85. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery - verging on, in my opinion, an attempt to fraud the Defendant into paying extra.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

This implies the Defendant was the driver and you are not aiming to do that:

3. To the best of the drivers knowledge, they fully complied

better to say:

3. To the best of the Defendant's knowledge, the driver fully complied

Typo here, should read 'conforming':

This is not confirming to the British Parking Associations, Code of Practice,

sellwin90

I have received the SAR this afternoon. The SAR states that the contravention is "failed to make a valid payment". The driver definitely paid, and although it shows the entrance time and exit time, it doesn't show any confirmation of the payment and any over run time... Or am I missing something here?

Also in the SAR it shows pictures of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park but it doesn't show the vehicle reg at all. It then has a zoomed in focus of the reg but there is no proof that this has actually come from the original image, if that makes sense? Plus the zoomed in image of the reg is really poor on one of them.

I have printed and signed the defence but obviously in light of this, should I change something? Defence needs to be submitted by tomorrow.

EDIT: I found a note that just says:
note ID: xxxx
2hrs
date: a date that isn't the date that the "offence" took place.

Is this saying that it was a 2 hour park paid for, it's very wooly? If so, the vehicle entered at 19:18 and exited at 21:42. This obviously over 2 hours by 24 minutes, which could be classed as not enough "leeway" time?

Redx

seems to me that it is saying that the driver didnt pay for enough time , so should have paid for say 3 hours and not 2 hours

the BPA CoP clause #13 defines the leeway time as GRACE PERIODS, one before and one after the actual parking event

24 minutes exceeds the BPA CoP grace periods, which at most could be construed as up to 10 minutes to park and over 10 minutes to leave, so say 20 minutes

my point ? it seems to me that the driver didnt pay for enough parking time to cover the 2 hours and 24 minutes and therefore was short by at least 24 minutes, thereby also failing the grace periods allowed by the BPA CoP to cover any leeway time

hope that helps ?

sellwin90

Ok, so should I remove this section:

3. To the best of the drivers knowledge, they fully complied with the car park rules by entering the vehicle registration number and purchasing a ticket within the initial grace period allowed by the British Parking Assoication’s (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) and left within the minimum 10 minutes grace period allowed by the BPA CoP at the end of the parking period.

Should I add in anything about the poor pictures and not actually showing the car and vehicle reg in one photo? I can upload a copy of the photos if I have the rights too but not sure if I should considering the least amount of info you guys have said to put on here ?

Redx

I would alter that paragraph and state that the defendant believes that the driver purchased a valid ticket within a reasonable time frame and also exited within a reasonable time frame, as described in the BPA CoP clause #13 to cover any alleged overstay, so was not "bilking"


I would also put in a paragraph stating what you say about the flawed ANPR pictures , PLUS adding that their evidence is flawed and incorrect dates and times are given (if what you said above is true)

sellwin90

Redx wrote: »

I would also put in a paragraph stating what you say about the flawed ANPR pictures , PLUS adding that their evidence is flawed and incorrect dates and times are given (if what you said above is true)

Could I PM you with the SAR (if messaging allows pictures to be sent) so that you can have a quick glance and give your opinion and to make sure that I'm not being stupid/reading it wrong ?

Redx

I dont take pm,s , sorry (most regulars wont) but I think that my explanation is a good one for what has gone on based on what you have said and the usual reasons for issuing pcn,s

however, it seems to me that your defence mainly relies on POFA2012 failures and the keeper (defendant) isnt liable, so my advice was based on you adding what you as keeper think the driver has done, and that you believe the driver complied with the BPA CoP

but as keeper, if they cannot hold you liable, its irrelevant what the driver did or did not do

so my advice is concentrate on POFA2012 and the keeper is not liable, the ANPR photos are flawed , incorrect dates being given etc ; but by adding what you as keeper have found out about the driver having a paid for and valid ticket and paying promptly and leaving promptly (plus they could have been delayed at the start or at the end) , you are giving the impression that no matter what their argument may be , you as keeper are not accountable , no case to answer , they had their money for the parking period

where a person has blabbed about being the driver, then there is no POFA and so landowner contracts , poor signage , BPA CoP failures , grace periods etc are more prominent

sellwin90

I'll edit and post redraft and print and send defence tonight

Coupon-mad

Was there a reason for that overstay that you know of, e.g. was a machine broken, or did the driver have to waste 15 minutes registering for an app to pay by phone or something, or was it at a very busy time of year where there weer no parking spaces available for 15 minutes?

That's the sort of thing that reasonably explains 24 mins (because the 24 mins isn't all at the end, it's partly at the start, so what happened?

Also, if the SAR has NOT shown the time of the monetary payment from the VRN record, email back and INSIST on it. You need to know when payment was made.