Claim form received

KeithP

The first pic is a very poor sign - where is the prominent £100?

The last pic is of a forbidding sign.
It offers nothing and is incapable of forming the basis of a contract.

V.Annoyedlady

One thing I have noticed and I'm not sure if it will make any difference is that the IPC state that a grace period must be given covering before and after purchase of ticket but unlike the BPA, they do not state what the minimum time this should be. As PPS do not advertise on the car park signs what the grace period is then surely and overstay cannot be proven?

nosferatu1001

Of course one can be
A court just decides what is a reaosnable period and applies that.

V.Annoyedlady

Damn. Thought that might be a loophole.

V.Annoyedlady

Hi guys.
Here is a rewritten defence based upon what advice I have received and info given by BW and PPS.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Claim no XXXXXXXX


Between:


Premier Parking Solutions Ltd


-And-


XXXXXXXX (Defendant)


DEFENCE

1. The defendant denies being the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX on the day the PCN was issued.
2. The facts are that the vehicle was captured on CCTV entering and exiting the premises at certain times and does not prove who the driver was that day.
3. As the PCN was issued almost 6 months ago the defendant cannot ascertain who was the driver on the day in question.
4. As the defendant was not the driver on the day in question no contractural agreement was entered into by the defendant.
5. The defendant was not the driver on the day in question and therefore has not entered into an agreement to pay the exorbitant sum the claimant is requesting to be paid.
6. The signage on display does not prominently feature a £100 charge for overstay and as such cannot be allowed as a term of contractural agreement.
7. The parking ticket details supplied by the claimant show that the alleged overstay period is 19 minutes.
8. Neither the claimant nor BW Legal have been forthcoming with information as to the periods of grace at the site in question.. It has been noted that the claimant has a BPA membership logo on the car park signs when in fact they are not a current member. The IPC, of which the claimant is a member state that grace periods should cover the period before and after parking. The IPC does not state what these times should be, even as a minimum. As the claimant has not stated on the car park signs anywhere what the grace period times are then the defendant is challenging the legality of the PCN.
9. The governments Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the POFA states that ''Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver''. The defendant believes that a £100 instant charge goes above and beyond a reasonable charge.

KeithP

Nothing in there about POFA and transfer of liability to the keeper?

9. Schedule 4 of POFA says nothing about that.

V.Annoyedlady

Sorry Keith. Not sure what you mean. I was quoting from the FAQ on the governments website.

V.Annoyedlady

Sorry guys but I'm struggling a bit here and seem to be going round in circles.

The facts are that the driver did indeed have an overstay of 19 mins after the ticket ran out. The signage imo is clear but I have posted pictures of them further back in this thread.
Here is my revised defence. Do you think it is adequate or am I missing something obvious to you all?

My apologies if I look a bit stupid but time is running out (I have to get my defence in by 11th Feb) and as I'm doing this for my partner I'm feeling very under pressure.
Claim no XXXXXXXX


Between:


Premier Parking Solutions Ltd


-And-


XXXXXXXX (Defendant)


DEFENCE

1. The defendant denies being the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX on the day the PCN was issued.
2. The facts are that the vehicle was captured on CCTV entering and exiting the premises at certain times and does not prove who the driver was that day.
3. As the PCN was issued almost 6 months ago the defendant cannot ascertain who was the driver on the day in question and the defendant states that she loans out her car to friends on occasions.
4. As the defendant was not the driver on the day in question no contractural agreement was entered into by the defendant. POFA Section 56 Schedule 4 states that the claimant should prove the keeper was the driver on that day and this has not been proven.
5. The defendant was not the driver on the day in question and therefore has not entered into an agreement to pay the exorbitant sum the claimant is requesting to be paid.
6. The signage on display does not prominently feature a £100 charge for overstay and as such cannot be allowed as a term of contractural agreement.
7. The parking ticket details supplied by the claimant show that the alleged overstay period is 19 minutes. However, with no proof of syncronisation between the VNPR camera and ticket machine an overstay cannot be proven.
8. Neither the claimant nor BW Legal have been forthcoming with information as to the periods of grace at the site in question.. It has been noted that the claimant has a BPA membership logo on the car park signs when in fact they are not a current member. The IPC, of which the claimant is a member state that grace periods should cover the period before and after parking. The IPC does not state what these times should be, even as a minimum. As the claimant has not stated on the car park signs anywhere what the grace period times are then the defendant is challenging the legality of the PCN.
9. Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the POFA states that ''Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss.''. The defendant believes that a £100 instant charge goes above and beyond a reasonable charge.

Coupon-mad

V.Annoyedlady wrote: »

Damn. Thought that might be a loophole.

It is... The industry norm is to allow an observation period when you arrive, to read signs etc., and ten minutes as a minimum (not maximum) at the end. If in between, the driver made a top-up payment, this would obviously take a few minutes of observation, PDT machine reading of the tariffs again, the necessary thought process and machine use.

Do you mean you were 17 minutes late leaving when compared to the END TIME on the Pay& Display Ticket, or have you lumped all the time together and taken off the paid-for time?

Or do you not know?

If the other side have supplied diabolically unclear signage pictures, don't file & serve your photos as they are high res. Not that any evidence goes in yet, of course.

HOWEVER, do use the photo of the PDT machine, when the time comes for WS/evidence.

Your argument there is that machine is the 'point of sale' and whilst all the tariffs are listed, NOTHING tells you how to top up for more time and nothing there at the machine mentions the £100 penalty, so when the driver made both payments, only the tariffs formed part of your decision and hence the contract.


The signs are not clear and obvious as regards the £100 penalty - it is not just about having signs up with some words on them. I agree with KeithP but your photos are too clear!

The first pic is a very poor sign - where is the prominent £100?

The last pic is of a forbidding sign.
It offers nothing and is incapable of forming the basis of a contract.

You are NOT under pressure of time, if you have ten whole days to work on this before it's due to be emailed to the CCBCAQ email address! You have more time that most newbies here working on their defences in a few days flat.

The defendant denies being the driver

Really, is that true? I haven't read back but people sometimes copy a denial like that...and they should never do if untrue! Just checking...

REMOVE POINT #9 and forget loss. You've been reading old threads.

You need another few points, that you will find in bargepole's concise defence example linked in the NEWBIES thread. Your case is not just about grace periods.

V.Annoyedlady

Thank you Coupon-mad.
The driver was recorded on the VNPR camera leaving the car park 19 mins after the ticket ran out.