NTK for PCN - Access Road at Retail Park in Pontefract.

Coupon-mad

The second sign has a 'no waiting' symbol. That does NOT communicate 'NO STOPPING' at all. I see you have noticed that fact:

Also included on the NTK is a clip-art type image of a No Stopping sign - however, after returning to the site, the signs there display the No Waiting sign, with the text "PRIVATE LAND, No Parking or Waiting on Access Road, Charges Apply 24 Hours Per Day, Parking Charge £100."

And you said:

There are no markings on the road in this area.

So yes, this can form your defence, and 'no grace period was allowed, no fair opportunity to read the signage' (Lord Denning's RED HAND RULE applies) and the fact the car was there for ONE MINUTE shows predatory ticketing.

However, bear in mind that The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 do not apply on private land, as such.

So you can't hold them to task over not complying exactly...but what you can do, is show how misleading the signs are, including the 'no stopping' sign which has no red or even yellow lines to alert a motorist to the sign, before they even read it!

2_Foot_of_Head

Thanks for the feedback Coupon-mad, it's reassuring to know there is room for manoeuvre on this one.

NicamStereo

Yes the predators have laid out a nice little honey trap for themselves. This is how they operate They would much rather lie in wait snapping images of the unwary rather than resolving the discrepancy on signage and educating the public. I'm still a new user so can't share a link but try this imgur.com/eHkVgcl with htpps on the front

For info, don't get your hope up for the IAS appeals process, your appeal will be dismissed for this retail site - I speak from recent experience. So do be prepared for court action if that's how far you wish to take it.

Le_Kirk

Here is your link made live: -
https://imgur.com/eHkVgcl

Coupon-mad

NicamStereo wrote: »

Yes the predators have laid out a nice little honey trap for themselves. This is how they operate They would much rather lie in wait snapping images of the unwary rather than resolving the discrepancy on signage and educating the public. I'm still a new user so can't share a link but try this imgur.com/eHkVgcl with htpps on the front

For info, don't get your hope up for the IAS appeals process, your appeal will be dismissed for this retail site - I speak from recent experience. So do be prepared for court action if that's how far you wish to take it.

And guess what? VCS have managed to win two AWFUL appeal level decisions in

VCS v Crutchley (driver stopped for 20 seconds)

and

VCS v Ward (driver stopped for FOUR seconds due to a dashboard light)


Read 'em and weep, on the thread by RichieBoy56 this weekend.

IMHO Mr Ward should have appealed higher, as that decision was diabolical and actually not supported by the nitty gritty findings in Crutchley or Beavis, yet the appeal Judge couldn't distinguish them from a FOUR SECOND breakdown emergency to switch the engine off and on again, and decided a contract was formed!

The law is an @ss sometimes.

Learn from the fact that VCS v Idle (see RichieBoy56's thread, again, it's in the recent supplementary WS from VCS) wasn't continued by VCS as he didn't admit to driving.

2_Foot_of_Head

Just a quick update, I recently received a LBC, including reply forms and 30 day deadline. Therefore, I've followed the advice as per the newbies thread and emailed a SAR to the data protection department - I've also emailed the PPC litigation team to inform them of the SAR, to ask for a restriction of data processing and for the case to be put on hold.

Thanks for the support upto now - just hope I get a better judge than those two in the C-M's post above.

2_Foot_of_Head

NicamStereo wrote: »

For info, don't get your hope up for the IAS appeals process, your appeal will be dismissed for this retail site - I speak from recent experience. So do be prepared for court action if that's how far you wish to take it.

NicamStereo, have you got any updates on your situation?

KeithP

2_Foot_of_Head wrote: »

NicamStereo, have you got any updates on your situation?

NicamStereo hasn't signed in to MSE forums since he posted on your thread back in May.

You would stand a much better chance of a response if you were to either a) post on his thread or b) send him a PM.

2_Foot_of_Head

Just a quick update, I've received a reply from the SAR I sent. The following text appears:

Review - sent pofa, keeper appeal - appellant has appealed with a template, will complain to landowner and MP, no admission to who was driving. Explanation of offence, grace period, BPA. Footage shows vehicle stopped for 3 mins xx s, footage appears foggy, decision - ROR under pofa, stopped unreasonable amount of time, signs, IPC not BPA, web based, grace period.

It would seem they are withholding some info, as they have only included 4 images which are timestamped and cover a period of just over 1 min - they are claiming the vehicle was stopped for over 3 mins.

2_Foot_of_Head

Hi all,

Things are now moving with regards to my case. I've just returned from a three week break in France, having received a Claim Form on 22.07.19 ( and subsequently acknowleding service online on 26.07.19)

Therefore, I'm now at the defence stage and would appreciate any input on the following attempt:


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date Racecourse Retail Park Access Road, Phase 1, Pontefract, WF8 4PR

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXXX; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXXX;. 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.

4. 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. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They state No Parking or Waiting on the Access Road and go on to state that if a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed. There are 2 differnet signs used, one type displays the No Stopping symbol, the other type displays the No Waiting symbol. There are no markings on the carriageway to provide demarcation of the area to which the restriction applies, ie double yellow lines or double red lines.

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 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.

8. 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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