3D Parking / BW Legal County court claim

Redx

if you havent expressly forbidden email, plus if you yourself have used it as you say, its a moot point and I doubt that a judge would care


I would concentrate on winning points, not who has the longest aim in a certain contest

bib_bob_euroslap

Ok, hopefully this works. Here is the claimants witness statement.
Posting here in case its useful to refer to and for others.
Will come back to this properly after Christmas!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1niIsbkSDV4nI3nIFeQwDx04O0F7EJi0Z/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Jackson Yamba is not a witness to the event nor an employee of the Claimant, and he won't turn up at the hearing, so your WS should point this out and state that the statement should be treated as having no evidential value.

The signs are prohibitive (no parking licence offered to those not displaying a permit) so you should search the forum for PCM v Bull and PACE v Lengyel and use those transcripts and copy what other posters have done in similar cases at WS stage.

I was going to point out that the NTK is a non-POFA one which can never hold you liable as keeper in law, but you threw that baby out with the bathwater when you used the truly AWFUL template appeal that the MSE site still insists on putting up, and so your appeal blabbed ''I was parked''. Grrr!

Castle

I see that the parking agreement between 3D Parking and Hollybush Parking Ltd, (Company no 11436906) appears to have been dated and signed by a "Director" on 22nd June 2018.

The only problem is that the company, (Hollybush Parking Ltd), didn't legally exist until it was incorporated on 27th June 2018. (Therefore based on section 51 of the Companies Act 2006 the agreement is between 3D Parking and the "Director" personally, not the company).

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11436906

bib_bob_euroslap

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The signs are prohibitive (no parking licence offered to those not displaying a permit) so you should search the forum for PCM v Bull and PACE v Lengyel and use those transcripts and copy what other posters have done in similar cases at WS stage.

I'm not sure I totally understand this but will try to look for those cases. I have already submitted my WS by the time you mentioned this point. Is there anything I can do now?

I was going to point out that the NTK is a non-POFA one which can never hold you liable as keeper in law, but you threw that baby out with the bathwater when you used the truly AWFUL template appeal that the MSE site still insists on putting up, and so your appeal blabbed ''I was parked''. Grrr!

I know. Didn't discover this forum until later down the line



So my hearing is Friday next week. Question - Is a skeleton argument recommended or not?
Either way, I've put some notes together to help get my head around things. Does this sound about right?

My arguments
There was inadequate and poorly placed signage. There is absolutely no signage where drivers actually park.

The claimant has breached the IPC Code of practice on multiple counts
- Parking charge notice was sent late
- Entrance sign is not placed in a clear and prominent position
- Signs within the ‘car park’ are not obvious and do not adequately bring parking terms to the attention of the driver.
- Signs within the ‘car park are not clear for drivers upon entering or parking within the site
- The change of parking terms and conditions is not displayed at all

By not displaying signage clearly the Claimant has lured drivers in to incurring parking charges

The claimant has added a further £60 to the original £100 charge that its not entitled to recover. In the claimants Witness Statement this is referred to as Debt Recovery, yet in their previous letters of correspondence there was a £60 charge for Legal Costs, not Debt Recovery.

This is an abuse of process and recent claims XXX and XXX, where the Private Parking Companies have also knowingly inflated its costs, have been struck out.

This is also a breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
- Para 14 states: ‘A term which has the object or effect of giving the trader the discretion to decide the price payable under the contract after the consumer has become bound by it, where no price or method of determining the price is agreed when the consumer becomes bound.’
- The Claimant’s signage states: ‘Non-payment will result in additional charges.’


Response to the Claimant’s Witness Statement
Jackson Yamba is not the witness nor an employee of the Claimant. There is no witness account of what took place on the day in question, the WS should therefore be treated as having no evidential value.

Para 5: Claimant admits it has to adhere to the IPC Code of Practice

Para 6: The parking agreement between 3D Parking and Hollybush Parking Ltd was signed on 22nd June 2018 yet Hollybush Parking Ltd wasn’t incorporated until 5 days later on 27th June 2018. Based on section 51 of the Companies Act 2016 the agreement is therefore between the Director personally and 3D Parking, not Hollybush Parking Ltd. Para 6 is therefore false.

Para 9: The signs are not in line with the Code of Practice

Para 12-14: The signage does not make it clear drivers are entering private property, nor do they make it clear that a contractual licence was being provided. The signage present is placed behind a wooden fence, this wooden fence could reasonably be considered as a boundary and therefore signage appears to only relate to this land. The Defendant did not enter this private land. Further to this, the signage is positioned in such a way that it’s impossible for a driver of a vehicle to read, let alone understand. Therefore no contract was formed.

Para 28: ‘Non-payment will result in additional charges which may include the cost of debt recovery, which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis’
This term is in breach of CRA 2015 Schedule 2, Para 14:
‘A term which has the object or effect of giving the trader the discretion to decide the price payable under the contract after the consumer has become bound by it, where no price or method of determining the price is agreed when the consumer becomes bound.’

Para 30-32: ‘It would appear the Defence has been cut and pasted from websites…’
The source of information is irrelevant and the facts laid out in the defence are correct. The Claimant has failed to take head on the points raised and has insisted on pursuing the claim for which it has no legal standing. Given the vagueness of this statement by the Claimant it would appear their Witness Statement has been copied and pasted.

Para 33-34: Had I not inadvertently admitted to being the driver, this point would still be valid. Further to this, it is stated in the IPC Code of Practice that the PCN must be served within 14 days.

Para 36: ‘The Claimant’s particlars of claim were included in the online claim form, however, it had to comply with the restrictions of having only 1080 characters to set out its particulars’
One would infer from this statement the Claimant accepts it did not lay out the particulars of the claim sufficiently.

Para 37: ‘The Claimant is not required to attach documents to the particulars do not apply to claims started using an online form’
This is irrelevant as no reference to attaching documents has been made in the defence.

Para 38: I maintain the particulars of claim do not state in what capacity the defendant is being pursued nor any description of what the parking contravention may have been, or how the terms were breached.

Para 40-41: The defendant maintains there was inadequate and poorly placed signage. There is absolutely no signage where drivers actually park. Entrance sign is not placed in a clear and prominent position. Signs within the ‘car park’ are not obvious and do not adequately bring parking terms to the attention of the driver. Signs within the ‘car park are not clear for drivers upon entering or parking within the site. The change of parking terms and conditions is not displayed at all.

Para 42: This infers the Claimant doesn’t allow a sufficient grace period for drivers to walk to the ticket machine, purchase a ticket and walk back again, a total distance of 500 meters, meaning drivers could be away from their vehicles for up to 10 minutes. Regardless of whether the Defendant purchased a ticket or not, this is unreasonable practice of the Claimant.

Para 45: The Defendant avers the Claimant hasn’t paid or incurred the £60 costs. Indeed it seems the Claimant can’t decide whether this is for debt recovery or for legal fees as the Claimant’s Witness Statement and previous correspondence don’t match. Witness Statement says its for debt recovery, previous letters call it legal fees.

bib_bob_euroslap

So my hearing is on Friday morning. Fingers crossed ��
Any last minute tips or advice other than the below?

Take a wage slip to prove loss of leave/earnings if you win, so you can then ask for your costs to be granted for you, before you leave the room.

Take proof that you DID email to the court & claimant, your WS and evidence & cost schedule

Take a copy of everything you filed, as your own bundle to refer to and use as evidence.

Aim to get there half an hour early in case of delays, to go to the loo and read your notes/get water once in the waiting room. And remember to allow time to park, get through security (like an Airport) and to sign in with the Usher.

DO NOT agree to chat with the other side's rep in a side room and do not take any last minute documents of he/she tried to foist something at you late (not allowed).

Think of it like a job interview, a formal meeting, that's all. Judges are usually lovely.

Wear a suit, call the judge sir or madam, speak slowly and don't forget to breathe!

And

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for hearing tips security wage slip , that should find lots.

bib_bob_euroslap

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Search the forum for hearing tips security wage slip , that should find lots.

Thank you. I knew I had read a post somewhere but couldn't find it. Hope you don't mind that I've compiled things in to the post above (in case its useful to others).

bib_bob_euroslap

Another one bites the dust!

The case never really got going, first thing the judge picked up on was the fact the Claimant had no evidence of who the actual land owner was so judge dismissed the claim. Didn't get in to any of the other stuff.

Will write a full report later.
Glad it's over now!

kernowkid007

Congratulations! Having also been victorious against BW this week, it’s so pleasing to see others kicking there a****!