County Court Claim from Parking Eye Ltd (Home Bargains)

Coupon-mad

2. On xxxxxxxxx at 9:47am, I parked my vehicle registration number xxxxx in the car park. I did not notice the Claimant’s signage as it is displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle.

3.I assumed the free parking time was two hours as it had been when the car park was for Netto.

Not:

''I did not notice''

and not:

''I assumed''

Both of those make it her fault, putting the burden on her. Not what you want to be saying. Was she not relying upon promissory estoppel, not an assumption?

It is the signs that were at fault, she is saying (is she SURE?) ParkingEye signs have been tested in the Supreme Court and if these were like those in the Beavis case, that argument is going nowhere fast.

And the WS says nothing about the evidence she is attaching, like proving the time used to be 2 hours and proving that P/Eye have not changed this by making a new planning application or applying for a lower parking time to apply (Council can confirm).

A WS should be longer, cover more ground, and adduce the evidence by number.

silverchoice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not:

''I did not notice''

and not:

''I assumed''

Both of those make it her fault, putting the burden on her. Not what you want to be saying. Was she not relying upon promissory estoppel, not an assumption?

It is the signs that were at fault, she is saying (is she SURE?) ParkingEye signs have been tested in the Supreme Court and if these were like those in the Beavis case, that argument is going nowhere fast.

And the WS says nothing about the evidence she is attaching, like proving the time used to be 2 hours and proving that P/Eye have not changed this by making a new planning application or applying for a lower parking time to apply (Council can confirm).

A WS should be longer, cover more ground, and adduce the evidence by number.

Do you mean we should not bother arguing that the signs were at fault?

silverchoice

Could we use the following as evidence for a grace period of ten minutes despite us parking 11 minutes over the previous 2 hour limit ?



Re: BPA Code of Practice (Jan 2018)

.... 13 Grace periods

13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or atlocations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them witha reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.

13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

13.2.a Vehicles are not permitted to park under the grace period in spaces designated to specific users for example Blue Badge holders. At all times vehicles must have appropriate and valid permit e.g Blue Badge on displayfor enforcement officer to inspect.

13.3 You must tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the endof the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

Coupon-mad

silverchoice wrote: »

Do you mean we should not bother arguing that the signs were at fault?

No, unless they are exactly the same as the brief, large lettering Beavis sign:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

Often ParkingEye signs are not great. Were they not as clear as the Beavis one?

I was making the point NOT to blame her 'I assumed' and 'I didn't see'!

I realise you didn't mean to but both phrases are the wrong approach so don't lay the omission and error/assumption at her feet.

silverchoice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, unless they are exactly the same as the brief, large lettering Beavis sign:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

Often ParkingEye signs are not great. Were they not as clear as the Beavis one?

I was making the point NOT to blame her 'I assumed' and 'I didn't see'!

I realise you didn't mean to but both phrases are the wrong approach so don't lay the omission and error/assumption at her feet.

Here is our sign compared to the Beavis sign.

Coupon-mad

OK you can't really say that's unclear.

Surely her WS needs to concentrate on evidencing (if you can) that the Local Authority set the stay at 2 hours (is that true and provable or am I imagining it from another case?!), so this change is illegal and against public policy - adducing this fine Aldi (aided and pushed by ParkingEye) got slapped with at Portslade for breaking this aspect of law:

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9031524.aldi-fined-for-breaking-law-on-parking-charges-at-portslade-store/

And that the driver Defendant suffers from (arthritis/rheumatism, gout, asthma?) or whatever medical condition that means she meets the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 and therefore P/Eye have breached their statutory duty in the EqAct Code of Practice to ensure the needs of slower shoppers are allowed for and a reasonable adjustment of time, made IN ADVANCE, in anticipation of a percentage of such visitors?

If that's true, search the forum for Equality Act CoP tours or Equality Act indirect discrimination where this has been said before and the time issue has been shown to be covered by the law (not just physical adjustments like disabled bays for BB holders).

silverchoice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK you can't really say that's unclear.

Surely her WS needs to concentrate on evidencing (if you can) that the Local Authority set the stay at 2 hours (is that true and provable or am I imagining it from another case?!), so this change is illegal and against public policy - adducing this fine Aldi (aided and pushed by ParkingEye) got slapped with at Portslade for breaking this aspect of law:

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9031524.aldi-fined-for-breaking-law-on-parking-charges-at-portslade-store/

And that the driver Defendant suffers from (arthritis/rheumatism, gout, asthma?) or whatever medical condition that means she meets the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 and therefore P/Eye have breached their statutory duty in the EqAct Code of Practice to ensure the needs of slower shoppers are allowed for and a reasonable adjustment of time, made IN ADVANCE, in anticipation of a percentage of such visitors?

If that's true, search the forum for Equality Act CoP tours or Equality Act indirect discrimination where this has been said before and the time issue has been shown to be covered by the law (not just physical adjustments like disabled bays for BB holders).

My mother is partially deaf which I don't think counts as a disability according to the equality act.


We have a copy of the planning management plan from the planning application which states the free parking time to be 2 hours.

silverchoice

This is the second draft of the witness statement.Any comments would be welcome:


[FONT=&quot]In The County Court Claim No: xxxxxxxx[/FONT]

1. [FONT=&quot]Between[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]PARKINGEYE Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]______________________
WITNESS STATEMENT[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am xxxxxxxxxxx, of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. On xxxxxxxxx at 9:47am, I parked my vehicle registration number xxxxx in the car park. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. I did not shop in Home Bargains and returned to my vehicle at 11:58am which I thought was acceptable including any grace period. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I was shocked to discover [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the free parking time had been reduced hours to one and a half hours from two hours which it was when it was the Netto car park.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The parking plan for the original planning permission shows the free parking period to be two hours (Exhibit 1) .[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I made a freedom of information request to ******* Council and they replied that no planning application has ever been made to reduce the free parking time (Exhibit 2).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I have considered the Code of Practice ("CoP") of the British Parking Association ("BPA"), of which the Claimant is an accredited member. In order to be an accredited member of the BPA, compliance with the CoP is compulsory. See paragraphs 4.1 and 6 of the CoP[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Exhibits 3 and 4). The significance of being a member of the BPA and subscribing to its CoP is that the Claimant is only entitled to ask the DVLA for the details of a car’s registered keeper if it is a member.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Paragraph 13 of the CoP clearly states that a grace period is to be applied to parking. The CoP makes clear that such grace periods are to be applied both at the start of any parking period and also at the end of any parking period. The whole point of these grace periods is to allow drivers time to find a parking space and to read the signage prior to commencement of the period of parking, and time to exit the carpark once they have finished parking. Grace periods are not defined, but the CoP requires them to be "a minimum of 10 minutes" either side of the actual parking (paragraphs 13.2 and 13.4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Exhibit 5). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In this case, the data produced and relied upon by the Claimant shows that the period passing between my car entering and leaving via the ANPR cameras was 2 hours and 11 minutes. Applying the "minimum" 10 minutes either side of the parking, the minimum total grace period I should have been allowed by the Claimant under its own compulsory CoP was 20 minutes. I was therefore well within the grace period. It is worthy of note that the recommended grace period is a minimum of 10 minutes, it is not a maximum. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The issue the court is being asked to deal with is de minimis and the court's valuable time should not have been taken up with this matter.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]11. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Statement of Truth[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Signature [/FONT]

[/FONT]

Redx

Also add remarks about the BPA Cop section regarding any changes like parking time changes where extra signs must be used etc, commonly known as a bedding in period

silverchoice

Redx wrote: »

Also add remarks about the BPA Cop section regarding any changes like parking time changes where extra signs must be used etc, commonly known as a bedding in period

I have added another 2 paragraphs:


[FONT=&quot]In The County Court Claim No: xxxxxxxx[/FONT]

1. [FONT=&quot]Between[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]PARKINGEYE Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]______________________
WITNESS STATEMENT[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am xxxxxxxxxxx, of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. On xxxxxxxxx at 9:47am, I parked my vehicle registration number xxxxx in the car park. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. I did not shop in Home Bargains and returned to my vehicle at 11:58am which I thought was acceptable including any grace period. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I was shocked to discover [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the free parking time had been reduced hours to one and a half hours from two hours which it was when it was the Netto car park.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The parking plan for the original planning permission shows the free parking period to be two hours (Exhibit 1) .[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I made a freedom of information request to ******* Council and they replied that no planning application has ever been made to reduce the free parking time (Exhibit 2).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I have considered the Code of Practice ("CoP") of the British Parking Association ("BPA"), of which the Claimant is an accredited member. In order to be an accredited member of the BPA, compliance with the CoP is compulsory. See paragraphs 4.1 and 6 of the CoP[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Exhibits 3 and 4). The significance of being a member of the BPA and subscribing to its CoP is that the Claimant is only entitled to ask the DVLA for the details of a car’s registered keeper if it is a member.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Paragraph 13 of the CoP clearly states that a grace period is to be applied to parking. The CoP makes clear that such grace periods are to be applied both at the start of any parking period and also at the end of any parking period. The whole point of these grace periods is to allow drivers time to find a parking space and to read the signage prior to commencement of the period of parking, and time to exit the carpark once they have finished parking. Grace periods are not defined, but the CoP requires them to be "a minimum of 10 minutes" either side of the actual parking (paragraphs 13.2 and 13.4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Exhibit 5).
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Paragraph 18.10 of the CoP states “W[/FONT][FONT=&quot]here there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones” (Exhibit 6).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In this case, the data produced and relied upon by the Claimant shows that the period passing between my car entering and leaving via the ANPR cameras was 2 hours and 11 minutes. Applying the "minimum" 10 minutes either side of the parking, the minimum total grace period I should have been allowed by the Claimant under its own compulsory CoP was 20 minutes. I was therefore well within the grace period. It is worthy of note that the recommended grace period is a minimum of 10 minutes, it is not a maximum.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I also have a newspaper article about Portslade Aldi being fined for the Claimant steering the retailer to unlawfully change the free parking time without permission and will use this in evidence to demonstrate that changing local shoppers' allowed time shows significant disregard for the rules of a Local Authority (Exhibit 7).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]12. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The issue the court is being asked to deal with is de minimis and the court's valuable time should not have been taken up with this matter.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]14. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Statement of Truth[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Signature [/FONT][/FONT]