N1 Received Issue Date 07/05/19 - One P4rking S0lutions/Gl4dstones

Coupon-mad

OK, can you also edit post #6 where you talk about ParkingEye?

Your Claimant is One Parking Solutions. Was this in Sussex? Which car park?

So send a SAR first, by email right now tonight, to One Parking Solutions' Data Protection Officer, as per the NEWBIES thread example & info about sending a SAR (just don't send the email to Gladstones asking to put the case on hold, obviously! Your case is past that possibility).

Tell us when you've done the SAR.

That will get you all the photos and all letters they say were sent, and it will help you do a better defence within the month you have to work on it (see KeithP's dates).

That defence is old, waffly and talks about permits, and looks a bad fit for a case about parking in a marked loading bay. Do not use that, or not without more info.

Diarise to come back around 1st June and show us the SAR results that might be back by then. That will help your defence become more suited to the actual case.

As long as you make sure you do the AOS on MCOL of course, to buy that time!

JohnDoe42

Hi guys


Ok SAR information received.

SAR from parking company -
Pack shows the following;
- Multiple photos of me on the loading bay, showing me arriving, going to the shop, then leaving. Total time is about 8 minutes. 20/10/2017

- Photo of max stay sign
- Photo of terms of parking (which are very small)
- Copy of first Notice To Keeper PCN with reduced offer (which was never received) on 25/10/2017.
- A letter confirming my request of the copy of original PCN after I got contact from ZZPS.
- A letter before claim dated 23/03/2018.
- A copy of varous emails that were sent betwen the above emails where made some signage defence quotes and also stated the original PCN was never served. It went quiet for a while then from both this company and ZZPS before Gl4dstones picked it up.


SAR ZZPS
Sorry I don't have this



SAR Gl4dstones

Acopy of the few emails we have exchanged where I have continually stated the original ticket was never served. However in one of the emails Gl4dstones state that I was given offer to settle and have not paid, which is untrue.


Could I get your thoughts on this please?


Thank you.

KeithP

Remember...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's less than one week away.

Coupon-mad

Multiple photos of me on the loading bay, showing me arriving, going to the shop, then leaving. Total time is about 8 minutes. 20/10/2017

So the evidence shows you loading, like this case where the poster is working on their Witness Statement and evidence stage:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6004283/update-case-won-preparing-for-court-witness-statement-queries

Loading from a shop is still loading. OPS operate in a predatory way so your defence will be about unclear signs, loading, and no grace period allowed.

Your Claimant is One Parking Solutions. Was this in Sussex? Which car park?

The_Deep

If you think that Gladstones have lied to you make a formal complaint to the SRA.

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

JohnDoe42

Apologies for the late reply, I've checked my settings several times and I'm subscribed to the thread but am not getting notifications.


Coupon-Mad - Yes one partking solutions, in a place called Peacehaven retail park, which isn't a retail park in the normal sense, its a bunch of small shops say 5 or 6 such as a Co-op and Greggs, with a car park besides it. The loading bay takes up 20% of the space in the car park and the rest is car spaces, which are always full.


I've just read the link you've been working on with Helen, thats excellent, she has a very similar situation to mine where the original NtK was never received and she heard straight from the DCA (now I can see when you said mine is not a unique situation).


I will use hers as a template for my own and get this posted here tomorrow evening as I've allocated time to work on it.



The Deep - Thanks I'll do that. What they've said is definitely false.


Also new addition, when I submitted my SAR to my client I also submitted an SAR to Gladstones who provided me with their data. When they sent back they also offered me a reduced settlement amount owed, which was down about £180 rather than the current £240 claim.


Thank you so much for the help.


I'll post my defence shortly but if you feel anything else needs commenting on please let me know.

Coupon-mad

Yes one partking solutions, in a place called Peacehaven retail park, which isn't a retail park in the normal sense, its a bunch of small shops say 5 or 6 such as a Co-op and Greggs, with a car park besides it. The loading bay takes up 20% of the space in the car park and the rest is car spaces, which are always full.

I know it, and know Peacehaven.

I have photos, and have helped people win POPLA appeals there twice this year.

So let's see your defence, part of which will deal with the fact that the photos being only a couple of minutes apart does not preclude loading/unloading activity. Immediate tickets being issued by CCTV trained on loading bays is unconscionable and predatory, and allows no grace period or 'observation' given the fact that loading bays do not prohibit stopping.

1505grandad

Is it supposed to be a DEFENCE you are posting?

JohnDoe42

Ok try again, at least I've got a witness statement prepared now (!)...


I've used a Bargpole signage defence with the extras that Coupon-Mad said to put in.



Thanks in advance for any feedback.






IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

OPS (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 in a marked bay allocated to OPS at Peacehaven

3. 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.

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 merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

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 data provided from an SAR request from the claimant shows the defendant stopping for a total period of 8 minutes on land owned by the Claimant. The signage does not make clear that there is a restricted time for stopping and does not preclude to a loading/unloading activity.


8. The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. The fact that this area is marked as loading and motorists use this area as a legitimate parking bay, as shown in photographs, I would question that the Claimant has deliberately created this area to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices solely for financial gain. Also, tickets issued by CCTV trained on loading bays is unconscionable and predatory and allows no grace period or ‘observation’ given the loading bays do not prohibit stopping.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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. 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 £140, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. 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

1505grandad

OPS should be written in full in heading.

Para 7 - do not think OPS OWN the land (in para 9 you ask for landowner authority)

The experts will no doubt be along in due course for other comments.