Armtrac Parking Scam at Sennen Cove Harbour Car Park

cjos

On June 27th 2018 myself and my daughter were victims of the " fluttering ticket " scam in the Sennen Cove harbour car park . I unsuccessfully appealed first to Armtrac and then to the IAS enclosing photos of the ticket and the pcn and have since received a string of threatening letters from both Armtrac and B W Legal which I have ignored. On May 4th 2019 I received a claim form from Northampton County Court Business Centre. I have prepared the following as a defence and would be grateful for any comments or advice:


Last June, Myself and my daughter spent a few days in Cornwall. We took her car. On June 27th 2018 at 15:23 we parked in the harbour car park at Sennen Cove, purchasing a 2 hour pay and display ticket from the machine. We parked fully within a marked bay and carefully displayed the ticket in the windscreen on the drivers side (the right way up). I was sure that we had complied with all possible conditions. We went for a walk .
We returned at 17:08. The expiry time on the ticket was 17:23 so we were 15 minutes early. We were shocked to find a pcn stuck behind the windscreen wiper, demanding £100 ( or £60 if we paid it quickly and didn't make a fuss). Our ticket had somehow come away from the windscreen and was on the floor in front of the drivers seat. It was the hottest day of the year and despite a sea breeze it was like an oven inside the car, so my daughter had left the passenger window slightly open. This can be seen on one of the photos taken by Armtrac. Perhaps the hot sun and/or the breeze were to blame. It would also have been possible to either aim a blower or poke a thin stick through the slightly open window....especially if practiced at it.
I still have the pay and display ticket and the pcn ( the time on the pcn being 16:14) and enclose photos of both of these. I emailed Armtrac that same same evening with these photos and expected that to be an end of the matter, having proved that we had payed. They rejected my appeal and said to either pay the fine or appeal to their appeal service (IAS) within 28 days. This I did but it was again rejected. I was unable to appeal to the more reputable POPLA because Armtrac are not members of the BPA.


In their response to my appeal, Armtrac mentioned a sign which warned of terms and conditions and the forming of a contract to pay them £100. They said that this sign could easily be read from where we had parked. I don't remember seeing it and it doesn't seem to be in any of the 14 photos which the Armtrac operative took of our car. Anyway, when we had purchased a ticket , carefully placed it in the windscreen , parked within a marked bay and did not intend to overstay the expiry time on the ticket , why would we go looking for signs to read about terms and conditions. I have been driving for 53 years and have never had a problem before in any other pay and display car park. I don't remember seeing one of these signs untill after we discovered the pcn and then I had to walk some distance to read it.
I enclose a copy of the photo used by Armtrac as evidence of their signage against my IAS appeal. To me this doesn't look like a photo of an actual sign in a car park in which case how could they use it as evidence ? But that aside, the terms and conditions are difficult to read and the message regarding the £100 charge is confusing. We payed to park for 2 hours,observed the terms and conditions , were not going to overstay and so assumed that everthing was ok. We expected our ticket to remain clearly displayed in the windscreen . There was no clear warning on the sign that frequently (from what I have since read) that is not the case in this car park and THERE WAS NO WARNING IN PLAIN ENGLISH THAT IF YOUR TICKET IS DISLODGED BY THE HOT SUN OR THE SEA BREEZE YOU WILL BE TREATED AS NOT HAVING PAID AND DISPLAYED AND WILL BE CHARGED £100. If their sign made this clear then noboby would park there without fixing their ticket in the windscreen with duct tape !


The term "Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted " is unfair as it restricts the evidence available to the defendant to defend the charge. Also it is not clear what is meant by retospective evidence in this context.


Since my IAS appeal, I have received a string of threatening letters from Armtrac and B W Legal but refuse to be cowed by them. We did nothing wrong and we owe them nothing.

Redx

that is a WITNESS STATEMENT , (WS) , not a defence

see the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread for example defences, especially the ones by member BARGEPOLE


what is the ISSUE DATE on the top right of the N1 form ?

KeithP

You say that on May 4th 2019 you received a claim form, but what is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

cjos

The issue date on the claim form is May 3rd

cjos

Thanks Redx. So they will not accept my "ws" as a defence then ? I'll have a look at the example that you suggest. I think I've had enough of all this for today though. The date on the claim letter is May 3rd.

Redx

they will "accept" a full stop as a defence , but its not a good idea

the fact that it tells a "story" means its a WS, not a defence (the WS is needed in a few months time, plus any EXHIBITS)

look at the BARGEPOLE defences, which tell the judge the legal reasons why the defendant is not liable for the invoice


it never ceases to amaze me how people think that telling a story is a defence !!

KeithP

cjos wrote: »

The issue date on the claim form is May 3rd

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd May, you have until Wednesday 22nd May to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Umkomaas

cjos wrote: »

I think I've had enough of all this for today though.

You ought to try to do this stuff every day of the year, for many, many years from dawn to midnight (and well beyond in some cases) - as most regulars do to help complete strangers!

Coupon-mad

As long as you do the AOS online, you buy yourself till the first days of June, as KeithP has shown you. Easy enough - how to do AOS is shown in pictures in the NEWBIES thread.

Also, did you search the forum for Sennen as a keyword? We have at least one more thread from this week, where the person has drafted a defence so it's far easier for you than you think!

Search the forum at EVERY stage for a keyword or two. Nothing here is new.

You never have to do things from scratch here. I wish people knew to search first!

cjos

Defence Claim No.




I am the defendant in this matter. I was the driver, though not the registered keeper of the car in question. However , the claim is denied in it's entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all.

1. The particulars of claim provide no information regarding what the original charge was or how it arose , only that they allege that they are owed money for an alleged parking contravention.

1. The Claimants original PCN stated as the reason for issue “Not displaying a valid pay and display ticket”. This failure (which is denied) to display a parking ticket is the only breech of a term or condition that the claimant has ever mentioned to the defendant.
   
2. The defendant asserts that he did pay to park in the car park and did display a valid ticket that had not expired and did cover the whole of the time that the car was in the car park.
   
3. The defendant has shown a copy of the ticket to both the claimant and the IAS , neither of whom have disputed that the ticket was valid. The IAS adjudicator said in their rejection of the appeal “As a genuine ticket holder the appellant has my sympathy but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may not consider extenuating circumstances”.
   
4. It should be noted that IAS and the IPC Trade organisation are managed by the same firm of solicitors who are behind the large number of generic claims brought by this claimant and other private parking operators. Also, Armtrac are a member of the IPC. This is grossly unfair on unrepresented consumers who are not allowed to appeal to the more reputable POPLA.

1. A ticket was purchased and was clearly displayed in the windscreen so all details could be seen. This ticket gave the defendant permission to park from 15:23 until 17:23 on 27/06/18 covering the time and date relating to the disputed charge. The defendant has no knowledge of what happened to the ticket during the 1hr and 45 minutes that the car was left parked there. The time on PCN (16:14) shows that it was put behind the windscreen wiper blade during the 2hrs covered by the pay and display ticket. June 27th 2018 was during a heatwave with record breaking temperatures, there was a strong sea breeze and the ticket was light, thin and flimsy. The fact that it became dislodged from the windscreen and ended up the floor was not the defendant's fault.
   
2. I enclose copies of both the pay and display ticket and the PCN. I also enclose a copy of the photo supplied by Armtrac as evidence of their car park warning sign during my IAS appeal, though it doesn't appear to be an actual sign in the car park. I also enclose a photo of an actual sign which I managed to find online. The terms and conditions are in far too small a font and very difficult to read especially against the red background and given that this sign is located quite high up on the wall of a building. Also they are forbidding terms. In a larger font above the terms and conditions it says “Parking charge of £100”. This is confusing because for an ordinary honest consumer, the charge which you pay in a pay and display car park is understood to be the money inserted into the machine in exchange for the pay and display ticket. One can only assume as did the defendant, that this £100 must be a PENALTY for not obeying the normal rules of any pay and display car park i.e. purchase a ticket, display it in the windscreen so that it can easily be read from outside the car, park within a marked bay and don't overstay the expiry time on the ticket. The defendant meticulously adhered to these rules/terms and conditions.
   
3. The term “Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted” is unfair as restricts the evidence available to the defendant to defend the charge, creating a significant imbalance, contrary to the requirements of good faith, to the detriment of consumers. Also it is not clear what is meant by retrospective evidence in this context. The defendant purchased the ticket immediately on parking the car, not at some later point in time.
   
4. The ticket is evidence that the defendant did pay to park and display it in the windscreen thus complying with the terms and conditions. He even checked that it was still in place after closing the car door. Having purchased the ticket, why would he not display it in the windscreen ? This is standard procedure in all pay and display car parks. Had he not done this, there would have been no point in purchasing the ticket.
   
5. If the claimant wanted to impose a term 'to continuously display' the ticket then they should have drafted clear terms to that effect. “Fluttering ticket cases” have been ruled by PATAS adjudicators in council PCN adjudications as requiring the specific terms “continuously display” or there is no contravention. There is no such term on the Armtrac signs.
   
6. Armtrac claimed during the defendants appeal to the IAS, that one of their warning signs was so close to where the defendant's car was parked that they should have been able to easily read it from there. It is strange then that it does not appear in any of the 14 photos of the car taken by the Armtrac operative and supplied as evidence during the appeal.....and the defendant has no recollection of seeing it.
   
7. There is certainly no sign warning of the strong possibility a “fluttering ticket” as this does , from what I have since read online , seem to be a regular occurrence at Sennen cove. Armtrac seem to be more interested in making as much money as possible from preying on law abiding consumers by contrived contraventions than in the fair management of the car parks

1. The defendant paid for and displayed a ticket in good faith according to the terms of the car park. The defendant has no desire whatsoever to be forced to spend the necessary time and energy combating this case in court but has been forced to.
   
2. The claimant has produced a figure of £166.20 which is a completely unsubstantiated 3-figure sum. The defendant has the reasonable belief that this sum is simply a number made up out of thin air.
   
3. The claimant cannot cite the case of “Parking Eye VS Beavis” in the supreme court ,because that was concerning a free for the first two hours car park (not a pay and display car park) and Mr. Beavis had overstayed by 1hour. Therefore the £85 charge demanded on his PCN could be considered to be the charge for parking as there had been up to that point no charge and was necessary as a deterrent in order to ensure the turnover of available spaces for new shoppers contrary to the case with a pay and display car park where a charge is paid into the machine in exchange for parking up until the expiry time on the ticket......and the defendant did not overstay.
   
   
   
   Statement Of Truth
   

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Signed

Please find enclosed photos of : The pay and display ticket


The PCN
The Armtrac signage at Sennen Cove Harbour Car Park.

cjos

Sorry about the numbering being all haywire . I don't know what's happened there.