VCS MCOL Darlington, Co. Durham

Coupon-mad

Oooh, is it the same place as this in your thread, then?

This place?

https://goo.gl/maps/fi6Mxvkqds5onej67

Here it is in June 2015, a month after this parking event. No entrance signs:

https://goo.gl/maps/Bbh6HPHknDQNWVhg7

And no signs at all with ANY terms, at the point of sale (PDT machine).

Here is the large sign on the wall, using the Google search you suggested:

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/12969905.darlington-parking-row-as-former-magistrate-landed-with-ticket-over-misleading-signs/

And the ''50p per hour'' sign was still there on 25th May 2015 according to that article (it was since removed, as shown in the GSV June 2015 image). NO signs visible from the PDT Machines say anything about how to display/continuously display a ticket, and neither would she have read anything about £100 penalty, so she can't have agreed to that contract.

The Planning Permission expired in 2014 for this P&D Car Park:

https://publicaccess.darlington.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=L CG3V0FP01Y00

They then put in to extend the temporary planning permission (late!):

https://publicaccess.darlington.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=N OYOJHFP0FG00

Quote:
Application Received Fri 22 May 2015
Application Validated Wed 19 Aug 2015
At the time of the PCN, they were operating illegally.

Nice point to bring in to the defence now. The links will be good evidence for WS stage!

This OP doesn't have the illegality point as the parking event was on XX/11/2015 but the lack of signs and ambiguous terms is relevant, certainly.

Jeff_Wode

Good morning - That`s great news @SteveTA: will you be claiming costs?



@Coupon Mad - yes, that`s the same place and thank you, I`ll be using that google picture in my bundle as well as the echo article- I already put the Claimant to strict proof of the "Sign at Entrance" - the only sign that can be described by anyone as being "Clear" is the big white sign with the charges on (and the misleading 50p/hour) signs. These "50p/hour" signs I noted from the Claimant`s photos I received from the SAR had changed to "50p for the FIRST hour" by the time my vehicle was issued a PCN

Jeff_Wode

Just received their bundle - it`s like Samson handing Delilah a pair of scissors and a razor..

Coupon-mad

Haha, love it. Get them in the chair, then, and start hacking!

SteveTa

Hi, we put the paragraph in about a costs hearing but not sure how it works. My mum doesn't want to go in her own and I would have to take the day off work if you need to attend s cost hearing.

Have they supplied photos dated the 1/4/15? I put in my mum's defence that I did not see the relevance of them.

I, *** of **** am the
Defendant in this claim. If the documents are not set out in the way that the Claimant
may do, I trust the Court will excuse this. The facts and matters stated are true and
within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
I produce in evidence the following exhibits
STAll Google maps photograph dated July 2018 of Bondgate carpark entrance
STAI2 Photograph of full days parking ticket purchased 1315115 by defendant
STAI3 Correspondence received from Vehicle control services and their
representatives between 3Pt July 2015 and 17th September 2019
STAI3A claim form dated 17th June 2019
STA/4 Parking history for Salt Yard car park from Darlington Borough Council
Website
STAJ4A Notice of granting of planning permission in relation to the Salt Yard
STAI4B Details of application for continuation of use of the car park at the Salt
Yard with an application received date of Friday 22 May 2015
STAI5 Parking Charge Notice
STAI6 Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Action 2012
STAR Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
STAI8 pages 87 and 88 of the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance for the Consumer Rights Act 2015

I will say as follows:
1. I make this witness statement in readiness for the hearing scheduled for the ***. This is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as
already filed.

2. On the 13/5/15 I entered Bondgate Car Park through the only entrance
which is located via on the Salt. It can be seen from the photo evidence
provided by the claimant that it is not clear and obvious that the carpark is
operated by Vehicle Control Services, See page 4 of claimants exhibit AAI.
In fact it shows that no signage is present at the entrance to the carpark. The
claimant provides photographs dated the 15 April 2015 which show some
signage, which they have not provided any context to or confirm if this is the
signage they claim was present on the day of the alleged incident, If these
signs were present on the day of the alleged incident to which they are put to
strict proof, the text on the one sign that makes mention of a parking charge of
£100 is not legible in relation to the route the driver would take in entering the
carpark. This is shown clearly in claimant exhibit AAI provided by the
claimant. They have in fact provided a blown up close up of the sign as it is
obviously not readable from a photograph taken at the point a driver would be
turning in the carpark. Schedule 1 — Signage of the Code of Practice of the
International Parking Community (of which VCS is a member), states that
“The size of the text on the sign must be appropriate for the location of the
sign and should be clearly readable by a Motorist having regard to the likely
position of the Motorist in relation to the sign.”

3. Since the alleged incident a small sign has been added to entrance of the car
park right next to the Payment machine. This draws the driver’s attention to
the fact this is a private car park more effectively. Also, it appears that VCS
has since added more signs, possibly as a result of such incidents occurring.
Although, again, the text is still very small in relation to where the motorist is
on the road. I produce a photograph of the entrance to carpark from google
street view taken in July 2018 as exhibit reference STAll.

4. I dispute that there was any clear signage on the day in question, however for
the sake of argument, the Claimant has provided evidence of some signage
dated the l April 2015, see claimant exhibit AAI. If on strict proof the
claimant can demonstrate the signage that photographs dated the i April
2015 were present on the day, it is argued that the signage is not clear and
also confusing and misleading given that one sign appears to say ‘CAR
PARKING 50p PER HOUR and the other larger one appears to state ‘UP TO
2 HOURS - £2.20’ and ‘ALL DAY -£4’.

5. The sign that the claimant has supplied photographs of in claimant exhibit
AA1 and upon which the claimant seeks to rely is also clearly given much less prominence than the other two signs it is shown in a picture with. The
sign states the permit ticket must be clearly displayed (with all details clearly
visible) inside the front windscreen of the vehicle at all times. It does not
specify which details it references and given that the ticket has print on both
sides and an identical reference number on both sides this is not clear. Even if
there was any breach (which, for avoidance of doubt, is denied) it was do
minimis.

6. After returning from work I returned to my car that evening to find a parking
charge notice propped on the windscreen.

7. The claimants own evidence of the vehicle, shows the ticket face down on the
dashboard, see page 5 of claimant exhibit AA2. This shows the ticket serial
number on the reverse of the ticket of 01067119, this matches the defendant’s
evidence of the front of the ticket with serial number 01067719, see exhibit
STA/2. Proving that the defendant had displayed a valid ticket. In any case,
the ticket attendant would be easily capable of correlating this with the ticket
machine.

8. Further, if you look closely at the ticket, you can see it is made of a flimsy
piece of paper with no adhesive so that it could be fixed in place on the
dashboard. I would be interested to know how many Parking Charge Notices
for similar circumstance occur for this car park.

9. The Claimants own evidence from the day, see claimant exhibit AA2, also
shows an overcast sky which is suggestive of how gusty it was on the day in
question. Possibly explaining how the ticket flipped over.

10. Fluttering tickets are routinely accepted as a valid defence to Council Penalty
Charge Notices and whilst contractual principles are not applied to such
notices, it is indicative of the fact that circumstances out of your control, and
where the driver has clearly paid for the parking, are deemed to be a good
reason for those notices to be cancelled.

11.I include the views of Council Adjudicators regarding the well-known issue of
‘flimsy fluttering tickets because the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal
Judges) in Beavis were happy to draw similarities with Council PCNs: In
DB05057D the adjudicator said: “...having seen the original ticket I note that it
is made of rather thin paper which is likely to be dislodged when a car door is
shut. It may be that the Council would argue that it is the driver’s responsibility
to ensure that the ticket is on display when the vehicle is left, but on the other
hand if it chooses to issue pay and display tickets made of such thin paper it
must expect that now and again this type of situation will arise.’ In HVO5O4OD
the adjudicator accepted the appellant’s evidence that she had displayed the
ticket on the dash. He said: I am not aware of any signs in the car park
suggesting the use of adhesives by motorists when parking their cars.”

12.On the evening of 13° May 2015 I emailed the Claimant explaining the
circumstances on the day and why I felt I was not liable for the parking
charge, a copy of my appeal is produced in claimant exhibit bundle AA2,
which included a copy of the ticket purchased and displayed on the day. The
appeal was not successful so I was then offered the opportunity to appeal to
the ‘Independent Appeals Service’. I also appealed to the lAS on. This appeal
was also rejected.

13.The lAS has been regularly described in online forums as a ‘Kangaroo Court’:
htLp:,iparkiIiQ—1.[d:lkster.blogspotcorn/201 6!01/i:- ndependen:-apDeril-s•vcce
kanparoo.html.
Initially, the British Parking Association offered the POPLA service. Statistics
show that around 50% of appeals were upheld by POPLA. A new trade
association, the Independent Parking Committee, then formed, run by Will
Hurley and John Davies of Gladstones Solicitors. They created their own
appeals arm, called the Independent Appeal Service, which was run on
entirely different lines. Parking Review reported that only 20% of appeals
were upheld. An email from Northern Parking Services accidentally sent to a
motorist rather than to ‘Darren’ highlights succinctly how the lAS gives the
appearance of a fair and just process, even though the verdict has in reality
already been decided before the process has begun: “Should I add this to the
lAS so he can futilely go through the motions?’

14.1 produce a bundle of letters! correspondence received between 31 St July
2015 and 17th September 2019 from VCS and people acting on their behalf in
evidence as exhibit reference STAI3. The letters are from 4 difference
companies and quote varying charges and that I believe demonstrates that
Vehicle Control Services are attempting to inflate any amount they allege they
are owed. They also include letters from debt collection agencies that I found threatening in manner.

15.lthen received a Claim Form dated the l7 June 2019. I produce the first
page of the form I received detailing the particulars of claim in evidence as
exhibit reference STAI3A. The Particulars of Claim set out in the Claim Form
do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing
which specifies what the terms of the alleged contract were, or how they were
breached. The Particulars are not “concise statement of the facts on which the
claimant relies” as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). There is no information
regarding what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be
considered a fair exchange of information. The claimant also failed to provide
a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and
Practice Direction 7C 1 .4(3A).

16.It states the claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice,
contractual costs and interest. This is based on an original alleged £100 debt.These costs are in any case not recoverable. The claimant is attempting to
charge interest, any significant interest would only have built up due to the
complainant taking 4 years to bring this before a court. The Claimant in the
correspondence produced as exhibit STAI3 has provided various attempts at
justifying various costs which I believe shows that they are not based on
genuine figure. At no time provided an explanation of how the sum claimed
has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has
climbed from £100 to the £185 now sought.

17. It is noted that the witness statement completed by the claimant did not start
employment with the claimant until January 2019 nearly 4 years after the
alleged parking incident and therefore cannot have first hand knowledge of
the site at the time of the alleged parking incident and therefore is reliant on
documents held by the company.

18. In relation to claimant exhibit AA1, referred to as site information. The
bundle includes a close up undated photograph photograph of a sign. There is
no indication of when this was taken and therefore its relevance cannot be
ascertained.

19.Also included are a further 13 photographs dated April 2015 which does
not relate to the date of the alleged incident. The claimant is therefore put to
strict proof on the presence of any signage claimed to be present on the day
of the alleged parking incident.

20. Contained in claimant exhibit AAI are two photographs, one of the entrance
to the car park and the other of a payment machine. As can be clearly seen in
the photographs there is no signage present at the entrance to the land or at
the machine. Given that the claim form completed by the claimant states The
terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the
entrance and in prominent locations, the claimant has provided contradictory
evidence.

21 .Paragraph 14 of the claimant’s witness statement also states that warning
signs are visit upon entry to the car park which is again contradicted by the
photographs provided by the claimant as exhibit AAI.

22. Having looked into planning permissions for the site detailed in claimant
exhibit AA1. I produce the documents I found on Darlington Council planning
portal. I produce the summary page for the site in evidence as exhibit
reference STAI4, The notice granting permission in relation to the application
dated the 251h November 2011 as exhibit reference STAI4A and the
subsequent details of the application for continuation of use of the site
received by the council on Friday 22 May 2015 as exhibit STAI4B. I found
that the claimant was granted planning permission on the 4th February 2011.

That's the start of my mum's witness statement if it's of any use to you. It hasn't copied perfectly from the PDF but should give an idea the general points I out in.

Coupon-mad

That's the start of my mum's witness statement if it's of any use to you. It hasn't copied perfectly from the PDF but should give an idea the general points I out in.

That's helpful, but any questions about your own case/your Mum attending (she must) should be kept to your own thread, as this is about Jeff Wode's own case.

SteveTa

Hi Coupon Mad, sorry I wasnt so much asking the question more answering 'Jeff's' question.

Another thing that I thought might be helpful if is that they have the Durham Constabulary logo on the sign shown in the article and photos provided to me. I can't imagine they have any authorisation to do so. Schedule 1 of the Consumer Protection from unfair trading regulations 2008 contains the following banned practice

4. Claiming that a trader (including his commercial practices) or a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when the trader, the commercial practices or the product have not or making such a claim without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation.

Coupon mad will probably be better placed to say whether it is worth bringing up. Cheers

Jeff_Wode

Thanks, that`s really helpful - I`m still "cutting hair" there`s so much of it... Yes, I think we got the same WS bundle and exhibits...

Coupon-mad

SteveTa that is a very good point, and it also breaches the CoP re impersonating authority.

Jeff_Wode

WS and evidence filed to the Court and Claimant on time with proof: now we wait...