ANOTHER Euro Parking / Gladstones bites the dust - Not parked in (non-existent) marked bay or space

Le_Kirk

Well done on the win!

nosferatu1001

Well done!  As above you won't get a transcript, just a record if the judgment, and it's entirely ok to report in what happened. Courts cases are public 

Coupon-mad

Congrats - ANOTHER Euro Parking Services Limited / Gladstones ONE BITES THE DUST!

Please treat us to a blow by blow 'court report' - i.e. which Court, which Judge, did the other side turn up, what was said, what won it, how did you feel and what did the other side's rep say - if they attended at all - and did you get your costs granted (assuming you asked, at the end)?

Johnersh

Well done. The right call. Any number of reasons why this one should never have been brought. No clear markings, signs and, if I recall, no proper contract! 

brummie108

Wandsworth County Court
Claim No F7GF0F8A of 24/11/2020
Didn't catch the judge's name as the line crackled at that moment.
PPC sent someone from Gladstone's.
I did not make a claim for any costs.

The Claimant's representative seemed woefully un-prepared. Seemed that he hadn't even read the papers. When asked to summarize his argument, he simply read the two opening sentences from the WS almost word-for-word, and then said no more. Both the judge and I seemed shocked by this.

I summarized my defence, reiterating my five key arguments:

1 - Fundamental argument is that no contract can be construed from Claimant’s unclear signage, which contains an ambiguous clause, as per the contra proferentem rule. There is no clarity regarding where a driver, who has paid the correct parking charge and thus has a valid parking permit for the allotted time displayed on the ticket, (e.g. I the defendant), is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, as there are no 'marked bays’ as per the definition held by myself, arguably the wider public, and the Claimant themselves as per the illustration on their own signage which they have provided as evidence.

2 - There is no proof of any contract between the Claimant’s parking company and the landowner. The contract appended to the Claimant’s WS is not proof of a valid contract, as it is not signed by the Claimant’s parking company at all, and not signed by two people on behalf of the Client as required by the Companies Act 2006 Section 44. The Claimant has provided to the court a supplementary Witness Statement, after receiving a copy of my defence WS, and thus had a second opportunity to provide proof of a valid contract, yet once again has not done so.

3 - There is no proof of Claimant’s continued authority to pursue me to court, now that alleged agreement between Claimant’s parking company and the landowner has ended.

4 - Requisite fee was paid in full for the time stayed, so there is no legitimate interest in enforcing this charge, which is a penalty and thus unenforceable, being distinguishable from Parking Eye vs Beavis.

5 - The added £60 of alleged ‘contractual costs’ constitutes double recovery, and is the same abuse of process that was ruled against in the Britannia vs Crosby (Southampton) ruling.

When the judge invited the Claimant's rep to ask questions of me, he instead tried to start making points from his defence, to which the judge immediately stopped him, asking what he was doing, when he said he was reiterating points from his defence, she reminded him that his opportunity to do that had passed, and this was his chance to ask questions. He then tried to make another point, and had to be reminded again that that wasn't a question. He seemed confused, and eventually gave up.

Claimant's rep started trying to make points about my address change, yet didn't know any of the dates of correspondence and at one point tried to claim that I first responded to them in October 2019 (it was May 2019, as their own evidence shows). Both me and judge knew this, as we'd both read the papers....

The judge then spent a good while grilling him on whether why he thought the tiny grey dashes in the rocks could constitute marked bays, he didn't really have any points to make other than 'they are'. I reiterated my many points as to why they were not, including using their own signage against them, which shows what a 'marked bay' actually is. 

When asked if the Claimant had attached a notice to my windscreen (which they didn't, as evidenced in my WS), he said he 'didn't know'. The judge clearly knew they hadn't as she'd read my Witness Statement. He also tried to refer to 'page 33' of his WS (which was (a) un-page numbered, and (b) only had 23 pages'. I called this out and the judge thanked me for clarifying why she was struggling to find the page too. He also tried to claim the car park was still in operation, despite it now being an apartment block... Claimant's rep also kept asking the Judge to repeat things, he just seemed completely out of it, it was almost painful to watch his performance, and how much the judge tore into him for it, at one point she said his law firm had not 'done their job properly', referring to the lack of evidence and the poor quality of the bundle. 

Summary was (listed as per my above 5 defence arguments):
1 (no marked bays) - Judge agreed:
Saying 'however, looking at the photographs of the vehicle, I cannot see that these bays are clearly defined, simply by looking at them, they are wholly or partially obscured by the gravel, are not as one would normally expect to see or indeed as per the illustration of the signage'.

Interestingly - she also said that even if the bays were clearly marked as the Claimant suggests, which she does not agree with, only one car wheel is slightly over the marking which the Claimant suggests is the demarcation of the 'marked bay', and that my vehicle is not obstructing any other vehicles, nor is not occupying two spaces, as there is plenty of room for a car to still mark in the alleged 'marked bay' adjacent, and that the photographs show a very empty car park with plenty of space for other cars to still park. And thus, according to the authorities, any contravention to the T&Cs is de minimis and thus there would be no basis for the claim anyway. (Claimant tried to then say the car park does get 'very busy' - but the judge dismissed this immediately as there is no proof). I had not come across this argument anywhere in similar cases, so definitely one worth reminding future users of this forum to use for similar alleged infringements of 'not being parked wholly within a bay'.

2&3 (no proof of contract then or now) - Judge disagreed:
'Whilst no proof of contract has been provided, I believe it is very likely that there was a valid contract in place, it is very likely that a valid contract was entered into, and that the [the Defendant] entered the contract by paying for the parking and thus knew this, and thus I am not persuaded that [the Claimant] is not entitled to claim this'
This ruling surprised me.

Judge didn't rule on points 4&5, as she said they were simply a matter of law.
I suppose that as she had already agreed with my argument 1, the Claim was dismissed irrespective of these two points. I presume this means that she agreed with them however.

Judge disagreed that the signs were 'unclear' however, which also surprised me, given the photographic evidence that I provided. But as those signs actually proved their own illustration didn't match the alleged 'bays', I guess that wasn't an issue.

Claim dismissed.

KeithP

brummie108 said:

2&3 (no proof of contract then or now) - Judge disagreed:
'Whilst no proof of contract has been provided, I believe it is very likely that there was a valid contract in place, it is very likely that a valid contract was entered into, and that the [the Defendant] entered the contract by paying for the parking and thus knew this, and thus I am not persuaded that [the Claimant] is not entitled to claim this'
This ruling surprised me.

Yes, it would surprise me too.

The reason being that your points 2 and 3 are discussing the contract between the landowner and the parking company, yet the Judge's comment seems to be referring to the contract between the motorist and the parking company.

Anyway, a win is a win. Well done.

Umkomaas

Great report. Thank you for feeding that back, it's a great source of motivation for regulars to keep the fight going. 

I bet that legal rep won't want any more private parking cases dropping into his in tray in the near future - seems to have been well and truly mangled by you and the Judge. Again, well done on your win. 👏

brummie108

This win would not have been possible without all the fantastic help from everyone on this forum who has contributed to this over thread over the last 18 months, and of course those who have contributed to the stickies. Thank you all for all the hard work you do, it's a public service and should be commended.

Le_Kirk

Well done on the win, once again a judge who (albeit reached the right outcome) seemed confused by difference between the contracts as pointed out by @KeithP above and the "what we used to call" abuse of process for the added debt control or admin costs despite it being against the law, POFA and Consumer Rights Act.

Redx

May I add my congratulations on your win against E P S and Gladrags !!

Another one bites the dust !!