5 days left for premier park to respond to my SAR request

Lupo26

Would anyone be able to comment on if the above is okay please.

Le_Kirk

You seem to have the usual defence points now regarded as "the norm" and you have added the words produced by Coupon-mad and beamerguy. Provided you have sanity checked that the copy and paste does not include points not applicable to you, then it is fine. You are missing a paragraph number between 16.1 and 17; also: -

removed their coats, are sat in appropriate child seats

should be: -

removed their coats, are [strike]sat[/strike] sitting (or seated) in appropriate child seats

Coupon-mad

This is hidden (buried) in completely the wrong place. It is the only part that tells the Judge what your defence actually is, and need to be added to the 'facts' second point of your defence!

The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant allowed a sufficient amount of time that could be deemed 'a reasonable grace period' to exit the ice rinks car park. 23 minutes should not be deemed as a reasonable exit time when accompanying a large group of young children from an ice skating party (3 car loads). Trying to navigate from the exit door of the ice rink across a busy car park and ensure they all removed their coats, are sat in appropriate child seats, seat belts secure etc. before exiting the car park. The BPA Code sets another (mandatory) concluding 'grace period' to leave any car park after allowed parking contracts end, and that is stated to be 'at least' ten minutes and in one article where the BPA resolved to increase it, 'at least 11 minutes'. Thus, it can be said that it (quite reasonably)it took the driver 11 or 12 minutes after passing the car park threshold camera, to ensure the safety of all children, weave through the site, and then reach the exit in convoy with 2 other car loads of children once the 3 hours parking contract ended.

And I disagree, I think a Judge might think as I do, that 23 mins is flipping ages:

23 minutes should not be deemed as a reasonable exit time

How on earth will you explain that?

Are you not better to split the times:

I took some 10-12 minutes to wait to get a parking space because...(the site is small given the use of families/it was busy/the spaces were all taken/the site is full of pot holes and small bays, unsuitable for modern cars...whatever!).

Then separately, it took 10 or 11 minutes only to organise the children, strap them into their car seats, before wending the way though round other children leaving on foot with families with buggies, etc. and get to the exit, where the car had to wait due to (traffic lights being red round the corner/there being a queue of cars at the exit, etc...).

THEN you can cite the minimum 11 mins grace period with confidence!

Get the picture?

23 mins is huge!

Umkomaas

23 minutes should not be deemed as a reasonable exit time

And surely that should be reading as ' ........ not be deemed as an unreasonable .....'.

But that will have to be ditched in favour of the way CM has laid out.

Lupo26

Ah okay well maybe I should leave out the 23 minutes altogether then as it was 23 minutes AT THE END of the 3 hour period I'd paid for so I can't really claim I was looking for a space initially can I?!

As long as the other defence is okay without that then I'll leave that part out then.

Many many thanks for the helpful comments :-)

Coupon-mad

23 mins is so long I really would not mention it, now you tell us that!

So, what's your real angle, that you had no idea about the signage terms because they were diabolical even beside the PDT machine where you paid?

Or that the venue where the children were at, offered longer to patrons attending a party or group session (did they, have you checked, did you simply miss an instruction to exempt your car numberplate from the time restriction or add extra time?).

You need to get your ducks in a row, find out, speak to the venue first (I would) and then cover it in the defence near the start with some more facts about why the driver believed they were authorised to park that long and (maybe?) argue that there was an agreed contract with the venue themselves for groups...?

Or was the venue you walked to, unconnected to the car park?

Lupo26

The car park is on the same land as the venue but previously when I emailed the ice rink they said " we are not involved in the parking management of the site and unfortunately are not able to become involved in any disputes related to the car park. Any correspondence should be directed to Premier Park Ltd."

I have emailed again today and asked them to confirm who owns the land and what contract they hold with premier park.

Therefore it's looking like I'll have to go with poor signage and abuse of process as BW legal added on the excess charge?

Fruitcake

Always include, Not the landowner and No standing to issue charges/court claims.

Asking the council who pays the non-domestic business rates will give you an idea who owns the land, and/or for a definitive answer, pay a few quid to get a copy of the Land Registry entry.
Ask the planning department if planning approval exists for ANPR scameras and advertising consent exists for signs. Not having the latter is a criminal offence.

You should get to see the contract at the exhibits stage. Check it carefully to see if it has a fixed term, or rolls over every year, if it is with the landowner or an agent, if it has two signatures from each party.
If it's with an agent then there should be a corresponding contract between the agent and landowner so the contract is either with or flows from the landowner to the PPC.

nosferatu1001

I bet the ice rink ARE the principal but they dont want any hassle

Lupo26

I've had no response from the ice rink so guess I'll file my defence above but removing the overstay bit and including Not the landowner and No standing to issue charges/court claims.

I need to file it in day or so really as baby due any day and I can't risk leaving it any longer.