Link Parking/BW Legal beaten in court.

Coupon-mad

Obviously to BW Legal.  The claim form tells you that.

Le_Kirk

If you have not submitted WS yet, you take it to the court in a nice ring binder with your evidence cross referred and with the case number on the front of the binder.  You send (serve on) it to the claimant as per the instructions on the claim form.  

keypulse

Coupon-mad said:

Obviously to BW Legal.  The claim form tells you that.

Thanks, I wanted to be 100% sure.

Le_Kirk said:

If you have not submitted WS yet, you take it to the court in a nice ring binder with your evidence cross referred and with the case number on the front of the binder.  You send (serve on) it to the claimant as per the instructions on the claim form.  

I submitted it this evening at my local court (it didn't need to be there till Monday but prior commitments meant I had to do it today). I was planning to buy a ring binder on the way but just before I left, my postman arrived with another pack from BW Legal containing everything they already sent me last week, but in a nice lever-arch binder with pretty, tabbed, colour-coded subject dividers. I relabeled the the binder with a printed sticker and repurposed the dividers for my bundle, using printed Dymo tape for the tabs. It now looks very professional and saved me a few quid, not to mention at least part of a tree. Thank you BW!

beamerguy

keypulse said:

Coupon-mad said:

Obviously to BW Legal.  The claim form tells you that.

Thanks, I wanted to be 100% sure.

Le_Kirk said:

If you have not submitted WS yet, you take it to the court in a nice ring binder with your evidence cross referred and with the case number on the front of the binder.  You send (serve on) it to the claimant as per the instructions on the claim form.  

I submitted it this evening at my local court (it didn't need to be there till Monday but prior commitments meant I had to do it today). I was planning to buy a ring binder on the way but just before I left, my postman arrived with another pack from BW Legal containing everything they already sent me last week, but in a nice lever-arch binder with pretty, tabbed, colour-coded subject dividers. I relabeled the the binder with a printed sticker and repurposed the dividers for my bundle, using printed Dymo tape for the tabs. It now looks very professional and saved me a few quid, not to mention at least part of a tree. Thank you BW!

HAHA ....... I suspect BWL has been taking note from this forum about presentation

keypulse

Big day tomorrow then, I'd half expected BW to have discontinued before now.

I have my own documents in one binder and have BW's bundle in another along with all the correspondence they and Link have bombarded me with over the past year or so. I'll get to court in good time.

There are quite a few things I feel I should pick through in their witness statement, not least the fact it's been signed by someone who has never been to the site and who will not be attending court either. Should I make a skeleton to address these, or can I just go through my notes?

keypulse

BW's WS.

Page1

Filed On behalf of the Claimant Name of Witness: Shapla Begum Witness Statement 1 Exhibits: 581
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [REMOVED] CLAIM NUMBER: [REMOVED] LINK PARKING LIMITED -V-[REMOVED]
CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT
WITNESS STATEMENT OF [REMOVED]
I, [REMOVED] a Paralegal in the employment of BW Legal Services Limited, Enterprise House, Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH SAY AS FOLLOWS:
INTRODUCTION
1. BW Legal Services Limited are the Solicitors for the Claimant. I have conduct of this action subject to the supervision of my principal. The matters to which I refer are based on information provided to me by the Claimant, save where expressly stated to the contrary, and are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on its behalf.
2. I make this witness statement for the hearing listed for the 3 March 2020 at 14:00 and in support of the Claim.
3. Within this statement, I make reference to various documents now produced to me in a paginated bundle at 'SB1' and have been provided to me by the Claimant to support the claim. Any reference to a page number within this witness statement is a reference to the pages of exhibit '561' unless expressed to the contrary.


Page 2
BACKGROUND
4. At the time of the contravention, the Claimant managed and enforced private parking at the land located at Paintworks, Phase 3, Bristol, BS4 3EH (Car Park). The Claimant's role is to operate and manage a traffic space management scheme, and to recover contractual charges from users who contravene the terms of the Claimant's contractual licence to use the Car Park (Terms and Conditions).
5. At the time of the contravention, the Claimant was a member of the International Parking Community (the Trade Association), who are an Accredited Trade Association within the parking industry and to the private parking companies that manage parking on private land. As such it had to adhere to the Trade Association's code of practice (Code of Practice) for parking on private land.
6. Now shown at pages 1-2 is an agreement between Paintworks (Bristol) Management Company Ltd and the Claimant (Agreement) dated 13 August 2018, which sets out the Claimant's standing and rights to manage and enforce the Terms and Conditions of the Car Park at page 2 clause 4.3 and 4.4.
7. The management of private car parks is commercially necessary for private landowners, as the landholder needs to manage their land in order to ensure that the surrounding businesses/properties can run successfully. They have a right to manage their private land as they see fit, and allow motorists to use this land for parking strictly subject to the Terms and Conditions of the contractual licence.
8. The contractual charge clauses for breach of the Terms and Conditions is necessary to prevent the abuse of private land.
SITE EVIDENCE
9. The Terms and Conditions are displayed on large highly prominent signs erected by the Claimant at various points throughout the Car Park, and are in line with the Code of Practice.

Page 3
10. The following documents are exhibited:
DOCUMENT
PAGE NUMBER
Site Plan
3
Artwork of the Signage - I am instructed these were in situ on
the day of the contravention
4
11. The Terms and Conditions of the contractual licence by which users may use the private Car Park include the following:
11.1 THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY TO PARKING IN THIS AREA 11.2 NO PARKING IN THIS AREA FOR ANY VEHICLE 11.3 BY PARKING OR REMAINING AT THIS SITE OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE, YOU, THE DRIVER ARE AGREEING TO THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTUAL TERMS
FORMATION OF CONTRACT
12. The 20 signs situated across the Car Park forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the performance of entering the private land and remaining there (as opposed to leaving within the implied grace period) is the act of acceptance. The signs are prominent and the Terms and Conditions are clearly displayed, and the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them.
13. The Claimant also places reliance on the judgment in the appeal case — Vehicle Control Services Limited v Alfred Charles Crutchley [2017], in which the court confirmed the users positive obligation to familiarise themselves with the Terms and Conditions. In this case, His Honour Judge Wood QC decided that:
"It is incumbent, in my judgment, on a person entering private property, when it is clear that a contractual licence is being provided, to understand the terms of such a licence. It would not be onerous or oppressive, although probably inconvenient, for a visitor to establish those terms and conditions before entering the business park in

Page 4

the first place, even if this required remaining outside, and entering on foot, when the contents of the notices in combination, would become apparent"
14. Therefore, the Defendant, by entering and remaining in the Car Park, wilfully agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions, including payment of the contractual charge upon any breach.
THE DEFENDANTS BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
15. On 22 January 2019 (Contravention Date), it is submitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of a vehicle, registered [REMOVED] (Vehicle) which was observed breaching the Terms and Conditions.

16. On this date, the Defendant was parking in a no parking area which led to the Claimant issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The PA subsequently took photographs of the Defendant's vehicle and also the sign (which are date stamped with the Contravention Date) in close proximity to the vehicle as evidence of the Defendant's breach. The photographs taken by the PA are now shown at pages 5-10.

17. There were 20 signs on site informing the Defendant they are entering a 'Private land' and 'NO PARKING FOR ANY VEHICLE IN THIS AREA'. The site map has 5 markings where all the signs are situated in prominent positions and repeated to the extent they were brought to the reasonable attention of the Defendant and any other motorist using the site. The Claimant submits the Defendant was fully aware of the Terms and Conditions and deliberately ignored the signs for his own convenience.

18. Following the Defendant's breach above, the Claimant affixed a PCN to the vehicle. A copy of the PCN is now shown at page 11.
APPEALS PROCESS

19. The PCN offered the Defendant the ability to appeal, as detailed within the PCN. The Defendant appealed the matter on 27 March 2019 (pages 12-13) disputing the PCN. The Claimant rejected his appeal on 31 March 2019 (page 14).

Page 5

SUBSEQUENT NOTICES
20. As the PCN remained unpaid and in light of the Defendant failing to successfully contest the PCN, the Claimant issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper of the Vehicle. A copy of the NTK is shown at pages 15-16.
21. As at the Contravention Date, the Claimant would not have known the name of the driver of the Vehicle, the current address for service of any notices to the driver or the registered keeper of the Vehicle.
22. The Claimant, as an approved operator and under its contract with the DVLA, obtained the Vehicle's registered keeper details from the DVLA. Such information has been provided in accordance with the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.The DVLA notified the Claimant that the Vehicle was registered to the Defendant (i.e. the keeper as of the date of the contravention) at the address: [REMOVED]. The DVLA data is based on KADOE — which is the keeper at the date of the event — i.e. in this instance, the keeper as at 22 January 2019.
PRE ACTION CORRESPONDENCE
23. Due to the balance continuing to go unpaid, the Claimant instructed BW Legal Services Limited to commence recovery action. THE CHARGE 24. The PCN charge is the contractual charge for contravening the Terris and Conditions.
25. The Supreme Court considered that PCN Charges (like this charge) in ParkingEye v Beavis 120151 EWCA Civ 402 serve a legitimate commercial interest and did not consider the term imposing a similar charge as unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute. In the leading judgment of Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption, it was said that "Motorists could hardly avoid reading the notice and were under no pressure to accept its terms: The Code of Practice also gives guidance that £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.

Redx

keypulse said:

Big day tomorrow then, I'd half expected BW to have discontinued before now.

I have my own documents in one binder and have BW's bundle in another along with all the correspondence they and Link have bombarded me with over the past year or so. I'll get to court in good time.

There are quite a few things I feel I should pick through in their witness statement, not least the fact it's been signed by someone who has never been to the site and who will not be attending court either. Should I make a skeleton to address these, or can I just go through my notes?

Your notes are your skeleton , your skeleton is your notes

They are both your aide memoire

keypulse

Page 6

THE DEFENCE - THE CLAIMANT'S RESPONSE
26. The Defendant has filed a template based defence which the Claimant has seen many times before, without detailing a valid reason for why the Contravention occurred. The Defence is premised on large quantities of entirely irrelevant statements, the contents of which are believed to have been obtained from various online platforms that operate solely for the purpose of encouraging motorists to dispute their parking charges. Yet it is supported by Statement of Truth. This is a simple claim for a contractual charge payable for breach of a contractual licence. Nevertheless, the Claimant shall respond to each point in the defence as follows.
THE DEFENDANT DENIES THAT THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN THE SUM CLAIMED. 
27. Paragraphs 24-25 is repeated.
THE DEFENDANT WAS PARKED SAFELY AND WITHOUT CAUSING OBSTRUCTION.
28. The Defendant's vehicle was parked in a 'No parking area'. The reason the area had restrictions was to avoid obstructions taking place. The Claimant has produced clear evidence, shown on pages 5-9 that the Defendant's vehicle was parked in a restricted area. The Defendant's comment on the perceived situation is subjective and immaterial. The landowner is entitled to manage the land resource as it sees fit and the Defendant's actions could have caused access problems for other users; refuse collection and/or emergency services.
THERE WAS NO SIGNAGE OR MARKING ON THE GROUND.
29. The site plan at page 3 confirm that the Car Park has 20 signs in total which are situated in prominent positions and repeated to the extent they were brought to the reasonable attention of the Defendant and any other motorist using the site. The Defendant was parked in close proximity to a sign. The PA took a photograph of the sign which was located close to the Defendant's vehicle (page 10).

Page 7

WHAT LEGAL BASIS IS THE CLAIM BROUGHT
30. For the purpose of clarity, the Claimant is well within their statutory rights to recover any unpaid charge from the Defendant, as the registered keeper of the vehicle under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
31. The signs in situ make it clear that 'by parking or remaining at this site otherwise in accordance with the above, you the driver, are agreeing to the following contractual terms and conditions'. The Defendant remained in the private site and parked his Vehicle in a 'no parking area'. The Claimant submits there was clear consideration given, the signage on site is an offer and the Defendant entering his vehicle on site and remaining there is an acceptance of the offer. It is the Claimant's position that the actions were constituted to an acceptance of the Terms and Conditions. If the Defendant did not agree to the Terms and Conditions, he should have parked elsewhere.
THE CLAIMANTS SIGNAGE IN SITU.
32. At the time of the contravention, the Claimant was a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) and adhered to the IPC's Code of Practice for parking on private land. This Code gives recommendations for signage on private land. The Claimant's signs are fully compliant with the Code of Practice and so may be deemed reasonable.
33. There was signs in close proximity and the Defendant had a real opportunity to become acquainted with the conditions, even if that meant getting out of his vehicle to read the signs. The Defendant was fully aware of the Terms and Conditions of the site, he deliberately ignored the signs for his own convenience.
THE CLAIMANT IS PUT TO STRICT PROOF THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE LAND OR HAVE NECESSARY AUTHORISATION FROM THE LANDOWNER TO ISSUE PCN'S. 
34. The contract on pages 1-2 confirms the Claimant's standing and rights to manage and enforce the regulations in situ. Page 2 clause 1.2 confirms the Claimant can issue PCN's and clause 4.3 confirms the Claimant has the right and permission to recover any unpaid PCN's.

Page 8

THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012, SCHEDULE 4 SECTION 4.5 MAXIMUM SUM THAT MAY BE RECOVERED„, IS £100.00
35. The Claimant submit that as the PCN was issued properly, and remains unpaid, due to the subsequent legal proceedings the claimed sum is entirely reasonable. The Claimant provides a breakdown of this sum below:
35.1 £100.00, being the PCN itself (i.e. the principle balance);
35.2 £60.00, being debt recovery costs (detailed at paragraphs 39- 41); 35.3 £25.00, being the Governments Court Claim Form issue fee (as per the Claim Form); 35.4 £50.00, being the legal representative's costs (as per the Claim Form); 35.5 £25.00, being the Government's Court hearing fee; and 35.6 £5.20 being interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984. 36. The Court will note that each element of the claimed sum has a legal basis, and therefore the Claimant are entitled to claim for the claimed sum.
37. The Supreme Court considered that PCN Charges (like this charge) in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402 serve a legitimate commercial interest and did not consider the term imposing a similar charge as unfair. The sum payable following the issue of the PCN occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a material breach of the Terms and Conditions) and is therefore a core term of the Claimant's contract. The relevant car parking Codes of Practice, also give guidance that £85.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.
38. The Claimant offered the Defendant a contract, providing a limited contractual license to use the Car Park on the basis of the specified terms and conditions. The Claimant has provided their end of the bargain by permitting the Defendants Vehicle

Page 9

to park on private land. Following the Defendants breach, the Claimant is simply enforcing the Terms and Conditions in relation to that breach.
COSTS OF RECOVERY
39. The Claimant is seeking recovery of its debt recovery costs in the sum of £60.00.. The Claimant refers to the bottom of the sign, page number 4 (displaying the Terms and Conditions), which states 'enforcement actions may incur additional costs that will be added to the parking charge'.
40. The above term forms part of the Terms and Conditions, which were agreed by the Defendant by parking in the Car Park. Had the Defendant paid the PCN then the Claimants need to instruct solicitors (incurring expense) to recover the PCN charge would have been avoided.
41. Under the International Parking Community's Code of Practice, Part E, Schedule 5 —Parking Charges states, "Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60.00 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated'.
WHY THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE
42. It is therefore submitted that
42.1 The Defendant does not deny being the registered keeper and/or the driver of the Vehicle on the Contravention Date; 42.2 The Defendant does not deny parking his Vehicle at the Car Park on the Contravention Date and therefore entered into a contract with the Claimant upon the Terms and Conditions; 42.3 The Defendant did breach the Terms and Conditions by parking in a restricted area; and 42.4 The Defendant, having been put on notice of the breach, has failed to settle their liability under the PCN.
CONCLUSION
43. It is submitted that the defence is entirely without its merit.

Page 10

44. The Claimant therefore requests that the Court grants the Claimant Judgment for the principal balance plus the Claimants costs to date.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe the fact this statement are true SIGNED [REMOVED] Dated: 31 January 2020

keypulse

This is from BW's bundle, it's supposed to be the agreement between Link Parking and the land owners. Whatever "SCHEDULE 2" was, was redacted before I received it.

keypulse

This is a site plan within BW's bundle. They claim each 'X' represents a sign. My car traveled along the top and down the right hand side of this drawing (as it is oriented).

Needless to say, it's nonsense. Here is a site plan I made. The purple letters A to F represent the actual signs on the day . The orange letters G, H and I are some of the signs put up *after* the 22/01/2019. The purple "X" is a deep water sign.

The red arrows are numbered photographs (arrow is direction photo was taken) taken by me on 22/01/2019.


I'm not going to upload all the photos unless anyone would like me to, but here is my explanation of the route for the court...

Page 01 Site plan of The Paintworks, Bristol, where The Claimant alleges the contravention took place

Pages 02-18 Photographs taken by defendant at the site of alleged contravention on the material date of 22 January 2019

Pages 18-21 Photographs taken by the defendant at the site of the alleged contravention on subsequent visits to the site for gathering supplementary evidence

Page 22 Lower photograph taken from Google Maps, shows the sign motorists would see as they enter The Riverside Retail Park (Parking Eye vs Beavis)

Page 23 Upper photograph shows some of the very clear and prolific signage placed around the Riverside Retail Park

Page 23 Lower photograph shows actual photograph of sign from Parking Eye vs

Beavis, it has changed since the judgement (due to closure of the fitness centre see Page 22) but the size is the same.

Page 24 Photograph of sign, Parking Control Management vs Bull

Page 02 to Page 22 show photographs taken after the alleged contravention. They show the route taken by myself in my vehicle when I entered the site (The Paintworks, Bristol) where parking is allegedly managed by The Claimant.

Each photograph is stamped with the time and date at the top-right and a reference number in at the top-left. Numbers from 01 to 33 were taken on the day of the alleged contravention and are represented by those numbers in red on the Site Plan on Page 01. The red arrows on the site plan represent the direction I was facing when taking each photograph.

The Claimant's signage, where it could be found on 22 January 2019 is marked on the photographs using letters A to F in purple, and the location of these signs are shown by these letters on the site plan. One sign is marked as above with a letter X; this sign is the same size and uses the same colour scheme as The Claimant's signs, but warns of “Deep Water”.

Additional signage added by the claimant since the 22 January 2019 was photographed on 14 October 2019 on a subsequent visit to the site. Examples of these are marked on the photographs using letters G, H and I in orange, and the location of these signs are shown by these letters on the site plan.

• 01 - A4 Bath Road, Bristol. The site entrance is shown as I would have turned right onto it after driving from east of the site.

• 02 - Turning into the site entrance. There is no signage indicating parking restrictions, although The Claimant's trade association (The IPC) recommends there should be.

• 03 - Walking north further into the site. Again, no signage about parking restrictions.

• 04 - After walking approximately 70 metres I turn right to walk east and continue to follow the route. No signage warning about parking restrictions.

• 05 -Vehicles are parked on the right, no signage warning about parking restrictions.

• 06 - As above, vehicles parked on right, no signage anywhere. After walking approximately 50 metres I turn left to walk north, again following the route driven by myself in my vehicle earlier that day.

• 07 - Here I see the first of The Claimant's signs, marked “A”. It is mounted on a lamp post 2 metres from ground level. It is facing north-west, in the complete opposite direction one would expect it to be to enable a driver turning into that road to actually see it. I did not see it as I drove into the site earlier that day.

• 08 - Sign “A” is shown again. Many vehicles can be seen parked on the left.

• 09 - Sign “A” taken from a south-facing direction. One might be able to see this sign as they were leaving the site, but the actual words would be too tiny to read of even notice.

• 10 - Sign “A” up-close. The wording on the sign can be read as I held my camera above my head and close to the sign. There is no specific mention of a £60 additional cost here, just an vague “may incur additional costs”, which is important as this distinguishes this sign from the new signs The Claimant has installed on the site at a later date.

• 11 - Sign “A”, as it would appear to the driver of a vehicle leaving the site, driving south.

• 12 - I continue walking north along the route. More cars are parked on the left in what Sign “A” might be suggesting is a No Parking area. None appeared to have Parking Charge Notices from The Claimant.

• 13 - Continuing north, still no signs can be seen.

• 14 - Here we see the second of The Claimant's signs, marked “B” It is mounted 2 metres from the ground on a lamp post and is facing east, perpendicular to the direction I was driving my vehicle earlier that day. Because of the direction it is facing, Sign “B” would be all but invisible to a driver of a vehicle travelling in the direction I was driving to see it. I did not see it as I drove into the site.

• 15 - The Claimant's sign “B”, taken from a direction south-east of the sign.

• 16 - Having walked north for approximately 130 metres along the route driven, a wall is reached (this borders The River Avon). Here I see the third of The Claimant's signs, marked “C”. It is identical to signs “A” and “B” but this time is mounted low down on a wall. I did not notice it as I drove into the site that day and would have been unable to read the tiny font had I seen the sign. As it was, the large, orange “cherry picker” vehicle seen in photographs 18, 12, 13 and 14 was operating in that area during the time I was on site that day. I had to be careful to avoid it as I drove into the site and it was in a position to block visibility to sign “C”. I did not see sign “C” as I drove into the site that day.

• 17 - I turn right to walk east along the side of the river in the route I had driven earlier that day. Now I also notice another sign, marked “X”. It is the same size and uses the same colour scheme (black, yellow and white) as The Claimant's. It is mounted on the wall approximately 4 metres from sign “C”, at around the same height. On closer inspection I see this sign isn't one of The Claimant's but warns of a different peril – Deep Water. This sign “X” can be shown in more detail with sign “C” in photograph 16a on Page 22.

• 18 - I begin to walk east along the final approach towards the location I had briefly parked earlier that day. A van (with no PCN from The Client) is parked on the left. Large wooden planters, wheelie bins and refuse skips are scattered along the route, next to the wall bordering the river. Not a single one of The Claimant's signs is affixed to the buildings on the right.

• 19 - I continue to walk east, taking more photographs as I do so. No further signage from the claimant is seen.

• 20 - Further east again, still no signage to be seen.

• 21 - I keep walking east, getting closer to where my vehicle remained after I noticed the PCN from The Claimant was affixed to it. Still no signage to be seen.

• 22 - Here is the fourth of The Claimant's signs (marked “D”) I was able to find as I walked the route. It is affixed to the river bank wall and is almost completely obscured by bins. I did not see it as I drove east earlier that day. It would have been impossible for any reasonable person driving a vehicle to do so, unless perhaps they happened to be driving a bin lorry and were on duty that day.

• 23 - I continue east, no more signs can be seen.

• 24 - I see the fifth and sixth of The Claimant's signs (marked “E” and “F”) in a similar position to sign “D” and similarly obscured by bins. These six signs “A” to “F” are all identical to the sign “A” shown up-close in photograph 10.

• 25 - After walking approximately 200 metres east along the river bank I turn right to arrive back to my vehicle and take nine photographs of the immediate area. There are no signs of The Claimant's (or of anyone else) warning of any parking restrictions and no marking under or near my vehicle warning of this.

• 26 – 33; description of 25 is repeated. Please see site plan on Page 01 for detail. Photograph 33 is the final photograph taken on the date of the alleged contravention (22 January 2019) and exhibited in this bundle.