County Court Business Centre - UKPPO

Fruitcake

What did the hotel manager/UK CEO say when you complained?

There are 17 defences linked in post 2 of the NEWBIES so there must be something in there you can use, even if it doesn't specifically cover pickups by a taxi.

Not the landowner
No standing (no valid contract) to issue charges or commence court
Inadequate signage.
If they have added on a fake amount of around £60 then Abuse of process comes in to play. Read beamerguy's thread with that title if this has occurred.

Koq1985

Hotel said that this is not their land but Wembley Park, I wrote email to Wembley Park and they said that all PCN enquires needs to be sent to UK PPO directly so they don't care at all. I wrote them twice, I even called, no answer ...

Le_Kirk

How are you searching? On the parking tickets forum first page, click on Search this Forum, then click on Advanced Search, use Taxi drop as your keyword(s), change radio button from threads to post and press search now. I did this and found THIS.

I also found 108 others in 0.16 seconds.

Koq1985

Ok I checked all what you linked and come up with this:

Deffence:


CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK Pearking Patrol Office (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXX, the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver at the time of the incident. He is a Private Hire Driver who is visiting the site on regular basis, this time he was waiting for the customer at Hilton Wembley Business Park, he went inside the hotel to ask for the customer prior to no telephone contact, and after some time Driver left as customer has been late, due to long queue on checkout.

3. I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

- There may be signs at the boundaries but not all areas are well-signed as a car drives through the middle of the site, so unlike the findings regarding the Beavis case car park, the driver here was certainly not 'bound to' have seen the terms nor could be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract like Mr Beavis did. He was completely unaware that the road was private because of the insufficient signage. Security or Concierge haven't informed him about any cameras, private land or specific time he need to leave the site.

- I refer to the IPC Code of Practice, Part E, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary – I haven’t noticed any, the Claimant haven't provided any proof of the signage at the site. He failed to provide proof that at the time of contravention the signs has been there as well.

- It is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

- Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signs in this site are not prominent, clear or legible from all site area.

- The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

- I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows: “For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”

- The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator: The vehicle entered the car park at 11:04: and left at 11:38

British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 states:
13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

UK Parking Patrol Office has failed to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this should be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

Therefore if the Driver stay 34 minutes on the site, where as Claimant stated vehicle can be parked only for 20 minutes gives us as Defendant 40 minutes (10 to read and accept, 20 min to stay and 10 min to leave the site) all together.

6. In all cases, UK PPO haven’t included a close up actual photograph of the sign age they contend was at the location on the material date.
UK PPO state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park but their own images of the vehicle included on the PCN disprove this because no signage is visible on any of the images.

7. No evidence of Landowner Authority
The operator (UK PPO) is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an un-redacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.

A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot
be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).


Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

8. Also UK PPO have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed
when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

UK PPO has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my Defence based on this.

Kind Regards

xxx xxx

What you think??

Koq1985

Hi guys. Thank you for your support, and guidance how to finally find similar cases. Is that a deffence which helps me to win?
Everyone asked to post defence and wait for comments.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Interesting that Mr Cheetham of UKPPO has filed this claim without a solicitor and has not added any fake 'charges' so for once we can't add an objection to that!

You had the BPA CoP mentioned and UKPPO are not in the BPA! Look at the IPC CoP instead as you will need that for evidence stage, later on.

Try this instead as your defence at this point:

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK Parking Patrol Office (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

2. The facts are that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of this vehicle at the time of the incident and was not trespassing and did not in fact stop and/or wait in any reserved parking space for more than 20 minutes, so there was no contravention.

3. The Defendant is a Private Hire Driver who is visiting the site on regular basis and has never previously had an issue with a parking charge from this site, and it is now believed that the terms had been changed, yet with inadequate notice given, and no provisions made to reasonably recognise and allow sufficient time to accommodate taxi collections at this large retail park, which can take up to half an hour sometimes to locate a customer who is not ready.

4. This time, the Defendant was waiting for the customer at Hilton Wembley Business Park, having been called to the location, but the customer could not be located. The Defendant made reasonable endeavours to find the customer and went inside the hotel to ask for the customer but to no avail. After some time the Defendant left, as this customer was clearly running late and was not present for pick up, and time is money to a taxi driver.

5. It seems the time taken to drive in and out, namely an alleged 6 or 7 minutes to drive in and get to a space, then a similar few minutes to get out - perfectly reasonable to drive round this site past pedestrians on a busy day in the Summer - has been dressed up as an overstay and this alleged 13 minutes of time, is money for this Claimant. There is no evidence as to where the cameras are positioned but this site includes restaurants, shops, a mall of designer outlets, hotels and the SSE Arena so it is a huge sprawling site to drive round to find a customer within minutes.

6. The Defendant avers that what seems from the Notice to Keeper to be an alleged '20 minutes' free parking time was a fairly new term, unexpectedly introduced without prominent consumer notices or transparent terms creating fair and 'adequate notice' of the parking charge in large lettering. As such, the signage failed the IPC Code of Practice ('IPC CoP') and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2, and the Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for any sum whatsoever.

7. Whilst this was a retail/business park site, there the slight similarities end, with the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') being distinguished in all relevant facts. The Beavis case is fully distinguished in the fundamental matters of signage inadequacy, change of terms, lack of adequate accommodation or exemption for taxis, the sheer size of the location, the fact it is made up of roads with no lines or signs, such that it has the appearance pf a public highway, and the inadequate 20 minute grace period. Unlike in the Beavis case, there can be no commercial justification that can possibly disengage the 'penalty rule' in this case. There is no arguable 'legitimate interest' for the site owners, outlets and hotels in deterring taxi drivers from visiting Wembley Business Park or setting them up to fail with a short time limit and not prominently warning about this onerous new set of rules, in large lettering on extra signage, as required by the IPC CoP.

8. There may be signs at the boundaries but not all areas are well-signed as a car drives through the middle of the site, so unlike the findings regarding the Beavis case car park, the driver here was certainly not 'bound to' have seen the terms nor could be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract. The Defendant was completely unaware that the road was being operated in this way because of the insufficient signage and in fact, the roads have the appearance of public highway and are paved very like many London shopping streets. Security or Concierge haven't informed taxi drivers about any cameras or a specific time limit or change of regulations causing taxi drivers to have to rush to leave the site, even without their fare.

9. It is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them to a legally binding contract. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Further, where restrictions change at a location, regular drivers such as taxi drivers would have no reason or obligation to seek out signs on every visit, because there was no such restriction before and any terms must be 'prominent and transparent'.

10. The Defendant notes that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Even in cases where the driver is admitted, the leading appeals adjudicators POPLA (a service not offered by this Claimant, since they left the British Parking Association's Approved Operator scheme) and the Judges at the Supreme Court, pay regard to that law. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. Schedule 4 defines 'adequate notice' as follows: ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (b)...the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''. These signs were certainly inadequate.

11. A reasonable and workable grace period was not allowed and the timings are not evidenced to be correct. Nor is there any evidence of the taxi actually being parked for longer than permitted. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its assertions, camera positions and clock timings and must explain why a wholly inadequate time limit for the size of the location has been allowed to be imposed upon taxi drivers who pass and re-pass regularly - load and unload, and allow passengers to board and alight - but do not actually use the site for 'parking'. Thus there can be no cause of action regarding any 'contractual parking charge'.

12. The vehicle is shown by this Claimant, relying on unsynchronised, separate IN/OUT cameras, entering past an unidentified part of the Business Park around 11:05 and then leaving at an alleged time of 11:38 past what looks like public highway road markings.

13. The Claimant sent a Letter before Claim but it was taken to be a scam, given the lack of signage terms that are legible from a car driving through this site, and given the lack of any enclosures to show the recipient what the terms actually are. This is a serial litigant who knew or should have known, that the 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims requires a copy of the contract to be provided in pre-action communications (i.e. photos of signs on the material date). No such photos were provided so it was impossible to make an informed decision about what appeared to be a scam letter, akin to those demands exposed on BBC's Watchdog regularly about this industry, where the IPC have been heavily criticised for the rogue practices of their member firms.

14. The Claimants state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park but this is not a 'car park' site as such, it is a series of roadways and outlets and their own images of the vehicle included on the PCN disprove this because no signage is visible on any of the images that purport to have been taken at an unidentified entrance/exit.

15. The Defendant drives for a living and is not an unobservant person in terms of following clearly-signed restrictions in London traffic on a daily basis. The Defendant avers that the average person would not have seen or known about the ANPR and changes to the signs and therefore there was no agreed contract to pay £100 for trying to collect a fare for the minutes the visit took.

16. It was always within the gift of the Claimant to exempt local cabbies, as no doubt they do for their own vehicles, delivery drivers and some site staff, and this could be achieved with a simple 'white list' exempting certain vehicles. This could be arranged by the Hotel reception noting down visiting taxi numberplates, or those of any disabled visitors, for example, and it would avoid unfair parking charges entirely. Instead the Claimant runs an unworkable regime for this site, and busy cabbies who are in and out every day are penalised. This was not the intention of the Supreme Court, who were at pains to Tweet after the Beavis case, that the decision was unique to the facts about that (non-London, medium sized) car park and those specific signs where the charge was in bold with a border, in the largest font on a sign that could not be briefer or clearer. It is the benchmark against which most other parking charges still fail.

17. As this Claimant does not have proprietary interest in the land then they must produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner and a map with boundaries and sign locations, as well as any communications with the site management or any outlet, Hotel, retailer or taxi firms, regarding the change of restrictions and how these would be applied to taxis. Further, the Claimant must produce copies of the old signs compared to the new and provide evidence of when the changed terms about an unknown 20 minute total stay, took effect.

18. This case has similarities with the Senior Circuit Judge's findings regarding a short stop for unloading by a driver in an Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES'. Whilst that case was about a residential car park and unloading, the Judge took time to define 'parking' as leaving a vehicle for a period of time, as opposed to passing and re-passing and brief stopping for a short duration of vehicles as part of a right of access or for deliveries.

19. The Judge held at #20: ''Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word 'park'. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: ''To leave a vehicle in a car park or other reserved space'' and ''To leave in a suitable place until required.'' The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moments for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it.''

20. His Honour Judge Harris QC continued at #21: ''Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be 'parked'. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer's van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would ...{be}... unworkable...''

21. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Name


Signature


Date

Koq1985

Man... If this will be a win Im taking you for a beer.

Who are you??

Thank you!!

Le_Kirk

Koq1985 wrote: »

Man... If this will be a win Im taking you for a beer.

Who are you??

Thank you!!

......... or Woman, if this is a win...........

Coupon-mad

Mine's a white wine! x

Please don't overlook the next stages, like your WS and evidence later on, before the hearing itself at your local court.

Defence is not the only job, so stick around and read bargepole's COURT PROCEDURES thread, linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2 under the red heading 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

Koq1985

Woman than ??

Ok so Im close to file this defence, I have just get the Subject Access Request reply.

They dont have any photos of the signs on the site, all what they got are the file you see in dropbox SAR

link again hxxps://xxx.dropbox.com/sh/nbau5ilpddg4s3q/AAC5WicMK21uBrL9quw8AAf4a?dl=0[/url]

The last file SAR is what they sent me.

Also I have a few questions,

1. Should I file defence online or sent through post? Online space is limited so I assume it should be printed, signed and posted asap
2. Can I go for counter claim due to my lost of earnings caused by the time and effort me, and You Guys had to put into solving this case? For ex. if I will be heard in court I have to travel there and lose my whole day for it. Is that possible to do so?
3. What wine you like?

Thank you good people