PPS Parking Fine, BW Legal Letters

Fruitcake

Follow the guide to court written by bargepole from the second post of the NEWBIES. Start by registering for a Government Gateway account and then do the AoS on he MCOL website no earlier than five days after the date of service. This gives you 28 days to submit a defence. Use the template defence from the forum and only amend paragraphs 17 and 18. This is where you put in the references to byelaws and no landowner authority.
Include the double accounting/abuse of process. The case that was appealed was specific to that case and cannot be read across to others.

One of the regulars will give you some dates for your diary based on the issue date.

Umkomaas

Vowla said:

The Issue Date is the 21st of October.
Thanks for the response.

In which case, don't do the AOS until after 5 days from Date of Issue (but before 19 days). 

KeithP

Vowla said:

The Issue Date is the 21st of October.

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st October, you have until Monday 9th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 24th October, but otherwise, there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd November 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Vowla

Hi all, I've drafted the details of my defence to add into the draft defence supplied on this forum. Could someone check it and give me some feelers and tips before I send it please?

3. The lands of Exeter St Davids and it’s Traction Maintenance Depot are owned by Network Rail and operated and managed by the TOC ‘Great Western Railway,’ of which the vehicle owner was employed as a Trainee Train Driver at the time of the alleged offence. The Vehicle owner was in the course of his duties with the vehicle being parked on railway owned property at the time of the alleged offence. The vehicle owner is still employed by GWR. 

4. The land in question is subject to Railway Byelaws therefore charges must be brought by the landowner or the TOC not the PPC and must be done so within a time limit. The landowner or TOC would not bring charges against an employee who was within the course of duties. 

5. GWR management repeatedly gave verbal permission for staff to use the area of land where the alleged offence took place when the TMD (Traction Maintenance Depot) car park was full. This was common place as the TMD carpark had to cater for all TMD staff and all Station staff with a daily employee number of several hundred and not enough TMD car parking spaces to suit. The land was regularly used by GWR staff for parking of which no member of staff ever recalled being ticketed to park in the area. 

6. After consultation with Network Rail on the matter the vehicle owner was informed that the land the vehicle was parked on was NOT within the jurisdiction of the PPC. It was outside of the area leased to Premier Parking Solutions and the vehicle should not have been ticketed to park where it was. In ticketing this vehicle the PPC has acted outside of its jurisdiction and committed multiple serious breaches of the vehicle owners personal data.

    The first for requesting data it did not have the authority to request of which the DVLA should also have not supplied. 

    The second for holding the vehicle owners data longer than was absolutely necessary.

    The third for requesting the vehicle owners data again multiple years after the alleged offence took place.

The PPC were informed by the vehicle owner they had no jurisdiction over the area in question but ignored the information and continued on with their harassing tactics.

7. The land in question is a small strip of land situated between the Station and the TMD. The land is split in two by a chainlink fence of which one side was leased to the PPC as a carpark and the other is clearly derelict wasteland situated directly beside the disused Freight Platform 7 of Exeter St Davids. This is where the vehicle in question, along with multiple other staff cars were parked. Not the area leased to the PPC to be used as a carpark. 

8. Lack of Jurisdiction aside the vehicle owner also does not agree any contract was ever created by the PPC, any signage used as an argument by the PPC and its associates is unlit and completely illegible in the dark, which photos prove. This is the time at which the vehicle would have been parked. A Train Driver early shift typically starts between 03:30 and 06:00, the alleged offence took place in February where first light cannot be expected until after 07:00 hours well after the time a Train Driver would have started shift. 

9. After checking with Exeter City Council no evidence of planning permission exists to erect signage at this sight of which any signage relied upon for the claimants case is clearly above the 0.3 squared meters allowed without planning permission. A contract cannot be formed as it was incapable of being formed without an illegal act (the erection of un-consented signs which the PPC relies on as having made a contractual offer). 

10. Any signage relied upon by the claimant is hung on the chain link fence splitting the area of land in two. Between the strip of land the vehicle was parked on and the carpark the PPC did have jurisdiction to charge for parking over. This means the signage can be reasonably expected to only apply to the carpark beyond the fence of which the signage is hung. This is more so believable when GWR staff had all been told that the land was acceptable to be parked on.

11. The land on which the vehicle and multiple other GWR staff vehicles were parked has no marked bays to park in and can clearly be seen to be derelict land and reasonably believed to have not been a car park. The area beyond the chainlink fence that the PPC did have jurisdiction over does have marked bays and is clearly a carpark. 

12. No financial loss was accumulated by either the TOC (GWR) or Network Rail but had the vehicle not been parked where it was it is highly reasonable to expect that financial losses would have occurred to both GWR and to Network Rail as trains would have had to have been cancelled and this typically costs in the tens of thousands per cancelled train and often hundreds of thousands of pounds directly related to the cancelling of those trains as other TOCs services would then be disrupted for which GWR would be liable. 

13. As the land is subject to Railway Byelaws no Byelaw breach exists.

14. Section 14.1 of The Railway Byelaws ‘No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign.’ 

    Any Signage in area is unclear and illegible early in the morning and is unlit. The signage that is up is stuck on a chainlink fence and can reasonably be interpreted to be referring to the actual carpark on the other side of the fence, the area the PPC did have jurisdiction over with marked bays and the area GWR staff were told they cannot park so never did. Multiple GWR staff regularly parked in the area this vehicle was parked and ticketed and none were ever penalised for doing so. Also no planning permission appears to exist for signage to be erected on this site so the signage cannot be used to create a contract as it is itself illegally positioned.

15. Section 14.2.1 of The Railway Byelaws ‘No Person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an operator or any person using the railway.’

    No obstruction was made to the running of the railway or to people using the railway. Had the vehicle NOT been parked there an obstruction would certainly have occurred in the form of several cancelled trains.

16. Section 14.2.2 of The Railway Byelaws ‘No Person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway otherwise than in accordance with any instruction issued by or on behalf of an operator or an authorised person.’

    GWR management repeatedly gave verbal permission for all staff to park there if depot carpark was full. The vehicles parked in photos taken in the morning were all GWR staff, no other staff reported being ticketed that day. As a GWR staff member the vehicle owner is an authorised person to be present on all Network Rail land involved in the GWR Network from London to Penzance. 

17. Section 14.3 of The Railway Byelaws ‘No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an operator or an authorised person at that place.

    No charges exist to park in this area as it was not a carpark nor the carpark leased to the PPC to monitor. Therefore they had no right to request the vehicle owners data from the DVLA nor should the DVLA have supplied it. The owners data was not used fairly or lawfully and this breached section 5 of the data protection act as the data was held and then requested again after which was absolutely necessary. No clear signage with appropriate jurisdiction exists to mention any charges required to park in this area.

18. Section 24.6 of The Railway Byelaws ‘Breaches by authorised persons: An authorised person acting in the course of his duties shall not be liable for breach of any of the Byelaws numbered 2, 4(2), 6(3) and 6(5), 7, 9, 10, 11(1), 13, 14, 15, 16(6), 17, 18, 19 and 20(1). 

    The owner of the vehicle was an authorised person acting in the course of his duties at the time of the alleged offence. 

Le_Kirk

A lot of that reads like a witness statement (WS) rather than a defence.  Just extract the parts that refute the particulars of claim and add those to paragraphs 2 & 3 of the template defence assuming you are using this one >>>>> 26 February at 4:30PM .  Keep the rest of it for the WS and evidence stage.

Vowla

Hi, thanks for the response. So this is too detailed for this stage of the action? 
And yes I am using the latest template with the additional costs added.

Redx

Only post the adapted paragraphs , the ones you need the critique for

Concentrate on the particulars of claim , not the story behind it , the storyline is the witness statement

Le_Kirk

This is the start, with all the instructions of the standard defence template: -

PLEASE READ THIS POST FIRST TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE THE NEW 2020 TEMPLATE DEFENCE, WHICH CAN BE ADAPTED IN HALF AN HOUR (honestly!).   

HOWEVER, THE MAIN ADVICE ABOUT ALL THINGS TO DO WITH COURT AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, IS HERE IN THE NEWBIES FAQS (2nd post):  

HOWEVER, THE MAIN ADVICE ABOUT ALL THINGS TO DO WITH COURT AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, IS HERE IN THE NEWBIES FAQS (2nd post):  
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou/p1
Below in the 2nd post of THIS thread, is a defence draft to adapt, for all PARKING CLAIMS (except PARKING EYE - see NEWBIES thread for those claims).
The facts of your case must be added as #2 and #3 - add more if you need more, and adjust the numbers below it.

Vowla

Ok thank you, so at this stage I simply need to state that I dispute the PPCs jurisdiction to ticket in the area they did, I dispute the clarity and legality of their signage and I dispute their ability to make a claim against me 3 years later when the land in question is subject to railway byelaws? But obviously wrote in a more intelligent professional manner. 

Le_Kirk

You just refute whatever they put in the particulars of claim.  If you read the standard defence template you will see it already has signage points in there.  Yes, leave in the bye-laws points but don't go to town on it until your witness statement.  Just keep in mind that your witness statement will be in support of your defence as already filed so you need to make sure you introduce every point that you will expand on in the WS.  You cannot introduce new defence points in the WS.  If you search for some recent posts by @bargepole and @Johnersh (lawyerly types), you will see they are both in favour of short defences, provided there are enough bones to put the meat on later.