Observice Parking Consultancy - Defence Advice for Court Claim

nosferatu1001

Yep
And make sure you send to the court and to the claimant, as per the courts order

easytry16

Thanks will follow the protocol

easytry16

Guys need a bit of help here,
The only relevant sign at the entrance of the residential car park was ' to display a valid permit', which I did but still got PCN for parking in a wrong bay, no signs or marking on the bay not permitting use of it (got photos of this) . In my witness statement should I still refer to the following statements (copied from the NEWBIE thread):

1.      A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this sign in (Exhibit MS-12) for comparison. In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.

 2.      The Beavis case is against this claim 13. This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, where the Supreme Court found that whilst the £85 was not (and was not pleaded as) a sum in the nature of damages or loss, ParkingEye had a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing the charge where motorists overstay, in order to deter motorists from occupying spaces beyond the time paid for and thus ensure further income for the landowner, by allowing other motorists to occupy the space. The Court concluded that the £85.00 charge was not out of proportion to the legitimate interest (in that case, based upon the facts and clear signs) and therefore the clause was not a penalty clause.

 3.      However, there is no such legitimate interest where there were no signs or marking not permitting use of the parking bay. As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. This is just the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court had in mind when deciding what constitutes a (rare and unique case) 'justified' parking charge as opposed to an unconscionable one.

Your help would be much appreciated.

Thanks

easytry16

Another thing is, all the withness statement examples I am reading here makes reference to Claimants witness statement and their evidences, I haven't received anything from them to date, is this common?

KeithP

easytry16 said:

Another thing is, all the withness statement examples I am reading here makes reference to Claimants witness statement and their evidences, I haven't received anything from them to date, is this common?

They have the same filing and serving target date that you have. You may or may not have time to comment on their WS before filing yours.

You know who your Claimant is. Can you not find a copy of their WS on someone else's thread? Claimant's WSs are often/usually straight copy and paste stuff. Look around. See what others are doing.

1505grandad

Also as OPC are BPA AoS members make sure you do not reference the IPC

D_P_Dance

Parking in someone else's  bay without their consent is one of the few instances where I support the PPC.  

easytry16

KeithP said:

easytry16 said:

Another thing is, all the withness statement examples I am reading here makes reference to Claimants witness statement and their evidences, I haven't received anything from them to date, is this common?

They have the same filing and serving target date that you have. You may or may not have time to comment on their WS before filing yours.

You know who your Claimant is. Can you not find a copy of their WS on someone else's thread? Claimant's WSs are often/usually straight copy and paste stuff. Look around. See what others are doing.

Unfortunately, cannot find any previous WS from OPC here

easytry16

D_P_Dance said:

Parking in someone else's  bay without their consent is one of the few instances where I support the PPC.  

D_P_Dance, there are no allocated parking bays in that residential parking, you have to find a place, park and display the permit, which I did.

easytry16

1505grandad said:

Also as OPC are BPA AoS members make sure you do not reference the IPC

Thank you for pointing this out, will make sure I will change the reference from IPC to BPA AoS.