Help! DEFENCE due

Coupon-mad

Stop trying to add a point about signs to a template that already covers that!  Except for talking about a lack of entrance sign, no appearance of a managed car park, if that is true.

The point of #17 and #18 is to tell the Judge what sort of car park it is because nothing else tells him/her.  And why you (or the driver if not you) were there and what happened and what the parking charge was for, and why you don't think you are liable.  e.g. it was dark, or the pay & display machine was hidden in a corner, if it's about not paying. Why does the driver believe they were authorised / or why did they know know it was a 'managed' site - lack of entrance sign?

The notes in red on the template already tell everyone this.

BaftyCrastard

So I did some digging and found that Euro Car Parks ran the site until 2016 when Bank Park Management took over. The signage however didn't change until 2019 (my PCN issued 2018). I can't get the specifics on the signage due to image quality but it's clear from Google streetview that the signage didn't change during this time. Would I be able to use this in my defence? Surely any contract if valid, was not with Bank Park Management. Under the IPC code of conduct the signage needs to clearly display the creditor which at the time would have shown either Euro Car Parks / The Market (the shopping centre and land owner) / some vague term such as 'management firm'.

BaftyCrastard

@Coupon-mad sorry just seen your comment after posting

Coupon-mad

Ah but what you've just said changes the game, and is a specific fact!  Yes, put that in your #17 &18!  

Your evidence photos come later, at WS stage.

Fruitcake

GSV, image captured in May 2018, showing ECP signs.



GSV, image captured May 2019, showing Bank Park signs.



You need to put the scammers to proof that ECP signs had been removed and Bank Park signs prominently placed in September 2018, or provide proof that the signs were not changed until after the date of the alleged event.

Ask the local council when planning permission for ANPR scameras and advertising consent for the Bank Park signs were granted. Not having the latter is a criminal offence but only the council can pursue this. However, the idea is to determine when the signs were installed. If advertising consent was not given until after the alleged event then you can aver that they were not installed at the time as it would have been a criminal offence to have them up before consent was given, and no reputable company would have done such a thing.
Even if consent was granted, it does not mean they were in place at the time the PCN was issued.
If the signs still don't have consent then complain to the council and include it in your defence or WS.

BaftyCrastard

Fruitcake said:

GSV, image captured in May 2018, showing ECP signs.



GSV, image captured May 2019, showing Bank Park signs.



You need to put the scammers to proof that ECP signs had been removed and Bank Park signs prominently placed in September 2018, or provide proof that the signs were not changed until after the date of the alleged event.

Ask the local council when planning permission for ANPR scameras and advertising consent for the Bank Park signs were granted. Not having the latter is a criminal offence but only the council can pursue this. However, the idea is to determine when the signs were installed. If advertising consent was not given until after the alleged event then you can aver that they were not installed at the time as it would have been a criminal offence to have them up before consent was given, and no reputable company would have done such a thing.
Even if consent was granted, it does not mean they were in place at the time the PCN was issued.
If the signs still don't have consent then complain to the council and include it in your defence or WS.

That's absolutely amazing, thank you for finding a much better set of images!

BaftyCrastard

So I've got the defence template and edited all of the red sections with my relevant info / unbolded / change font & colour etc. 
#17 & #18 edited as the below;

17. The signage present at the time of any PCN being issued preceded the Claimant’s ownership or management of the land. While the Claimant stated the PCN was issued on private land owned or managed by said Claimant, the signage failed to clearly identify the Claimant as ‘the Creditor’ as instructed in the IPC code of practice which the Claimant adheres to (link here but can't include as I'm new). Therefore, at no point could the Defendant have knowingly, voluntarily or otherwise, have entered a contract with the Claimant.

18. Upon entry to the car park signage is easily obscured or blocked entirely by exiting traffic due to its position on the corner of the car park and a private road. The lack of clear repeater signs means traffic is able to enter, park and exit via the same route without the motorist being “obvious” to any conditions, again contradicting the IPC code of practice.

Does that seem about right?

Just need to sign, attached the Southampton Court finding and send as per the @KeithP guide.

Coupon-mad

BaftyCrastard said:

Fruitcake said:

GSV, image captured in May 2018, showing ECP signs.



GSV, image captured May 2019, showing Bank Park signs.



You need to put the scammers to proof that ECP signs had been removed and Bank Park signs prominently placed in September 2018, or provide proof that the signs were not changed until after the date of the alleged event.

Ask the local council when planning permission for ANPR scameras and advertising consent for the Bank Park signs were granted. Not having the latter is a criminal offence but only the council can pursue this. However, the idea is to determine when the signs were installed. If advertising consent was not given until after the alleged event then you can aver that they were not installed at the time as it would have been a criminal offence to have them up before consent was given, and no reputable company would have done such a thing.
Even if consent was granted, it does not mean they were in place at the time the PCN was issued.
If the signs still don't have consent then complain to the council and include it in your defence or WS.

That's absolutely amazing, thank you for finding a much better set of images!

Not that you need them yet, as you know.

BaftyCrastard

@Coupon-mad would you say my points for #17 and #18 are ok to send or do they need some buffing out? 

Coupon-mad

You haven't given the Judge any background as to what sort of car park it is and why the driver was there and what happened.