DB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics

houndsoflove

Thanks @Snakes_Belly, on both of the claims, photos of the notes I left have been taken by the PPC.  I read your thread with interest as I reside in Staffordshire myself, so could use Stafford or Telford courts.  I was planning to use the cases you quoted and I assume I would add these in after paragraphs 2 & 3 of the defence template.

Thanks @KeithP, take on board the point.  I want to get across that the PPC should maintain and check PDT machines as an integral part of the contract and as paragraph 4 of the templates focuses on the signage, and rightly so, I thought it was worthwhile adding the section in that I took from another defence I found on the forum.

Coupon-mad

I want to get across that the PPC should maintain and check PDT machines as an integral part of the contract.

Yep, agreed.  I like to quote the Hansard records of the Parking CoP Bill and in particular re broken PDT machines, the words of Sir Greg Knight, who is the MP responsible for the new 2019 Act that is going to set up a new Code of Practice this year. I think a Judge will like this persuasive opinion to assist them to get their decision right, in accordance with the requirement for a court to consider the fairness of any consumer contract:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Sir Greg Knight:

''If there are a number of payment machines and one of them is not working, that is not an excuse, but if there is only one machine or all the machines are out of order, that ought to be a perfect defence. The company operating the car park has in effect invited the motorist on to the car park to park the car on payment of a fee, and if it is not going to facilitate payment, it should not be able to extract a penalty. Rip-offs from car park cowboys must stop. Most parking operators have nothing to fear from the Bill, but we must stop unscrupulous operators who are undermining the whole sector with their bad practices.

The proposals in the Bill form a framework for action. If it is approved, it will require the Government to create a new mandatory code of practice across the private parking sector, which will end inconsistent practices and unfair treatment of British motorists. It will ensure that the terms under which private parking is provided, including the rights and obligations of each party, are fair, clear and unambiguous.''

houndsoflove

Thanks for the feedback so far, have updated and amended the defence v2 below.  I included a couple of the cases that @Snakes_Belly referred to.  I haven't included the Camden v Prendi adjudication as wasn't sure where to reference it and was conscious I didn't want to write war and peace as not sure what an appropriate length should be for a defence. 

AOS submitted today so another tick on the box, loved the note on the end of the walkthrough guide "stage 1 of the fightback complete" 

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  The car park in question was a patch of poorly maintained wasteland, often littered with dumped waste and overgrown vegetation.  Signage within the car park consisted of a poorly noted entrance sign that advertised “pay & display” but did not stipulate that terms and conditions applied.  Within the car park, signage was virtually non-existent with a distinct lack of signage around the single faulty pay & display ticket (PDT) machine.

3.  On the dates of both alleged contraventions the defendant attempted to purchase a ticket from the PDT machine on site.  On both occasions the defendant found the machine to be broken and not adequately maintained.  No other options were provided to allow for payment and a contact number, that was provided in small print on poorly displayed signage and was not stipulated as a designated payment line, did not answer any attempted calls.  The defendant therefore maintains that every attempt was made to purchase a valid ticket however due to faulty equipment and no other means of payment the contract is frustrated.  In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 – EGLR – 154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

3a.  Signage referenced to by the claimant did not explicitly stipulate that a vehicle should be moved should a fault be encountered with the payment machine.  On both occasions the defendant sort alternative parking on an employee car park and a nearby Council owned car park prior to entering the car park in question, however no spaces were available.  In the case Port Talbot: 19-10-2016: C1GF37H7: Link Parking v Mr N, it was argued by Link Parking that Mr N should leave the carpark in the event of the machines not working. The judge ruled that frustration of contract applied and that Mr N had attempted to fulfil his contractual obligations but could not because of the broken machine. The claim was dismissed.

4.  The Defendant cites the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA), which requires that the doctrines of good faith, transparency and fairness must underpin consumer contracts.  Car park operators have a duty of care and due diligence to keep the machines in order if they are going to demand charges from customers, and it is reasonable to expect that the parking operator takes responsibility for equipment maintenance by carrying out routine inspections to ensure that equipment is correctly functioning.   Given that the two alleged contraventions were 8 days apart would suggest that the claimant failed to fulfil this aspect of the legislation. Schedule 2 of the CRA includes paragraph 18 as an example of a term that is likely to be unfair: ''A term which has the object or effect of obliging the consumer to fulfil all of the consumer’s obligations where the trader does not perform the trader’s obligations.''

5.  During debate of the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2019, Sir Greg Knight, MP for East Yorkshire stated “''If there are a number of payment machines and one of them is not working, that is not an excuse, but if there is only one machine or all the machines are out of order, that ought to be a perfect defence. The company operating the car park has in effect invited the motorist on to the car park to park the car on payment of a fee, and if it is not going to facilitate payment, it should not be able to extract a penalty. Rip-offs from car park cowboys must stop. Most parking operators have nothing to fear from the Bill, but we must stop unscrupulous operators who are undermining the whole sector with their bad practices."

"The proposals in the Bill form a framework for action. If it is approved, it will require the Government to create a new mandatory code of practice across the private parking sector, which will end inconsistent practices and unfair treatment of British motorists. It will ensure that the terms under which private parking is provided, including the rights and obligations of each party, are fair, clear and unambiguous.''

Coupon-mad

Looks fine to me although add that Sir Greg Knight was the sponsor of the Act  (i.e. he wasn't just a random, disinterested MP adding a comment).

Th1nDiesel

In 3a it should read "sought" not "sort"

nosferatu1001

You have two 3s 

Snakes_Belly

I can see why you did not want to overload your WS.

The important factor about the Prendi adjudication is that the decision was made by Henry Greenslade QC when he was the chief adjudicator for the council equivalent of POPLA. His decision may have some influence. He later became the chief adjudicator for POPLA. He was not a puppet to the PPC's.

Umkomaas

Snakes_Belly said:

.The important factor about the Prendi adjudication is that the decision was made by Henry Greenslade QC when he was the chief adjudicator for the council equivalent of POPLA. His decision may have some influence. He later became the chief adjudicator for POPLA. He was not a puppet to the PPC's.

He had his moments!  I suspect the intervention of the Parking Prankster and the outrage steaming from the forums might have forced him to climb away from their clutches. There were wild times in those early days!

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2013/07/popla-caught-secretly-coaching-parking.html

houndsoflove

Quick update on this case.  

Defence was submitted and DQ were completed and filed within the deadline.  The case has now been allocated a date, albeit a date that was noted on the DQ as unavailable, makes me think what the point was of filing the DQ!

Going to have a crack at the witness statement now and will upload once it is in a position for feedback.  I will also upload the PPL witness statement once received.  

Boosted by the recent success by @Worcestermum so hopefully a similar outcome is possible 🤞🏻

Le_Kirk

houndsoflove said:

Quick update on this case.  

Defence was submitted and DQ were completed and filed within the deadline.  The case has now been allocated a date, albeit a date that was noted on the DQ as unavailable, makes me think what the point was of filing the DQ!

Going to have a crack at the witness statement now and will upload once it is in a position for feedback.  I will also upload the PPL witness statement once received.  

Boosted by the recent success by @Worcestermum so hopefully a similar outcome is possible 🤞🏻

You should contact the court and ask them why this has happened.  If it is a date you cannot make then it is important that it is altered.