Private Parking Ticket. Ardpark.

Ralph-y

as well as these threads

direct link to court section in newbies thread
.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

and  

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs#latest

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1

Ralph

nigsy1

Hi All, yes coupon mad, they used Riding Recoveries from same address as Ardpark office in Wetherby initially and then latest letters have been from BW Legal

Coupon-mad

That's why I was telling you to include the observation I typed already, in your defence when you get to that stage.   

Think WONGA.  Google what they did.

nigsy1

Brilliant! Thanks I will do.

nigsy1

 Hello All- this is my draft defence 2 & 3 any comments welcome-Thanks

It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and was driving on the day with 2 passengers. 

The facts as known to The Defendant-

On the date that the alleged contravention took place the Defendant and passengers saw  two signs on entering the car park. Some of the print was too small to be able to read from the vehicle, and obviously two signs created confusion in the Defendant’s mind.

The Defendant drove into the car park but did not park, indeed there are no explicitly marked bays, The Defendant let the two passengers exit the vehicle, and after no more than 3 minutes the Defendant exited the car park to another one 200 yards away, on exiting the Defendant again noticed two signs of differing sizes and colours from each other which were illegible.

After approximately 10 minutes the Defendant re-entered the car park and picked up the two passengers again not parking but immediately turning round and exiting onto the main road.

The defendant is aware of the 10 minute grace allowable in private car parks to find a space and park up, the Defendant was well within this limit for the two entries made. 

The Defendant cites the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA), which requires the doctrines of good faith, transparency and fairness that must underpin consumer contracts.

Car park operators have a duty of care and due diligence to keep the signage legible and easy to understand if they are going to demand charges from customers, and it is reasonable to expect that the parking operator takes responsibility for maintenance by carrying out routine inspections to ensure clarity in all signage.

Indeed, the CRA states that the operator should ensure that written terms and notices are in plain and intelligible language and are legible.The Defendant’s view is in line with the view of Parliament with regard to the new Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. In February 2018, during the second hearing in the House of Commons about the new bill, it’s sponsor, Sir Greg Knight, MP stated ‘ It is important that those parking on private land who receive a parking notice are treated fairly and consistently. Motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land, they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process.Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process, together with some motorists being hit with a fine for just driving in and out of a car park without stopping, have no place in 21st century Britain.’

Le_Kirk

That is far too long for a defence and should be short legal/technical arguments which you can back up and support with evidence at the witness statement stage, which is where you supply the narrative (tell the story).  Each paragraph requires a number.

nigsy1

Thanks. I'll have another bash at it.

Coupon-mad

You didn't include a line about what I told you to mention in your defence, in my post from 27th March?

beamerguy

ARDpark v Wonga.

Another user on here ... Lraw14 has the same problem. A letter was sent to the FSA

An interesting reply was received from the FSA saying that they felt this was not in their jurisdiction
and suggested the CSA and the CAB would be the best to contact ?
Their letter kept the door open saying "if you think this is in our jurisdiction please reply"

As we know, these government authorities employ baby chickens to answer letters.
The FCA said that the "so called" debt collector was unregulated

So, a letter went back to the FCA ...... it is your jurisdiction to protect the public from a scam.
"As the pretend solicitors acting for Wonga were fake and also not regulated, please explain the difference between ARDpark with a fake debt collector named Riding Recoveries and the Wonga fake solicitors ?

As both are identical to extort money we will see how the FCA handle this ??

nigsy1

Hello All. I've had another go at the defence, I've included a line about the Ridings Recoveries debt collector, should I expand on it re the Wonga narratives? (however they are at a PO Box no at Wetherby and not the same address as Ardpark- not sure if that makes a difference?) 

Also - should I include in this a bit about timings from the photo they sent to me on the PCN? Ive got a timeline but not sure if to include in defence?

Thanks for your ongoing help and advice- much appreciated

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and was driving on the day with 2 passengers.

The facts as known to The Defendant-

3. On the date that the alleged contravention took place the Defendant saw two signs on entering the car park. One at ground level and the other higher up but about 6 feet apart. Some of the print was too small to be able to read from the vehicle, and the two signs created confusion in the Defendant’s mind. The Defendant saw no clearly defined parking spaces.

The Defendant drove into the car park but did not park, dropped off the 2 passengers and exited the car park to another one 200 yards away, on exiting the Defendant again noticed a plethora of signs of differing sizes and colours from each other one of which was too small to read and was also illegible and at low ground on a wall about 10 feet from the turning circle of the car.

After approximately 10 minutes the Defendant re-entered the car park and picked up the two passengers, again not parking, but immediately turning round and exiting onto the main road.

The defendant is aware of the 10 minute grace allowable in private car parks to find a space and park up, the Defendant was well within that limit for the two entries made.

The defendant also notes the initial use of Ridings Recoveries to recover the supposed debt apparently operating hand in glove with the Parking Company to ‘manage’ the case.