BW Legal notice of county claim issued for a PCN from 2015!

Orangecordial

Snakes_Belly said:

It may help to have a different set of eyes taking a look at the car park in question. It did in my case, namely Fruitcake's 

The screenshots that Fruitcake took also helped several others who had also received PCN's in the same area. 

Ok sure, here's the link to it on Google maps:

 https://maps.app.goo.gl/UkZU8uAbverGiD2HA
It's just the little patch of land with about 10 parking spots on it. You can just about see the sign on the side of the shed building thing.

Snakes_Belly

Thanks for posting the link.

Observations,

1. The approach to Blantyre Street is from the ring road and Blantyre Street has double yellow lines so unable to stop.
2. Signage is almost none existent. Had a job to find where it was.
3. Parking spaces are not allocated with numbers.
4. You can obtain a number of images from different dates by moving around on Blantyre Street and going onto street view. What it shows is that there are are commercial vehicles on the car park and on double yellow lines.
5. Signage is very poor and the lack of is a major point in your defence. From memory the signage in the Vine case was obscured by vehicles.  Vine v Waltham Forest. This case is often taken out of context by the PPC's however it is the appeal that is important. 

Snakes_Belly

In allowing Ms Vine's appeal Roch LJ, said (Para. 19 of the judgment):

"The act of clamping the wheel of another person's car, even when that car is trespassing, is an act of trespass to that other persons property unless it can be shown that the owner of the car has consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of his car being clamped. To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning. In this case the recorder might have reached such a conclusion about the plaintiff's state of knowledge, but he did not do so. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff did not see the sign. That finding is not surprising in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space and the plaintiff's distressed state, the reason why the plaintiff parked and left her car hurriedly. It was the plaintiff's evidence that she did not see the sign. There was never any suggestion that the plaintiff was other than a truthful witness."

At paragraph 20 he went on to add:

"The Recorder held, correctly, that the plaintiff by parking her car where she did was trespassing. Unhappily, the recorder jumped to the conclusion that the plaintiff had consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her car being clamped. In making that leap the recorder fell into error, in my judgment. Consequently I am of the view that the recorder's decision on the basic issue in this case must be reversed."

— Lord Justice Roch

Although this case is about clamping the principle is that Miss Vine did not see the signage and so did not agree to her car being clamped. Relating that to your scenario you did not see the signage ( which was not visible) so therefore did not consent to the terms and conditions of parking. I think that there is enough to form a decent defence.   

Snakes_Belly

You should also be stating that the PPC have taken over five years to pursue what is a meritless case.

Fruitcake

Orangecordial said:

Snakes_Belly said:

It may help to have a different set of eyes taking a look at the car park in question. It did in my case, namely Fruitcake's 

The screenshots that Fruitcake took also helped several others who had also received PCN's in the same area. 

Ok sure, here's the link to it on Google maps:

 https://maps.app.goo.gl/UkZU8uAbverGiD2HA
It's just the little patch of land with about 10 parking spots on it. You can just about see the sign on the side of the shed building thing.

From GSV: -

No entrance signs in June 2015 and May 2018. Images taken from Blantyre St heading towards the ring road with Worsley Mill on the right.
Only one (possibly UKPPO, possibly something else) yellow sign on the reverse side of the bin shed in May 2015 and April 2016. Images taken from the ring road with Worsley Mill on the left.

On the balance of probabilities, the signs or lack thereof shown on GSV either side of the date of the alleged event were identical to those present on the day in question. Upon entering, the driver could not possibly have seen the single sign deliberately placed facing away from the direction of travel on the farthest side at the farthest corner of a shed.

Orangecordial

Thankyou so much everyone for your helpful insights and support! I appreciate it.
Here is what I have written so far:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registered [XXXX XXX]. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the 16th July 2015.

3. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant by one of the occupiers and leaseholders of Worsley Mill at the time. 

4. Both the occupant and the Defendant were unaware of any parking measures in place at the time, as there was very little signage to indicate so. No entrance signs were present, and the one sign describing any parking measure had been deliberately placed at the farthest point from the entrance of the car park, and can be easily obscured completely by any vehicle parked in the bay directly alongside it.

5. The Claimant has taken over five years to pursue an insubstantial case, and has only now decided to begin legal proceedings months before the end of the time limit of six years.

Fruitcake

If the yellow sign on the bin shed is a parking sign, then it is not at the farthest point from the entrance. It is however facing away from the direction of traffic entering the parking area, placed out of site on the far corner of a bin storage shed. 
It is quite possible however that this is not a parking sign at all (the scammers should be put to proof to the contrary) and may relate to the disposal of rubbish.

I suspect this is a self ticketing site. UKPPO offer a "Problem Park Kit" that includes five yellow parking restriction signs. If it is one of these, it is deliberately placed where it is least likely to be seen. I would suggest they have wilfully failed to install the other four.

nosferatu1001

I cant see if this was discussed, but do you need to declare the drivers identity to the entire world? Do you gain an advantage from doing so, or is it already known to the PPC? 

IF NOT then edit your post, NOW

Fruitcake

Car park entrance June 2015, one month before the alleged event. Approached from Blantyre St. No entrance signs visible.



Car park entrance May 2018, viewed from the same position three years later, no change in signage. It is presumed therefore that no change in signage has occurred in between. No entrance signs visible.



Car park June 2015, one month before the alleged event viewed from the ring road. Note the yellow sign on the bin shed just in front of the minibus windscreen. No other signs visible. 



Another view from June 2015 of the car park one month before the alleged event. No evidence of signs.



Car park in April 2016, eleven months after the alleged event. No change in signage compared to image from previous year. No readable or visible signs evident. Possible unidentified and unreadable sign visible on the bin shed.



Car park in April 2016, eleven months after the alleged event, no change in signage compared to image from previous year. No visible or readable signs evident.



Car park entrance in June 2015, one month before the alleged event approached from ring road. Possible parking (or bin/recycling) sign visible on the shed in the centre of the image. No other signs evident.



Bin shed view in June 2015 with undecipherable sign.



From the scammers own website,

https://parkingpatrol.co.uk/welcome-to-parking-patrol/

"After a site evaluation, we will erect our contractual warning signs at suitable locations as to allow each driver entering the site a clear view of the terms that the particular site has in force."

... or maybe not. 

Fruitcake

4. Both the occupant and the Defendant were unaware of any parking measures in place at the time, as there was very little no signage to indicate so. No entrance signs were present, and the one sign describing any parking measure subsequently found, if it related to parking at all, had been deliberately placed at the farthest point from the entrance of the car park, of a temporary building and can be easily obscured completely by any vehicle parked in the bay directly alongside it.