Claim Form Received - Premier Park Limited – BW Legal

Daman1985

Hi All,

Firstly thank you to everyone on this forum, its been a great help getting to where I currently am, which is the defence letter (I submitted the AOS on the 16 Nov 2020, and the issue date on the Claim form was 10 Nov 2020).

I was hoping someone might have a quick read of the defence (based off the template) and let me know if theres anything obviously stupid!

I am a little worried about the stuff that comes after “my story”, theres a lot of legal wording in the template that I don’t really understand, I know it used to be a more simply “abuse of process” one liner which I understood, but this new version is well over my head! Am I expected to understand this stuff if it goes to court?

Many thanks for anyone who takes the time to read!!

 *** EDIT - forgot to mention this is a £100 Fine, and they are claiming additional for £60 Recovery Costs, £10 odd in interest, £50 legal representatives fee, and £25 Court fees***

Background

In June 2019 my car was in a small car park (10 odd spaces) between a grocery store and a sandwich shop, but the car park was actually for a veterinary office the other side of the sandwich shop (car park also includes a couple of resident bays).

 Total alleged park time on NTK was 5 minutes (ANPR), although according to the pictures it was 5 minutes and a handful of seconds.

 POPLA appeal failed (do they ever work?!?), but I think gave some good ammo.. as much as anything premier park admit their grace period is 5 minutes, which I think is good for me?

 

Defence

1.    The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

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

3.    The Defendant would like to highlight that the claimant is not operating in accordance with BPA guidance, especially in relation to Grace Periods and the use of vehicle entry images:

a.    The Notice To Keeper (NTK) explicitly claims that the entry / exit times differ by only 5 minutes (note: entry/exit NOT parking time), which is significantly lower than the standard reasonable grace periods outlined by BPA (typically 10 minutes). It should be noted that during a POPLA appeal process Premier park (PP) state that their grace time is 5 minutes, significantly less then BPA cited 10 minutes minimum with no substantial justification for such a short time, but either way this in itself means that their initial NTK was erroneous based on their own policy.

b.    The NTK in question contains two images of the vehicle. Neither of these images show the vehicle parked and both are clearly whilst the vehicle is in motion. Nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all). It is also noted that the car park in question contains Resident Parking Bays in addition to the VETS4PETS bays which presumably are not covered under the same T&Cs.

4.    The Entrance Signs Are Inadequately Positioned / Lit And Signs In This Car Park Are Not Prominent, Clear Or Legible From All Parking Spaces.  Photographic evidence will be supplied as part of the Witness Statement demonstrating the signage conditions, however in summary this includes:

a.    Damaged Terms and Condition Signage;

b.    Poor Signage At Site Entry;

c.     Misleading Space Marking Within Car Park;

d.    Poor Signage Styling.

5.    It is put forward to the courts that the 5 minutes allegedly parked was insufficient time to accept the T&Cs based on the above points and that therefore the contract was not formed and Parking did not occur.

 

6          The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in......... The remainder of the text is as in https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs

Daman1985

Might not be relevant but my POPLA appeal used the following arguments, some of which are in the defence above, but most I have dropped as I assume they don’t apply at court stage? (happy to upload the popla appeal if it would prove useful? Its 23 pages long though with lots of pictures!)

 

1. Grace Period: BPA Code Of Practice – Non-Compliance

2. The Entrance Signs Are Inadequately Positioned / Lit And Signs In This Car Park Are Not Prominent, Clear Or Legible From All Parking Spaces And There Is Insufficient Notice Of The Sum Of The Parking Charge Itself

    2.2 Damaged Terms and Condition Signage

    2.3 Poor Signage At Site Entry

    2.4 Misleading Space Marking Within Car Park

   2.5 Poor Signage Styling

3. The Operator Has Not Shown That The Individual Who It Is Pursuing Is In Fact The Driver Who Was Liable For The Charge

4. No Evidence Of Landowner Authority - The Operator Is Put To Strict Proof Of Full Compliance With The BPA Code Of Practice (NOTE They supplied this to POPLA)

5. No Evidence Of Period Parked – NTK Does Not Meet POFA 2012 Requirements

6. Vehicle Images Contained In Pcn: Bpa Code Of Practice – Non-Compliance

7. The ANPR System Is Neither Reliable Nor Accurate

8. The Signs Fail To Transparently Warn Drivers Of What The ANPR Data Will Be Used For.

beamerguy

I am a little worried about the stuff that comes after “my story”, theres a lot of legal wording in the template that I don’t really understand, I know it used to be a more simply “abuse of process” one liner which I understood, but this new version is well over my head! Am I expected to understand this stuff if it goes to court?

What points don't you understand.  BWLegal still practice abuse of process with fake add-ons they cannot explain apart from rubbish.
Signage and contracts are important. As their fake add-on still applies which is double recovery and in turn is abuse of process because they are abusing the courts.
So you still apply this so a judge is aware and whilst the judge may not strike a case out for abuse of process, he has many other reasons to dismiss the case and we are seeing a lot of that now.

You have probably read about the appeal by BWLegal in Salisbury which it seems BWL think it's a golden card for them.   In reality it is meaningless 

Ask your questions and learn

Coupon-mad

The consideration period in the BPA CoP is (an utterly anti-consumer and complete scam amendment), minimum five minutes, since Jan this year.    Was the parking event in 2020?  Then 5 minutes is the minimum time but a Judge will see right through that as wholly unworkable if you argue it well.

I suspect the BPA did that change now, cynically timed so they could bring to the table of the Government's proposed PAS232 (statutory new code of practice) a terrible consideration period that disappears when people stay, so that they could pretend that a consideration period and a grace period cannot both exist together (despite Kelvin Reynolds saying they are separate and both apply!).  

Don't call the CoP 'guidance'.  It is not guidance, it is a Code of Practice and much of it is mandatory, without which the PPCs could not get DVLA data.  Your defence facts look good, otherwise.

No need to show us the whole POPLA appeal but show us some photos of the signs and the landowner authority that PP supplied, assuming you kept a screenshot of their evidence pack?  If not, ask POPLA by email for the evidence pack from the operator, under your SAR rights.

Redx

The parking event was 2019 so the previous BPA CoP applied with clause 13 being more generous , so clause 13 of the 2018 BPA CoP should have meant a win for you at Popla , so I am surprised that it failed

Coupon-mad

It is odd that you lost at POPLA if the allegation is based on 5 minutes, unless PP showed photos of you dropping off a passenger and they decided (using their PPC-fed policy...) that a consideration period is only for reading the signs and not for dropping someone off.

Daman1985

beamerguy said:

What points don't you understand.  BWLegal still practice abuse of process with fake add-ons they cannot explain apart from rubbish.

Thank you, i understand the gist of the arguments presented by this new template, but theres a lot of referencing out and the like, so im not convinced i could talk around those points myself very well at the moment. if fully understanding it is needed then i will get my learning cap on and do some revision, i just wasn't sure if the judge would expect me to fully understand everything ive wrote!

Coupon-mad said:

No nee to show us the whole POPLA appeal but show us some photos of the signs and the landowner authority that PP supplied, assuming you kept a screenshot of their evidence pack?  If not, ask POPLA by email for the evidence pack from the operator, under your SAR rights.

Yea, i still have all the various POPLA stuff, ill post some images / documents up once i work out where the best place to host them is!

Redx said:

The parking event was 2019 so the previous BPA CoP applied with clause 13 being more generous , so clause 13 of the 2018 BPA CoP should have meant a win for you at Popla , so I am surprised that it failed

i think the POPLA assessor got confused between his various cases, at one point the assessor states "In addition, as the appellant’s vehicle has remained within in the car park for a duration of 24 minutes. I consider it reasonable for the purposes of section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice that this could be considered as parking at the site." (the assessor was using the correct 5 minutes everywhere else in the response). i did email POPLA about that, but they just doubled down saying it was just a typo....

Coupon-mad said:

It is odd that you lost at POPLA if the allegation is based on 5 minutes, unless PP showed photos of you dropping off a passenger and they decided (using their PPC-fed policy...) that a consideration period is only for reading the signs and not for dropping someone off.

Nope, definitely not, only of the car entering and existing the car park, there wasnt anyone else in the car! they did argue in the POPLA appeal that the 5 minutes grace was fair as parking is not permitted at the site unless you are a Vet visitor

Coupon-mad

Nope, definitely not, only of the car entering and existing the car park, there wasnt anyone else in the car! they did argue in the POPLA appeal that the 5 minutes grace was fair as parking is not permitted at the site unless you are a Vet visitor.

But other people can only learn about that term if you are given sufficient time to read the signs and leave, as you did!

Daman1985

Coupon-mad said:

But other people can only learn about that term if you are given sufficient time to read the signs and leave, as you did!

Indeed, i do wonder if its the small size of the car park that tipped POPLAs hand on this one, it is tiny, but given its position its really not obvious its for the Vets until after you have got out of the car.



I have uploaded the various pictures i have onto drop box.
The images i took (August 2019) are in the following PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t7nwompp6zj6ew9/POPLA%20Appeal%20Photo%20taken%20by%20me%20Aug%202019.pdf?dl=0
The images Premier park supplied are in this one:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjc6bk6r8da1hzh/2019%2009%2011%20-%20POPLA%20Appeal%20-%20response%20from%20parking%20company%20-%20VETS4PETS%20SIGNAGE%20GDPR%20%28262%29.pdf?dl=0

What slightly amuses me is the fact their own photos in 2018 start showing the damage to the signs!

nosferatu1001

Is there an existing thread? If so ask a board guide to merge. One case one thread

Daman1985

nosferatu1001 said:

Is there an existing thread? If so ask a board guide to merge. One case one thread

No, this is the only thread for this issue. i didn't want to start asking questions until i hit a point where i was getting in over my head (and to be honest i thought POPLA would go my way without help, my mistake!)