Court Hearing - Premier Parking Logistics

Redx

Be better if you used the legal beagles template , to cover all bases , but you will only get your data , you won't get copies of contracts or signs etc

Head it as a formal SAR under the GDPR , attaching a copy of the claim form , same as everyone else

uksniper

I have used the template from the newbies sticky and adjusted sections 2 & 3 as below;

---------------------

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is admitted that the Defendant was also the driver of the vehicle in question on the material date.

 

3.       The Defendant parked the vehicle in question directly in front of a yellow sign displaying the pay tariffs and a series of terms and conditions. The sign detailed the area was for pay-and-display parking and noted a penalty charge notice would be issued for failure to follow stated terms and conditions. The sign did not detail the value of the penalty charge that would be incurred.

The Defendant purchased a pay-and-display ticket in compliance with the terms and conditions and displayed this on the windshield. The Defendant returned to the vehicle later that evening to find a PCN attached to the vehicle. The PCN was issued 24 minutes after the expiry of the pay-and-display ticket.

The Defendant viewed images taken by the Claimant by following instructions to visit a website on the PCN. The collection of images included one of a white sign which was not observed by the Defendant at the time of parking the vehicle. The white sign included a further set of terms and conditions and inclusion of a specified penalty charge which the Defendant denies agreeing to. The Defendant notes one of the images taken by the Claimant shows the Defendant’s vehicle with six different signboards in the background. The Defendant believes it is unreasonable to have expected users of the pay-and-display to have reviewed all signage when the most prominent sign displayed in yellow is what the Defendant believed to be the terms and conditions of parking.

---------------------

Should I also include the true value of the overstay which would have been 50p in relation to the charge of £100 - an exponential increase of 11900%?

Any other views appreciated.

Thanks

Le_Kirk

They aren't PENALTY charges unless this was a council car park!  Don't mention anything about value or cost of overstay, this argument (same as genuine pre-estimate of loss) was lost with the Beavis case.

Coupon-mad

 and noted a penalty charge notice would be issued for failure to follow stated terms and conditions. The sign did not detail the value of the penalty charge that would be incurred.

Remove the above. There is no way you read that bit because it was hidden in small print and not among the tariffs nor on the machine screen.

Umkomaas

Should I also include the true value of the overstay which would have been 50p in relation to the charge of £100 - an exponential increase of 11900%?

Nope, not even if you get your maths right!  Try 19,900%.  

It's a non-runner whatever!

uksniper

Thank you for your advice, updated below;

---------------------

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is admitted that the Defendant was also the driver of the vehicle in question on the material date.

 

3.       The Defendant parked the vehicle in question directly in front of a yellow sign displaying the pay tariffs and a series of terms and conditions. The sign detailed the area was for pay-and-display parking.

The Defendant purchased a pay-and-display ticket in compliance with the terms and conditions and displayed this on the windshield. The Defendant returned to the vehicle later that evening to find a PCN attached to the vehicle. The PCN was issued 24 minutes after the expiry of the pay-and-display ticket.

The Defendant viewed images taken by the Claimant by following instructions to visit a website on the PCN. The collection of images included one of a white sign which was not observed by the Defendant at the time of parking the vehicle. The white sign included a further set of terms and conditions which the Defendant denies agreeing to. The Defendant notes one of the images taken by the Claimant shows the Defendant’s vehicle with six different signboards in the background. The Defendant believes it is unreasonable to have expected users of the pay-and-display car park to have reviewed multiple differing signs.

---------------------

Any better? - Thanks again for your time to review.

Coupon-mad

Please no Americanisms, this horrible word is as bad a 'parkin g lot' that we see people use too!

and displayed this on the windshield. 

Don't say this; it's doing their job for them and you don't know the ticketer issued it then or synchronised his/her watch with the machine (THEY NEVER DO):

The PCN was issued 24 minutes after the expiry of the pay-and-display ticket.

uksniper

Coupon-mad said:

Please no Americanisms, this horrible word is as bad a 'parkin g lot' that we see people use too!

and displayed this on the windshield. 

Don't say this; it's doing their job for them and you don't know the ticketer issued it then or synchronised his/her watch with the machine (THEY NEVER DO):

The PCN was issued 24 minutes after the expiry of the pay-and-display ticket.

Thanks, I'm near ready to send my defence, just a quick question, section 6 of the template as shown below; am I supposed to change the value of £85 or is that the value specific to the Beavis case (sorry if I'm being stupid!).

-------

6.       Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.

Redx

The latter , it's the figure in the Beavis case , not yours

uksniper

I have had a dispute resolution telephone hearing today in which the judge told me he did not think I had a defence. He also referred to my witness statement as containing a lot of jargon that insinuated I was a barrister when that was clearly not the case and he felt I was trying to cause confusion.

Disheartened by this today as I felt my case had valid points but they were not recognised. =(
I hadn't posted my full WS here and I'm unsure what I can safely post for review?