Urgent help needed - County Court Claim - First Parking / DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

Regarding POFA, it appears that they have NOT complied therefore could it be more efficient to solely argue this point and have the case thrown out?

Only if the keeper wasn't driving and is also confident enough to walk a Judge through the POFA.

F1rst do meet the POFA these days but didn't used to use the wording in their NTKs a couple of years ago.  I would not rely on a single point, it won't be 'thrown out'' unless you got a Judge clued up on that niche area of law, and those Judges are rare.

nosferatu1001

A single point defence is foolish. 

AlwaysTrying23

Hi guys,

Please see my defence points below. I’m really not well versed in this area and have a number of personal things happening so may be overlooking the obvious. Really appreciate your continued assistance!

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. 

3.       This PCN relates to a staff car park at a university site. The driver is a contractor who has to deliver items across different sites. 

The driver was dropping computer cables off to the onsite university contractors which would have taken less than 10 minutes. There were no clear and legible terms and conditions, loading bays provided nor safer locations available to temporarily unload. 

First Parking LLP states on their Notice To Keeper that they manage this private land and they have the right to request keeper information from the DVLA. They do not mention written authority to operate and issue parking charge notices on the site from the landowner. I request First Parking LLP provide evidence of their landowner contract showing their authority to issue parking charge notices.  It has to be an up-to-date and signed contract which shows they are lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver/ keeper. I would also like to clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document stating such a contract exists. Without evidence of such, the perceived "contract" between the driver and First Parking LLP is null and void, as in common law a contract can only be formed between the driver and the landowner.

Regarding signage, the sign on the main entrance states it is a permit holder car park and to see signs within for more details around terms and conditions. 

Signs within the car park state it is a STAFF permit holder car park, which is inconsistent with the entrance sign and causes confusion. These signs are small in size and high in location whilst being difficult to read. Even standing directly underneath it, it is difficult to interpret the terms and conditions mentioned.

British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA CoP) - non-compliance to guidelines: The BPA CoP point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered." - The signage displayed in the photographic evidence is not clear and legible. The terms and conditions are totally incomprehensible thus demonstrating the inability for it to be used to legally form a contractual obligation. 

There are no larger clearer signs within the car park, which should be present for disabled drivers to view from inside their car as per clause 18.10 of the BPA CoP. 

In terms of a grace period, a sufficient grace period had not been provided for the driver to have the time to read and understand the signs on site.

The BPA CoP point 13.1 states “your approach to car park management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a Parking Charge Notice.

The BPA CoP goes on to states within point 13.2 “you should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave without taking enforcement action”.

A valid Permit was actually displayed clearly on the passenger side rear window. Signage does not state a particular location for the permit to be affixed. This car park was being used all week so the permit was put somewhere that a) isn’t distracting as the car has a low windscreen and b) can be permanently left there to avoid failure to display. It had been displayed in the same location throughout the week in question  

The intimidating tone of the letters sent shows a clear abuse of power and  beeches elements of the BPA CoP. The absence of detailing the discounted payment period on the NTK proves this and presents the letters in a more threatening and controlling way. Unjustified penalties have been added to the amounts over time to further confuse and manipulate the situation. 

END OF DEFENCE 

A few queries:

The car park requires a button to be pressed on entrance and an operator opens the barrier once you mention the company you are delivering to. No mention of any stipulations. You too need to press a button for the exit barrier to let you out. Is it worth mentioning this?

Also the sign states the car park is enforceable 24/7 but I have confirmation from the uni that it’s only enforceable Mon-Fri 8-6. Does this add to the intimidation aspect?

I Have mailed my Local MP. Should I state this in my defence summary?

At this stage is it worth emailing DCBLegal with the Beamerguy template regarding the unlawful £60 being abuse of power etc...  it can be another thing to show the judge. 

Redx

Far too long , more like a witness statement , needs to be 3 to 5 paragraphs at most and adapting paragraphs 2 & 3 of the template defence by coupon mad , not one of your own

Leave the abuse of process , not power , out , the double recovery etc is already in the defence template , power is incorrect , even if applicable. I doubt that any judge would be interested in the fact that you have complained to your MP , proving intimidation is difficult and adds nothing either

Yes set the scene , concisely , mentioning that button and barrier entry system

If the driver was only loading or unloading , mention Jopson Vs Homeguard

2 is fine , but 3 needs to be concise , the witness statement can be more like the above

nosferatu1001

Is there a reason ytou are not using the rest of the template defence? 

AlwaysTrying23

nosferatu1001 said:

Is there a reason ytou are not using the rest of the template defence? 

My recent posts relate to points 2 and 3 of the defence template. When sending officially I’d be sending the template in its entirety. 

KeithP

AlwaysTrying23 said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Is there a reason ytou are not using the rest of the template defence? 

My recent posts relate to points 2 and 3 of the defence template. When sending officially I’d be sending the template in its entirety. 

It's just that those words END OF DEFENCE in your post could've led people - indeed did lead people - to think otherwise.

Redx

so they should have all been numbered and the end of defence line made clear by saying something like

END OF MY ADAPTED PARAGRAPHS BASED ON 2 & 3 FROM THE COUPON MAD TEMPLATE

either way its still miles too long

AlwaysTrying23

Totally understand apologies for the confusion. I definitely let this run away with me and missed the point of giving a concise snapshot into the events. I’m amending as I type. 

AlwaysTrying23

Regarding my numbering, should I be numbering every paragraph after number 3 independently and so on to the end of the defence template? Or can I include the below un-numbered paragraphs within paragraph 3?

I hope this is now more in line. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.       This PCN relates to a staff car park at a university site. The driver is a contractor who has to deliver items across different sites. 

The driver was dropping documents off to the onsite university contractors which would have taken less than 10 minutes. No loading bays were provided nor safer locations available to temporarily unload at the time. Furthermore no signage stated that ‘loading/unloading’ and ‘stopping at any time’ was prohibited. Reference to the Oxford County Court decision in JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016 where Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats.

The car park had a manned barrier system via intercom that raises the barriers. Access was granted with no objections or stipulations when they were informed the purpose was to deliver top an onsite contractor company.  The same manned barrier allows you to exit.

The use of different terminology from the entrance sign  (stated Permit Holders only) to the internal signage (stated Staff Permit Holders only) was confusing and inconsistent. 

The internal signs were small in size, high in location and the text for the terms and conditions unclear and illegible. No larger signs normally present for disabled users were present, (non-compliance to British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA CoP) 18.10),  

END OF MY ADAPTED PARAGRAPHS BASED ON 2 & 3 FROM THE COUPON MAD TEMPLATE