OPS - Vantage Point

ParkingMad

I don't know if this is worth including?

Frustration of Contract was mentioned during a Parliamentary debate on the Parking Code of Practice:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with my frustration—I have had lots of cases in Worthing—that people legitimately try to pay at the machines and the machines do not work? They try and ring a number, and that does not work and it is so complicated. Or they have to download an app. The average resident of Worthing does not have apps. If the equipment does not work, there should be no basis on which the charge should go through. Does he agree that there should be a system like that?

Sir Greg Knight
If there are a number of payment machines and one of them is not working, that is not an excuse, but if there is only one machine or all the machines are out of order, that ought to be a perfect defence. The company operating the car park has in effect invited the motorist on to the car park to park the car on payment of a fee, and if it is not going to facilitate payment, it should not be able to extract a penalty. Rip-offs from car park cowboys must stop. Most parking operators have nothing to fear from the Bill, but we must stop unscrupulous operators who are undermining the whole sector with their bad practices.

Coupon-mad

#6 and 7 make no sense, particularly 7 if you read it! Get rid of them and the heading above them. 

I think I’d add where you say you are familiar with the car park, that you have never seen a sign prominently displayed anywhere on site that drew your attention to any £100 charge.  This was an absolute shock and you should state that.  Not just at the machine pictured but on the lower floor by that machine as well, the only info is what is on the machine. Therefore there was never an agreed contract to pay any sum by way of a secondary contract, unlike in the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case where the signs were brief, prominent and plentiful, including at the entrance.

Then add an exhibit showing the Google Street View images of the entrance in the year before you parked there and another one from the same year.  Spot the difference!

I’ve done this before for Vantage Point to win a POPLA appeal and I know there are yearly images and I also know they removed a sign on the left just inside, on the wall.  Show the Judge that 2 small signs went down to one, so no wonder you never knew about the £100 ‘penalty’ clause - and then add an exhibit of the mandatory entrance signs Appendix from the BPA CoP version from the right year.  Point out that the little remaining entrance sign neither faces incoming cars approaching from the road and nor does the text size meet the entrance sign requirements if the BPA.

95Rollers

In regards to what Coupon has said. I looked at the Google Earth images already.  There are big inconsistencies between the 3 most recent images/ 360 Streetviews - which are Oct 2020, March 2019 and July 2018 - especially with the image of the open air P&D machine - on one of these dates there are no signs at all present.

Plus the stock images they sent in their pack have many inconsistencies too - they send one picture of the open air paying machine that has one sign to the left and nothing on the right hand side.  Then there is another picture with the previously missing sign on the right hand side of this Machine as well as the sign on the left.  All the images sent in the pack which are time stamped are from May 2019 which in my case isn't relevant to the material date as my PCN was issued way before that!  Plus other images they provided are undated - so could be from anytime.  The Devil Is In The Detail!

Coupon-mad

Point all that out in your WS and attach the evidence. 

95Rollers

Coupon-mad said:

Point all that out in your WS and attach the evidence.

In my case I'm not a Brightonian (I don't know if you are Fishsoup? Its irrelevant anyway as I'm not familiar with every filthy back street carpark in my city!!! So why should you be!?).  When I got stitched up I wasn't initially aware that OPS had another carpark underneath as I approached from the main road so probably didn't see it.  It was only when viewing Google Earth after my PCN that I became aware of its existence (not that I'd ever of considered using a dive like that in a million years!). There is no sign on the front of either carpark with the companies name and that carpark says Elmer Place and there is no connecting parts so it's technically a seperate carpark so it so how could you assume it was controlled by the same firm or the tickets from Elmer Place machine would be valid for Vantage Point!? It's not like an NCP carpark which has clear signage on the outside entrances. Not that this is all particularly relevant to my situation, buy maybe useful Points of yours?

ParkingMad

Are both levels of Vantage Point separate, each with their own entrance?

Lower level in Elder Place 

Upper level in New England Street

fishsoup

Thanks all...

final tweaks, not seen their WS. Would appreciate any comments

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bwwekphfhg5vnas/ls_ws_template redacted v2.docx?dl=0


I don't have anymore time to spend on this...

KeithP

Instead of a link in para 11, you should perhaps have an exhibit of the relevant page from the Companies House website.

95Rollers

ParkingMad said:

Are both levels of Vantage Point separate, each with their own entrance?

Lower level in Elder Place 

Upper level in New England Street

Yes.  They are seperate to each other.  They do not lead to each other. You cannot drive from one to another without leaving each carparks single exit and driving back onto the street. The underground Elder Place carpark level isn't visible from New England St. I'm not sure if they are linked by a stairwell - there certainly wasn't any signage to suggest as such.  No doubt if someone bought an Elder Place machine ticket it would probably have that address on it so they'd probably issue a PCN for "invalid/ incorrect ticket" anyway.

Again as you can see there are no forward facing signs on entrance or any elevated pole signs in the carpark itself or along any of the perimeter fence despite their being ample room for it.

fishsoup

the last thing I wanted to add is this 

I would also like to highlight the continual problems that this car park has had in relation to PCN’s being issued unfairly due to there being poor signage, a machine that isn’t working as well a poor reception area to be able to use the app option. The Claimant has failed to address any of these longstanding issues. The Claimant is using these problems to benefit themselves by intimidating drivers in to paying excessive amounts.

 Is this acceptable?