WON - Case Dismissed by DDJ! One Parking Solution Vantage Point Brighton - £95 Costs Awarded!

nicestrawb

Although she's recently changed her name to "Harry" and is a little behind on her workload thanks to people like me keeping her busy for no real reason. I've been waiting 2 weeks already...

95Rollers

It's a shame they haven't got a website with a public statement or put up their own notice on the wall there.  

Another thing which irked me was that OPS have been rapped in court and fined for abuse of their process with their "damages" add-ons - yer are still doing this despite Judges ruling it unlawful for them and other PPCs. 

 I just hope the judge has common sense like many of the previous ones.  This crap isn't good for one's mental health on top of the lockdown and I'm not even a vulnerable person like poor,  disabled, carers/ key workers or elderly ones they punished during the pandemic!

nicestrawb

OPS have no interest in complying with anything. The more ambiguous  and misleading things are the better as far as they're concerned, as they will be able to entrap more people. They've done more than get rapped in court.... Hence why I went after them myself and made it very much not worth their while. The best advice I can give is listen to the people on here, create a coherent defence which concentrates on the relevant points and go after them, don't be reactive.

Coupon-mad

Another thing which irked me was that OPS have been rapped in court and fined for abuse of their process with their "damages" add-ons - yer are still doing this despite Judges ruling it unlawful for them and other PPCs

No, they haven't.  In fact a recent appeal decision went the wrong way.

nicestrawb

Coupon raises another good point here in that being accurate and correct is just as important. I don't believe they were fined. The directors were fined a few years back in relation to another matter with another company. I'm interested in the abuse of process though coupon, is that in relation to the £60?

Coupon-mad

Yep, case not yet over but...

ParkingMad

Here is a link to the Excel v Wilkinson judgment by DJ Jackson, explaining why adding £60 to the claim is an abuse of process.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

95Rollers

ParkingMad said:

Here is a link to the Excel v Wilkinson judgment by DJ Jackson, explaining why adding £60 to the claim is an abuse of process.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Thanks for this. I will include this. Still waiting for my SAR from DBC Legal and also a court hearing date. Thanks again people

95Rollers

This one has been fairly quiet  but has finally gained some traction. A month ago my Local Court asked the DCBL acting for claimant for a response to my initial rushed weak defence.  I have now been assigned a court date early 2022 which will cost me a day off work (12 hour shift).   THe WS needs serving within  the next few weeks (I started it ages ago and constantly adding- I'll be serving it close to deadline ws possible). Anyhow here is there response which I've already scrutinze with various irrelevant photographs. But I'm sharing in case it's useful to anyone else or in case you spot something I haven't during my deconstruction. 😉

 REPLY TO DEFENCE

1. The Claimant is a Company offering private car park management services to landowners; primarily to manage the way in which motorists are permitted to park whilst on their private land. The Claimant’s services include issuing parking charge notices to any vehicle parked in a way the private landowner does not permit.

2. The Defendant is the recipient of a parking charge notice (“PCN”) issued by the Claimant, the details of which are set out below: -

Xxxxx  PCN DETAILS xxxx

3. At the time the PCN was issued the Claimant was prominently displaying signs on the Land stipulating the terms of parking. The signs formed the basis of the contract with the driver of the 

Vehicle (“Contract”). Exhibited to this Reply at “EXHIBIT 1” is a copy of the signs which 

confirmed that:- “Parking is permitted for:

• Vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket in the front windscreen and parked fully within a marked bay. Tickets must be purchased from the Vantage Point Pay & Display ticket machine and have a valid vehicle registration printed on the Pay & Display ticket. Tickets are non transferable.

And/or

• Vehicles with a valid parking session in place, that has been purchased via the JustPark 

App/Telephone/Text system for Vantage Point”.

4. In parking the Vehicle on the Land, the driver accepted the Contract, with the ‘parking service’ being  the consideration. The Contract provides that a charge is payable by the driver if it is breached; with payment falling due within 28 days. Pursuant to the Contract, the driver was liable to pay the Charge within 28 days.

5. Exhibited at “EXHIBIT 2” are photographs taken of the Vehicle, showing that the Vehicle entered 

the Land at **** and exited the Land at ****.) Hrs.

6. In order to issue the Charge, the Claimant applied to the DVLA for details of the Registered Keeper  of the Vehicle. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”), the  Claimant has a right to recover from the ‘Keeper’. Within POFA it is clarified that the Registered Keeper is presumed to be the ‘Keeper’ unless proven otherwise. 

7. The Defendant was identified by the DVLA as the Registered Keeper and therefore is presumed to be 

the ‘Keeper’. A Notice to Keeper was therefore sent to the Defendant at the address provided by the DVLA. A copy is exhibited at “EXHIBIT 3”.

8. Upon receipt of the PCN, the Defendant had the option to nominate a driver (if it was not them), or they were afforded a 28-day period in which they could appeal. A driver was not nominated and there was no successful appeal.

THE DEFENCE

9. It is accepted that the Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle.

10. It is denied that not enough information has been provided to the Defendant to allow them to file a Defence.

11. It is denied that the Claim is unfair or disproportionate.

12. It is accepted that the Defendant visited the Land on the date the Charge was issued.

13. The Defendant’s reasons for parking on the Land are accepted. However, the Defendant was not 

authorised to park on the Land in breach of the Terms.

14. It cannot be accepted or denied if all of the spaces were unavailable.

15. It cannot be accepted or denied if the Defendant had difficulty making payment for parking on the 

Land.

16. The Helpline for my Company was displayed on the signs at “EXHIBIT 1”.

17. The Vehicle remained on the Land for 23 minutes. It is denied that a grace period applied.

18. It cannot be accepted or denied if the Vehicle was not causing an obstruction. In any event, it is irrelevant as the Vehicle was parked on the Land without payment. 

19. It is accepted that the Defendant exited the Land and sought alternative parking. 

20. It cannot be accepted or denied if the Defendant found the letters sent by the debt recovery agency distressing.

21. It is denied that the Charge is not an enforceable debt.

22. I am unable to make comment on the Defendant’s opinion of the Claimant. The Claimant is pursuing, 

in what their opinion is, a legally owed debt.

23. The Claimant is not claiming trespass. 

24. For the reasons outlined in this Reply to Defence, the Defendant remains liable for the Charge as;

i. They were the Driver of the Vehicle;

ii. They breached the Terms of parking on the Land;

iii. A Notice to Keeper was issued to them;

iv. The Charge has not been successfully appealed; and

v. The Charge remains due and owing.

25. For the reasons set out above, the Defendant remains liable.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Reply to Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:

Shaunagh Patterson

Senior Litigator
_____________________________

It looks like Shaunagh who works for dcbl has rehashed one of OPS WS and plagiarised it as her own work. Because she has signed off this document as being true I which she states OPS is "my company" and all those empty carpark pics and sign close ups have irrelevant dates on them.

Coupon-mad

 It is denied that a grace period applied.

Really?  But the landowners if this grubby car park say there is at least 15 minutes always allowed (i.e. even when the machines and app are working!).

Just to remind new readers -  NEVER drive into Vantage Point car park, just go elsewhere as it is fair to conclude it is operated as an entrapment zone, going by all reports and bad reviews for years.

Horrific, dark, badly signed and unwelcoming place to park and IMHO it's just not necessary to use it when parking in Brighton.   No idea why the landowner contracted with the local pariah because it surely continues to lose them future business, as people must be boycotting this grotty place.