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

95Rollers

Hi CM, yes they included the Landowner agreement dated 2016 single singed by G.Price and it has no mention of ANPR enforcement anywhere on it and confirms a 15 min (and then some) grace period. Totally contradictory to their RTD where "no grace period applies" and now "11 mins" and BPA guidelines/ signage. 

And yes I  have included GSV images from the date in question (and then a few before/after ones for contrast) to illustrate lack of signs viewable from outside approach on entering and also the fact that the signs frequently move (which they've already proven with the pics they've supplied). I've also got pics of the carpark when full to illustrate you cannot see their signs due to vehicles blocking their view. 

 The signs they show are close ups wirh no context like the arial yellow crosses map which I recall reading a Judge rightfully deemed as inadequate due to the sheer lack of context. 

Fruitcake

Please show us the WS as a dropbox link or similar if possible so we can see the original version, especially the alleged contract.

95Rollers

The Saga continues... I provided nearly 70 pages of WS/ Exhibits nearly a week ago and received a Supplementary Witness statement from DCBL today which reads...
______________________________________________________________________

 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT

I H**** G****, of 95 Arundel Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN13 3EU, state as follows: -

1. I am an Administrator, employed by One Parking Solution Ltd (“my Company”). I am duly authorised to make this Statement on my Company’s behalf.

2. I make this Supplementary Statement in support of the Claimant’s Claim and in response to the Defence.

3. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless I state otherwise. I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source is identified. Facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

4. Exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 6” are the signs displayed on the Land. The Defendant alleges that they struggled to make payment for the parking period as the machine did not process the payment. In the event of this, displayed next to the payment machine is a sign outlining alternative 1 ways to make payment, being a Call to Pay service or using the JustPark app. The Defendant failed to pay for parking using one of these methods and therefore it is my Company’s position that the PCN was issued correctly.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement 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 H**** G**** on behalf of the Claimant - 22/11/2021
______________________________________________________________________

I'll draught up a response to this in the next few days. Strangely I did repeatedly mention in my WS that "I could not get a signal" and access Just-Park so is he "assuming" I just couldn't access it via the net just like he assumed I "parked" and "remained on site" the duration of the first and last times on the 2 ANPR photos supplied?!?

 Anyhow I will draught a response that focuses more on this and the Consumer Rights Act regarding the fact that there is no alternative ways to pay that don't involve having access to a mobile phone or any other written contingencies in place (as I mentioned in my WS) other than vacating the site which I did.  Even if I could pay for a ticket they'd have still stuck me on due to being double dipped and being on site for more than their hidden and fluid grace periods if I hadn't been double dipped by the ANPR which they've failed to check and disclose.

Coupon-mad

Don't respond.

Not much will pee off a Judge more than parties playing WS tennis, trying to get the last word. 

This has added nothing new or worth replying to.  You can cover all this at the hearing.  Write yourself bullet point notes.

nicestrawb

Poor Arry, he does everything there! I was considering sending him an invoice at some point actually...

95Rollers

nicestrawb said:

Poor Arry, he does everything there! I was considering sending him an invoice at some point actually...

According to online reviews he's apprently quite rude! Although I found him polite in emails despite refusing to disclose my data aka evidence that would blow their claim out of the water and ignoring parts of my questions because he obviously knows what I want them for! Oh well he's the one who has put his name on that rag of a statement where he does his own legs by saying I was PCN'd for not buying a ticket within 11 minutes when the contract he supplied from one of "His Company's" most contentious carparks says 15 minutes - which a DCBL employee says there is no grace period which she also signed off as being True without reservation!  Which is it Harry and which is a lie mate and which of you is lying and misleading the court?  I'm not impressed after having nearly 3 years of my life wasted and will be pushing this further!

95Rollers

UPDATE...

The case still on track for next month. I rang the court this morning. The court said OPS paid the hearing fee a week before deadline so I imagine they will be representing themselves as they've done so in other recent cases. I've heard zilch from DCBL who were usually quite on it.

I think I've done most of what I can do in the meantime in my WS and SAR where a certain piece of key evidence was refused to me. I wonder if its worth putting in a new Supplementary WS highlighting the new changes in law? 

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

UPDATE...



I think I've done most of what I can do in the meantime in my WS and SAR where a certain piece of key evidence was refused to me. I wonder if its worth putting in a new Supplementary WS highlighting the new changes in law? 

Hopefully the judges now know that government has banned the fake charges but it is worth highlighting it, pointing out the BPA code of practice has no legal authority to apply the fakes
Be it debt recovery charges or damages as DCBL like to claim ..... IT'S ALL BANNED

Fruitcake

Whilst the new government mandated CoP won't be law until next year, the BPA told its members only yesterday in no uncertain  terms that they should start implementing the forthcoming changes now.

You should weave whatever changes in CoP help you into your WS along with the statement from the BPA, citing the government's repeated comments that this is "best practice." That being the case, it is unreasonable to use the current practice but to implement best practice as required by the BPA.

95Rollers

I would like to think that a memo has cascaded down to all local courts. Allowing them to get on with what they signed up do (family law, consumer rights issues etc).  With the new rulings this PCN would not be allowed in the first place.  So cases such as this would unlikely result as court claim as I know they like using the courts as "a tool to make people pay".

OPS/ DCBL rubbish my defence as "Meritless" and rubbished my commenting of the fees being disproportionate and unfair. But the Government say differently as the big survey in which motorists agreed - and the only "motorists" who disagreed were found out to be fraudulent entries from the IP addresses of parking companies themselves.