UKCPM & Gladstones - County Court Defence

kimaru

1505grandad said:

" BPA Code of Practice 13.1"  -  UKCPM are IPC AoS members

Thank you, missed that.
From IPC Code of Practice:
“Grace Period” means a 10 minute period at the end of a Permitted Period of Parking;
Therefore, it wouldn't apply to non permit holders.
And I can't find anything that mentions a period of time the driver is given to read the terms of the contract.

kimaru

DW190 said:

Le_Kirk said:

If the photos are from ANPR they will not show anybody in the car

Photos uploaded by the op appear to have been taken manually from the rear of the vehicle a couple of minutes apart.
But surely if they are claiming "Not displaying a valid permit" they would need clear photos of the front windscreen dashboard.

That's what I was thinking. The keeper doesn't have a valid permit but the driver at the time may have?

kimaru

Firstly I'd just like to thank @Fruitcake for suggesting that I still submit a SAR. You might have just saved my defence.
The SAR revealed that they do in fact have pictures showing that the driver wasn't in the car and that there is no permit on the front windscreen.

• Now I can see that the total duration between the two photos is  2 minutes and 18 seconds.  Can I build a defence around this short period of time?

• I also still think that they failed to mention a period of time on the NTK, and therefore failed to comply with FOPA. Since the timestamps on the two photos on the NTK is impossible to decipher. Thoughts on this too?

• What about the fact that there isn't a clear marked bay where the vehicle is parked?

I'd really appreciate some advice on building a strong defence.

Here are all the photos from the SAR:

Umkomaas

You could draw comparisons with the observation time required to have expired before the issue of a parking notice in local authority parking cases.  But it's not a showstopper for you. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions

While you're here, I just wonder whether you wouldn't mind having a read about the disturbing case of an elderly lady, emotionally battered, bruised and shaken at the hands of a PPC in the small claims court. 

We ask for nothing for our voluntary work here in helping for free. But, just for a short while, can we ask you please to go to this link and read there Lyn Reeves' (@Coupon-Mad here) account of a very disturbing case involving a private parking ticket that has turned very nasty. If you can help in even the smallest way, that would be so much appreciated.  If you're able to spread the message via social media, that too would be wonderful.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/much-ado-about-nothing-urgent-help-for-norma?utm_campaign=p_cp_url&utm_medium=os&utm_source=customer

kimaru

Umkomaas said:

You could draw comparisons with the observation time required to have expired before the issue of a parking notice in local authority parking cases.  But it's not a showstopper for you. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions

I've had a look on the guidance and it seems the 10 minute grace period doesn't apply to permit only parking. 

Although I found a county guidance document on the government website requires a 5 minute observation period before issuing a parking charge in the case of permit only parking. This is not for the county where the ticket was issue though.


Any other ideas?

* The Norma W case is extremely disappointing and makes it clear that these parking pirate companies need to be stopped. There's got to be a way to connect legal trainees with cases such as these, which would benefit both parties. Legal trainees get experience in the court and provide adequate legal defence for the defendants.

Umkomaas

My understanding (but I'm not hugely au fait with council parking issues) is that a 5 minute observation period is a minimum in all cases. I'd use it in your Defence. If it falls on deaf ears with the Judge, you're not going to be deported to the Antipodes for referencing it. 

Coupon-mad

You do need to be allowed sufficient time to learn of the terms and that may have included enquiring with the premises/resident as to how to get the permit the signs vaguely mention. That would have taken more than 3 or 4 minutes.

kimaru

Coupon-mad said:

You do need to be allowed sufficient time to learn of the terms and that may have included enquiring with the premises/resident as to how to get the permit the signs vaguely mention. That would have taken more than 3 or 4 minutes.

Umkomaas said:

My understanding (but I'm not hugely au fait with council parking issues) is that a 5 minute observation period is a minimum in all cases. I'd use it in your Defence. If it falls on deaf ears with the Judge, you're not going to be deported to the Antipodes for referencing it. 

Thank you, I've modified my defence and here's the final result:

1. - The claimant has stated that under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they have the right to recover the unpaid amount from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the claimant has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Under the conditions that have to be met for the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (Paragraph 4), Paragraph 7(2)(f) states that the notice to the keeper must 'specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.' The claimant has failed to specify the period of parking. The PCN states a time of 13:27, which is not a period of time.

2. - Following a subject access request, the defendant was able to calculate the duration of time that the vehicle was parked via the photo timestamps. The first photo is timestamped at 13:24:24 and the final picture timestamped at 13:26:42. The total duration between the two photos is 2 minutes and 18 seconds which is not sufficient time to learn of the terms; that may have included enquiring with the premises/resident as to how to obtain the permit that the sign vaguely mention.

3. - The photographic evidence of the front of a vehicle windscreen, obtained via the subject access request, does not clearly show that the photo in question is of the defendants vehicle. There are no identifying features in this photo that suggest it is of the defendants vehicle, such as a number plate or vin number.

4. - The photographic evidence provided shows the vehicle situated in an area with no clear marked bays; therefore, it has not been made clear and obvious where the claimant constitutes where drivers are made liable for parking charges.

1505grandad

Just checking:-
Does this relate to originally a NtD  -  left on car?
If so should POFA Para 8 be quoted in para 1?

kimaru

1505grandad said:

Just checking:-
Does this relate to originally a NtD  -  left on car?
If so should POFA Para 8 be quoted in para 1?

There wasn't anything left on the car; I received a NTK in the mail.
I appreciate you checking.