DCBL/ I Park court papers

Jenni_D

In which case use it to your advantage. It absolutely shows that the Claimant('s legal) has used a template WS and puts a lie to their statement of truth.  

Make sure though that the relevant IPC CoP clause doesn't hurt you though.

1505grandad

When the parking event happened perhaps the ppc was BPA AoS members?

Alanthebear

Thanks all.
Wrote to MP a while back but no reply. Might send another copy but it'll be too late.
Parking was early 2020 so I have the relevant CoP and they were always IPC members. Both CoPs are largely similar and I've already referenced the IPC CoP so it'll be nice to show how little effort they've put in. 
They've also included a diagram showing signage locations but conveniently not included a whole section of car park with no signage so I'll reference that too

Coupon-mad

I think this is all great stuff to just attack on the day!

Also use the new announcement that debt recovery 'fees' were unable to be evidenced as necessary (or even incurred at all, in no-win-no-fee third party chaser letter cases) so the Government has BANNED them under the new Code of Practice designed to curb the worst excesses and rogue practice.

Alanthebear

Hi all, still have lots of referencing/ tidying etc to do but could anyone cast their eye over my witness statement so far. Need to elaborate on abuse of process and introduce evidence. 

Does anyone know of any case studies relating to De minimis or consideration/ grace periods? Struggling to find anything recent  relevant to my case.

thanks

Sequence of Events, observations and signage

1.       The Defendant first heard about the so called ‘parking charge’ some months after the event. The Defendant had been working and lodging in Scotland whilst maintaining a house in England. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic (lockdown and vulnerable family in the England home) was unable to return to their address in England. The Claimant refused to acknowledge the unusual and unprecedented circumstances and insisted on adding additional ‘charges’ to the so-called ‘debt’.

 

2.       The Defendant requested that further communication be sent to their address in Scotland as they had elderly/ infirm family members at their England address. Despite this the Claimant and their debt collectors continued to send correspondence to the England address. This forced these family members to have to open and read their mail and give them unnecessary stress during an already worrisome time. This, the Defendant maintains, amounts to unnecessary harassment.

 

3.       On and around the date in question multiple members of the Defendants family had access to and used the vehicle in question. Due to the amount of time elapsed it is unreasonable to expect someone to recollect precisely who was driving on this occasion. Without being able to confirm for definite the Defendant, as the keeper, has merely sought to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, why this could not have been a parking event.

 

 

4.       The approach and entrance to the car park is on a one-way road with double yellow lines. This is a busy road servicing the town centre where stopping is impossible both due to the double yellow lines and traffic. The only safe way to stop and view the car park terms and conditions is by entering.

 

5.       At the point of entry a large sign is visible stating parking tariffs with no mention tickets must be purchased within 10 minutes of entering or a £100 charge. Beyond the car park is another, smaller sign stating terms and conditions can be viewed in the car park but this sign is beyond the entrance on a one-way road. It is not acceptable to expect a motorist to be able to read this before entering. Vehicles stopping in order to read this sign would cause an obstruction to pedestrians using the pavement as well as causing an obstruction to the public highway which is a criminal offence. It has been noticed that the large blue sign has now been removed, suggesting the Claimant is aware of its ambiguity.

 

6.       Signage within the car park references “PARKED VEHICLES MUST display… ticket” but the claimant has provided no proof that the defendant was parked. ANPR footage is of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park but there is no evidence that shows what happened to the vehicle during the 12 minutes between these events.

 

7.       The Defendant asked the Claimant for proof via payment machine records that no payment was provided but the Claimant stated that they did not keep any payment records but relied on computer software linking ANPR footage. The IPC CoP section 14.5 states:

 

“Where CCTV and/or ANPR technology is used appropriate checks must be carried out to ensure Parking Charges are only issued where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a Parking Charge is due before issuing a Postal Notification. Operators must keep a record identifying the individual who completed the quality check. “

 

By relying on computer software (which could contain errors) and not providing quality checks the Claimant cannot be sure that their records are accurate and are not abiding by the CoP.

 

8.       Signage within the car park (not legible from the entrance to the car park or even inside a car due to the size of the font used) states that “By entering or remaining…abide by all of the terms and conditions” therefore the Claimant must give motorists adequate time to read though these terms before they can be deemed as accepted.

 

9.       The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice ((CoP) Version 7 2019 in use at time of event) section 13.1 states that:

 

                “Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land. If a Motorist chooses to reject the opportunity by entering or remaining on the Private Land without reading terms and conditions, they may be deemed to have accepted them immediately.”

 

No specific time limit for consideration periods is given but section 5.1 states that,

 

“Motorists are required to read Terms and Conditions when they enter the Land at the earliest opportunity.”

 

Therefore it is acceptable that motorists must be allowed sufficient time to find and read all site terms and conditions and if after reading, the motorist decides not to enter into a contract, they should be allowed to leave without penalty. No specific time limit should be set as what takes one person a few minutes to read may take someone else 10 minutes or more. Having only 10 minutes to enter the car park, park and exit car, read terms and conditions, return to car then leave may indeed breach the Equality act 2010 as it may discriminate against disabled people who need more time.

 

 

10.   It is understandable that leaving the car park may take a period of time in itself. Returning to the vehicle after reading terms and conditions, manoeuvring to the exit around other moving vehicles and pedestrians and leaving the car park using the only entrance/ exit onto the busy town centre street can easily take several minutes, all of which should be taken into account when assessing ANPR footage and determining what is reasonable. 

 

11.   PHOTO shows the terrible state of the ground surface at the car park with numerous large potholes. It is reasonable to expect a motorist to have to manoeuvre slowly/ carefully around the car park so as to avoid damaging their vehicle.

 

12.   There are 2 ticket machines in the car park yet these only take coins and do not allow for payment by card or using banknotes. If someone was not prepared for this the only alternative is to pay online providing they had internet access and adequate signal. The Claimant does not provide WIFI in order to assist with online payments and the area has notoriously bad internet signal so it is entirely probable that this wasn’t possible.

 

13.   It is argued that this claim is an example of the principle of De minimis, whereby the alleged overstay beyond the initial consideration period of 2 minutes and 7 seconds is a trivial amount and insufficient to warrant legal action.

 

 

14.   The Defendant refers the court to BEAVIS PHOTO in comparison to signage at this car park (EXHIBIT). It is obvious that the Beavis sign is much easier to read with less wordage and larger fonts in the main. There is much more text in very small print in the Claimant’s signage.

 

 

15.   IPC CoP Shedule 1 – Signage, Contrast and Illumination states that signage should be illuminated yet PHOTO shows no lit signage, ambient lighting or reflective signage materials. Additionally signage is placed at a head height and is only placed on the outer perimeter of the car par so reliance on vehicle headlights to illuminate means vehicles not parked directly facing these signs will not enable the Motorist to read them in dark/ low light conditions. From viewing the ANPR footage (EVIDENCE) it is apparent that on the date in question it was dull and raining. This may have impeded signage visibility.

 

 

16.   The Claimant takes offence at the Defendant seeking assistance on this claim and using a ‘templated defence’ yet throughout correspondence received the Claimant and their debt recovery agents have sent numerous template letters of their own.

 

17.   The Claimant references the BPA Code of Practice yet the Claimant is not and has never been accredited to the BPA. It is the Defendants position that the Claimant has either used a template when compiling their witness statement or has provided a false statement to the Court.

 

Landowner Authority

 

18.   The Claimant is held to strict proof of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner to the Claimant. The Claimant has provided no such proof. The evidence that the Claimant relies on refers to company I PARK SMARK LTD, signed by managing director Bill Ideson, conveniently also the managing director of I PARK SERVICES LTD. The Claimant is asserting that this company is the landowner yet according to the HM Land Registry the legal landowner of this site is in fact Energy Coast West Cumbria Properties ltd t/a BEC (EVIDENC£) therefore insufficient proof has been given of any contract or right to pursue. It is the Defendants opinion that the ‘landowner agreement’ evidenced by the Claimant is a falsity and alludes to the Claimant having legal powers that they do not. The network of contracts is critical as the parking charge being sought is contractual and authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

 

Abuse of Process – the quantum

 

19.   The Claimant maintains that the extra £60 being claimed is a ‘contractual cost’ and such is allowed however I draw the Courts attention to Excel vs Wilkinson [2020]where the claim was struck out as abuse of process.

 

20.   In the Alternative the Claimant asserts the right to chase the Defendant as vehicle keeper yet POFA… only allows for keeper liability for costs stated on the ‘notice to keeper’, thus capping costs at £100 and disallowing the additional £60 charge.

 

21.   It should be noted that the Governments new Statutory Code of Practice set to come into force next year will introduce a cap of £50 on private parking charges and will ban additional ‘debt-recovery’ charges. Although not yet in effect, this highlights the unfairness and predatory nature of the charges being sought today.

Le_Kirk

If that is a witness statement it can/should be written in first person (unlike a defence) so you use "I", "me" & "my" etc.  There will be no case studies around de minimis it is a Latin term (de minimis non curat lex) and means the law does not concern itself with trifles.  A judge will understand.  When you write about the car park and its situation as a non-driver defence you should state "subsequent research carried out after receiving the PCN/NTK/court papers (by you or someone on your behalf) has shown that the approach and entrance ............."

Coupon-mad

That final paragraph isn't strong enough.  The DLUHC has stated that DRA 'fees' are banned because there is no evidence they are necessary nor incurred.  That sends a clear message to the courts NOW and ends the debate about the added false costs once and for all.

Is this a POFA notice to keeper case?  How long was the driver shown on site altogether?

Alanthebear

OK I'll amend the last part.

I'm pretty sure it's pofa compliant, ntk was sent but missed due to me working away and my parents not opening my mail. 
Anpr footage shows 12 minutes 7 seconds between entering and leaving with no way of knowing about the 10 minutes to pay until someome drives in and stops.

Jenni_D

You need to look at the NTK and read it ... POFA is not only just about timescales.

Coupon-mad

@bargepole wrote a paragraph which slits into the template defence nicely as #6.