Estate Parking - Defense clarification

Coupon-mad

Which parking firm and is it a Council tenancy or a Housing Association?

yuriko

Elite Car Parking and its a housing association

This is the signage - not sure if its compliant with the offer/tresspass defence

D_P_Dance

I would say that that sign is far too wordy, read this and complain to your MP

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

Fruitcake

I wonder what the sign says under those stick on strips that look as though they might peel off at any moment due to adverse weather conditions.

I see an IPC logo peeking out of the bottom strip that looks like it might peel off at any moment.

Indeed, the stick on strips look like they are in turn stuck to a much larger stick on strip. Has some trickster played a jolly jape and doctored the original signs?

The full name of the PPC is Elite Car Parking Management Limited by the way.

Coupon-mad

Show us your draft additions to the template defence (only your additional facts please, don’t paste the template defence here in its entirety!).

Umkomaas

Fruitcake said:

I wonder what the sign says under those stick on strips that look as though they might peel off at any moment due to adverse weather conditions.

I see an IPC logo peeking out of the bottom strip that looks like it might peel off at any moment.

Indeed, the stick on strips look like they are in turn stuck to a much larger stick on strip. Has some trickster played a jolly jape and doctored the original signs?

The full name of the PPC is Elite Car Parking Management Limited by the way.

I don't even think that the original sign is that of Elite and the large sticky overlay covers the details of the original PPC. The fact that there is an IPC roundel peeping out (great spot @Fruitcake) and I can't find any record, using the WayBackMachine, of Elite having been an IPC AOS member, partially supports my thinking.  

Not that it helps the OP any at this stage ...... unless there was a different PPC at large there at the time of the parking event. I'd contact the HA and ask which PPC was operating there on the material date - long shot, but who knows?

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

Fruitcake said:

I wonder what the sign says under those stick on strips that look as though they might peel off at any moment due to adverse weather conditions.

I see an IPC logo peeking out of the bottom strip that looks like it might peel off at any moment.

Indeed, the stick on strips look like they are in turn stuck to a much larger stick on strip. Has some trickster played a jolly jape and doctored the original signs?

The full name of the PPC is Elite Car Parking Management Limited by the way.

I don't even think that the original sign is that of Elite and the large sticky overlay covers the details of the original PPC. The fact that there is an IPC roundel peeping out (great spot @Fruitcake) and I can't find any record, using the WayBackMachine, of Elite having been an IPC AOS member, partially supports my thinking.  

Not that it helps the OP any at this stage ...... unless there was a different PPC at large there at the time of the parking event. I'd contact the HA and ask which PPC was operating there on the material date - long shot, but who knows?

I tried the Waybackmachine as well, but came to the conclusion that it would be extremely unlikely for a PPC to have jumped from the IPC to the BPA.

Yes, I believe they were signs from another company that some cheapskate company had doctored by using printed sticky labels. Like I said, I can imagine them peeling off due to adverse weather conditions ... before somebody then took photos.

D_P_Dance

I am a curious sort of person and would be interested to know what is underneath the sticky tape.  Would it be criminal damage for me to carefully remove it and then attempt, unsuccessfully, t remove replace it?  

yuriko

Here is my defence (the rest is the template) - please let me know if I should add any further details:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

2.1 It is admitted that on the material date, the Defendant's vehicle was parked at the location stated.

2.2 The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver.

2.2.1 The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the 'POFA').

2.3 Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA, a private parking operator must demonstrate that:

2.3.1. there was a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' formed with the driver, and

2.3.2. there was 'adequate notice' of the terms and the parking charge itself, on prominent signs in large lettering displayed clearly at the place where the car was parked, and at the entrance, and

2.3.3. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

2.4 It is denied that any "parking charges, damages or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed. The alleged debt is denied in its entirety.

2.5 It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely putting up parking signs and issuing letters on behalf of the true landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

2.5.1. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts, specifically by offering parking to non-permit holders at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

3. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate and no consideration flowed between the driver and the Claimant.

3.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

3.1.2. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the driver, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ

The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Driver.

3.2.1. The above point was tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that: ''All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.''

3.3. Even if the Court finds that a non-permit holder should have seen a sign and was a trespasser, this is a matter of tort whereby (as confirmed in the Beavis case and also by the 2012 Guidance Notes relating to Section 56/Schedule 4 of the POFA) only the landowner themselves would be potentially able to pursue damages. In Beavis, this was because ParkingEye Ltd were not in possession and thus unable to pursue damages, one of the same difficulties this Claimant faces, yet they lack the 'legitimate interest/commercial justification'reasoning that disengaged the penalty rule for ParkingEye, given the unusual and case-specific facts in the Beavis case.

4. This operation at this location is predatory, with inadequate signage designed not to be seen and with parking notices issued after the hours of midnight, in order to penalise unsuspecting drivers rather than offer a clear contract to park at a price. The charge is unconscionable and unfair in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis fully distinguished.

Coupon-mad

That defence reads as though you are clutching at straws. 

You haven’t adapted a residential defence about your right to stop there to access your property (you haven’t even told the Judge you were a resident, as opposed to a trespasser) nor said if you were driving or not.  You haven’t mentioned the right to unload or any verbal agreement.
You’ve just gone for ‘it’s non-POFA’ and ‘the signs are forbidding’ neither of which are facts, they are legal arguments that may not stick, then what facts are you left with?