Excel Parking Letter of Claim

Bonez257

Coupon-mad said:

I would state in one sentence that you believe it was subsequently cleaned but not at the time, as your evidence shows.  No contract was capable of being formed or agreed that day.  That's your defence. 

You mustn't include those other signage pics and should mention that there were no PDT machines in view (otherwise that would have been enough to tell you it was pay and display).

So the whole thing about the Claimant cleaning it after it was mentioned in my defence should be taken out?

Bonez257

Sequence of events and signage:

3.         I am not familiar with this car park, but I had used this car park to go to Costa Coffee and had parked considerately. To my knowledge, the car park was open to all and the only seen sign was covered in graffiti. I saw this sign for a split second when turning left at the entrance and thought it was a welcome sign for the retail park that appeared from the only legible ‘P’ as if parking was free for customers. Upon entry to the car park, the sign covered in graffiti is to the right-hand side of the entrance which is illegible (exhibit 1), (exhibit 1.1). After parking, I still saw no signs whilst on foot between where my car was parked and Costa Coffee. There were neither any tariff lists or pay and display machines in my path or prominently placed at the car park exit or stores. I had only found the completely illegible hidden signs on my return to the car park to take photos and never found the supposed pay and display machines. The photos were for an appeal against the unexpected PCN which was later refused by the Claimant. The hidden sign is to the left and is placed behind branches at the car park entrance (exhibit 1.2).

4.         On the day, I parked close to the entrance with the sign containing graffiti. The car park was relatively empty so there was no need to drive further into the car park to find a place to park appropriately.

5.         I visited the car park first after receiving the data from my Subject Access Request on the 1st of August 2021 to gather evidence for my case (as per paragraph 3). I did not see any signs relating to payment for parking during my entry to the parking area, except that of which was covered in graffiti. I did not see the sign to the left of the entry due to its obscurity and had only seen such sign after visiting the car park again to gather evidence. As such I can only reasonably conclude that there were no valid signs to implement parking charges. The Claimant refers to parking tariff and parking without payment. As seen in the photograph of my vehicle shown on the Notice to Keeper (exhibit 2), the copy of which was provided by the Claimant following a Subject Access Request in July 2021, the signs are not visible at the date and time in question. On the 7th of November 2021, I returned to the site to collect further evidence and saw the entrance sign that originally contained graffiti had been cleaned but not at the material date as evidence shows.

6.         In fact, the Claimant provides no evidence that any signage at the site on the material date was clear and obvious from any car entering, parking in or exiting the parking area. Any photographs purporting to show such signage on a different date cannot be considered sufficient to evidence their presence on the date in question. Any close-up photographs of signage cannot be considered sufficient as evidence of their visibility from the entrance nor from any areas, like the one in which I parked.

This is the updated version. I think paragraph 4 could be removed (or merged into paragraph3) as it doesn't mention much but please let me know. The deadline to file this WS is 22/11/2021 before 4pm so I want to fix it as best as I can. Thanks

Bonez257

You also don't mention that you don't believe the Claimant has a valid contract with the landowner and if they produce one you expect it to be a condition of operating that they provide and maintain clear signs and payment methods for customers, to avoid non-compliance rather than cause customers to get PCNs.

Here's a useful line and exhibit copied from a recent WS written by @bargepole plus an extra para I suggest about breaching their code:

The Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (‘IPC’) and is required to adhere to that body’s Code of Practice in order to obtain registered keeper data from the DVLA. The Code of Practice states, at clause 9.1, that:

Where parking is invited upon payment from the Motorist, Operators must have clear instructions to the Motorist regarding the payment method and payment should be accessible to the Motorists

The claimant was operating in breach of the Code.  Only fully compliant AOS members operating with clear signs capable of communicating terms to motorists are authorised to obtain DVLA registered keeper data.  This Claimant obtained my data despite knowing that the signs and machines here are not clear and obvious.

I have added the text into the WS after the 'The Beavis case is against this claim'. Thank you

Bonez257

UPDATE

I added more into paragraph 4 from paragraph 5 to make it more understandable so it now looks like this:

4.         On the day, I parked close to the entrance with the sign containing graffiti. The car park was relatively empty so there was no need to drive further into the car park to find a place to park appropriately. I visited the car park first after receiving the data from my Subject Access Request on the 1st of August 2021 to gather evidence for my case (as per paragraph 3). I did not see any signs relating to payment for parking during my entry to the parking area, except that of which was covered in graffiti. I did not see the sign to the left of the entry due to its obscurity and had only seen such sign after visiting the car park again to gather evidence. As such I can only reasonably conclude that there were no valid signs to implement parking charges.

5.         The Claimant refers to parking tariff and parking without payment. As seen in the photograph of my vehicle shown on the Notice to Keeper (exhibit 2), the copy of which was provided by the Claimant following a Subject Access Request in July 2021, the signs are not visible at the date and time in question. On the 7th of November 2021, I returned to the site to collect further evidence and saw the entrance sign that originally contained graffiti had been cleaned but not at the material date as evidence shows.

Coupon-mad

Ok seems to cover it much better than the previous Draft which to me, read 'Dear Judge, look at all these signs I missed'!

Bonez257

Coupon-mad said:

Ok seems to cover it much better than the previous Draft which to me, read 'Dear Judge, look at all these signs I missed'!

Haha made me chuckle! Thanks alot for your help. I've sent it to the email address of the Manchester Civil court which was provided to me on the allocation letter and also the Claimant. Will update accordingly!

Bonez257

I still haven't received anything from the Claimant. Aren't they supposed to send me their WS too?

Jenni_D

When are the WS due to be filed and served? Is this due to be a remote hearing or in-person in a court?

But the answer to your question is Yes ... anything filed with the court must be served on the other party - the obligations work both ways. (If it's an in-person hearing they may have posted their WS to you).

Bonez257

Jenni_D said:

When are the WS due to be filed and served? Is this due to be a remote hearing or in-person in a court?

But the answer to your question is Yes ... anything filed with the court must be served on the other party - the obligations work both ways. (If it's an in-person hearing they may have posted their WS to you).

The deadline to submit was 22/11/2021 at 4pm. It's for a in-person hearing in Manchester. What happens if I still haven't received it?

Coupon-mad

Send an email to Manchester court, with claim number and date of in person hearing in the subject line.

Tell them you have not received any WS bundle from the Claimant, nor any notice of discontinuance.

As you have taken a day off work for the in person hearing (IF TRUE) you wish the hearing to continue as a costs hearing (IF YOU DO? Or is it more important to hear it's all over and let them walk away?).

If you are not bothered about your costs just ask for a reply confirming whether this hearing is still going ahead, and if it is, you need this email to be placed on file to draw to the attention of the Judge that the Claimant has failed to comply with the hearing Order for service of documents.