Excel Parking Letter of Claim

Bonez257

Can anyone advise if I would be emailing my WS to CCBC or would it be to the allocated court? I understand I have to also email it to the Claimant

Le_Kirk

It goes to your allocated court and the claimant/solicitor.  There should be (is usually) an e-mail address for submitting documents to the court now that most hearings are by phone/video or similar.  Of course, the court may still be accepting hard copies by post!

Bonez257

Le_Kirk said:

It goes to your allocated court and the claimant/solicitor.  There should be (is usually) an e-mail address for submitting documents to the court now that most hearings are by phone/video or similar.  Of course, the court may still be accepting hard copies by post!

Thank you. Would a digital signature be sufficient?

Le_Kirk

Since courts have been doing video/phone hearings and not accepting paper submissions, digital signatures have been accepted.  Alternatively you can sign a piece of white paper and take a photo or scan and embed that in your documents.

Bonez257

Hello all. Will be sending off the WS tomorrow if it's all good in everyone's eyes. Any more feedback would be appreciated. The 2nd version is available here:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dsz50fuv7gwr2dgqu14oc/BONEZ257-WS-2.docx?dl=0&rlkey=g7jrsq5pk9a9onzx0qq0jt8mm
Thanks

Le_Kirk

You haven't incorporated any of the changes I suggested here 16 November at 1:47PM <<<<< LINK

Bonez257

Le_Kirk said:

You haven't incorporated any of the changes I suggested here 16 November at 1:47PM <<<<< LINK

Apologies. I made the changes to the main WS and forgot to implement it onto the one without personal details. Please have a look here for the updates:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7xcoubn7z4bu00kybq1vn/BONEZ257-WS-3.docx?dl=0&rlkey=3bn2bucn0nhhjav9my7k3b20s

Coupon-mad

I think you have included too many images of signs and I would remove exhibits 1.3, 3, 3.1 and 3.2 entirely.  All you need show is the graffiti one.

You have a typo 'ineligible'.

Also your first 4 paras say that you saw the signs but that gives the impression you just assumed you didn't have to pay a tariff, a position that doesn't sound like it was correct.  People don't do that.  There was a sentence that said 'I accepted that' (maybe para 4) that needs to go and be rewritten to make more sense from your POV.

Surely it's a more true account to say that you saw no signs nor payment machines the way you drove in, and (then what?  You didn't stay?  Or you saw the graffiti sign from your car seat for a split second when driving round the entrance roundabout and thought it was a welcome sign for the retail park that looked from the only legible 'P' as if parking was free for customers.

Or you did stay but were a genuine patron of xxxx shops but that even on foot between your car and the shops you saw no parking signs, possibly due to tree overhang but neither were there any tariff lists or pay and display machines in your path or prominently placed by the stores.

You need to make it clear that it was only on return to the place to take photos for a possible appeal (and mention it if you did appeal) against the unexpected PCN, that you found a completely illegible sign and never did find the supposed pay and display machines.

Or something in your own words like that.   If you complained to the shop managers, say so

If this place appears in any local paper newspaper articles about unclear or badly maintained signs and pay machines, use those articles.

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.

Bonez257

Coupon-mad said:

I think you have included too many images of signs and I would remove exhibits 1.3, 3, 3.1 and 3.2 entirely.  All you need show is the graffiti one.

Thank you for your feedback.

So is it not worth mentioning in court that the Claimant had the sign cleaned? Would this point not show a guilty party after the fact? 

Coupon-mad

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).