Claim Form - Help required with defence. .

Coupon-mad

You have US spelling ‘practise’ which is jarring to read!

Where you talk about not seeing signs, mention that your car is shown in images as reversed into a space and that the supposed ‘entrance sign’ on the corner is twisted away from approaching traffic turning the corner.  As such, not only would you not have known that you were even in a pay and display car park because it looks like part of the public road, but you would also not have known or consented to being filmed.  This is contrary to the ICO Surveillance camera Code of Practice which forms part of the trade body BPA CoP. 

And I’d split para 3 into four paras, all separately numbered. First one about picking up a passenger, second about Jopson, third about Wilshaw (not Wiltshire) and finally about the notice saying ‘not pre-authorised’.

You also sum up the Wilshaw case wrongly. Why not actually quote the para I quoted earlier?

Wizwacks

I made some amendments to point number 3. 

3.     The defendant cannot recall the events from an unremarkable day almost two years ago other than that they entered a retail area to collect a passenger.   

3a. In the persuasive appeal court case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Services Ltd, case number 9GF0A9E, Judge Harris QC stated that loading/unloading is not parking. Picking up a passenger is loading.

 

3b. The claimant's images show that the route taken by the defendant's car would have precluded the driver from seeing signs showing the terms and conditions. The supposed entrance sign is twisted away from approaching traffic, so I was not even aware of the car park least of all consenting to being filmed, which is contrary to the ICO surveillance code of practise which forms part of the BPA CoP.

 

3c: In the appeal court case of One Parking vs Norma Wilshaw case number F0HM9E9Z  His Honour Judge Simpkiss stated:  (72) “ Nevertheless, it would be a breach of the Code for the Claimant not to follow Paragraph 13(2) but after 10 minutes a contract would come into existence. Thus, if the Respondent had driven off before the expiry of 10 minutes from her arrival in the parking space, she would not be contractually bound to pay the charge.”  

 

3d: The defendant received a Notice to Keeper a week after the alleged event, stating that the reason for issue of the charge was, "Vehicle Not Pre-authorised." This is void for impossibility. It is impossible for a motorist to know a vehicle needs to be pre-authorised before they have entered the site and had the opportunity to read the parking terms and conditions within the car park.

Is that better? 

Coupon-mad

You need to state how many minutes the images show your car stationary in a bay otherwise it’s not clear why you are quoting the Wilshaw case.

You also have “I” which should instead be in the third person in a defence.

KeithP

...and practice is still misspelt.

Wizwacks

Hi. 
I chased OPS today for the SAR request I sent over on the 18/08 to which they replied initially  and  requested my Reg and notice number on the the same day. 
After that there was no email. 
I sent them another email today, highlighting GDPR Rules to which they replied with the following: 

OPS36766 was issued 26/09/2019 as the vehicle was parked on site without being pre-authorised to do so. The Parking Charge was issued using a Manual Number Plate Recognition (MNPR) Camera , this means that there are captures of the contravention and there is not CCTV footage of the event. As the Parking Charge was issued using MNPR no Parking Charge was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle. Keeper Details were requested from the DVLA 27/09/2019 and they were received 30/09/2019. A Parking Charge Notice was then sent 01/10/2019 to the address received from the DVLA. An appeal was made 17/10/2019 and this was responded too 30/10/2019. No payment or further appeal to POPLA was made so the Parking Charge progressed to ZZPS for Debt Recovery 04/12/2019. ZZPS were unable to collect on the Parking Charge so a Final Demand was sent in the post 26/01/2021. Still no payment was made so the Parking Charge progressed to DCBL for collection 26/02/2021. The Parking Charge remains with ZZPS.   

Please note we do not have access to the Data that ZZPS and DCBL, therefore if you wish to have access to that you will need to contact them directly.

 

www.zzps.co.uk

https://dcbltd.com/

 

 

All data transferred to One Parking Solution and from One Parking Solution is through encrypted data files that are not stored and cannot be accessed by staff.

 

 

Kind regards,

Harry

One Parking Solution Limited

Is it too late to chase Zzps and will they realistically get back to me before the 14th ? 

Coupon-mad

Does it matter?  Not sure what you are trying to get beyond that SAR, which will have shown all the photos with it.

You have the SAR reply you were after from young Harry.

Redx

I doubt that zzps will reply in one week , so no , it's very unlikely plus won't yield anything of use

You have your SAR reply from the claimant , nobody is interested in debt collectors

Wizwacks

Morning. 

I did not see the attachment to Harry's email yesterday until now. Pictures of the event are pasted below. Suffice to say they have more then 3. 

D_P_Dance

That sign is a nightmare, far too wordy, print too small.  I doubt that ny judge in the land would agree that it was capable of forming a contract.  Read this

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

Coupon-mad

I doubt that ny judge in the land would agree that it was capable of forming a contract.  

HHJ Simpkiss managed to make that leap in Norma’s case, so this case is not as easy as you think.