County Court Claim From Civil Enforcement Ltd - £277 for 55 mins parking!! UPDATE - CLAIM RETRACTED!

Coupon-mad

Yes this is about them not drawing the changes prominently to drivers’ attention, not a fault of yours, given you knew this to be a free car park and anything different or more onerous would have to be literally ‘in your face’ obvious.

Redx

Like I said , it evolves as you Go

Download the relevant BPA CoP in force at the time of the incident , read the section about improved signage when terms and conditions change

KeithP

Swanley Park has seen controversy before.

Have a read of this post from May this year by @Umkomaas.  

Bear1978

Le_Kirk said:

Bear1978 said:

i have this but i don't know if it's enough:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.  Since the Defendant’s previous visit to Swanley Park, a new ANPR-enforced parking system was has been introduced in April 2020. The Defendant was not aware of the new parking system and did not notice the signage informing motorists of the parking restrictions and changes to the system was not prominent.

Just a couple of changes and a suggestion above.

Thank you!! Here is the amended wording:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.  Since the Defendant’s previous visit to Swanley Park, a new ANPR-enforced parking system has been introduced. The Defendant was not aware of the new parking system and the signage informing motorists of the parking restrictions and changes to the system was not prominent.

Bear1978

KeithP said:

Swanley Park has seen controversy before.

Have a read of this post from May this year by @Umkomaas.  

Yeh thanks, i've seen this post before...i noticed that it refers to councils' use of potential illegal private contractors that use ANPR...but not sure how relevant that is now as that post was published in 2015

Bear1978

Redx said:

Like I said , it evolves as you Go

Download the relevant BPA CoP in force at the time of the incident , read the section about improved signage when terms and conditions change

Interesting paragraph from their CoP - i'm positive there wasn't sufficient prominent signage, but how can i prove that 9 months on?

27.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones

Redx

Bear1978 said:

Redx said:

Like I said , it evolves as you Go

Download the relevant BPA CoP in force at the time of the incident , read the section about improved signage when terms and conditions change

Interesting paragraph from their CoP - i'm positive there wasn't sufficient prominent signage, but how can i prove that 9 months on?

27.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones

You don't , it is their job to prove their claim , or fail !!

So you put the claimant to strict proof that they followed the instructions in the BPA CoP , because you aver that it didn't happen , the proof being the lack of this extra signage on the day , because you are a witness and did not see any

Coupon-mad

If this place is still Council owned then they CANNOT use ANPR nor operate the site as if it were private land.  And nor does the POFA apply, so they can’t hold a registered keeper liable.

if you haven’t already admitted to driving them don’t.  Add the above to your defence, as per the other thread.  It is still true.

Bear1978

Coupon-mad said:

If this place is still Council owned then they CANNOT use ANPR nor operate the site as if it were private land.  And nor does the POFA apply, so they can’t hold a registered keeper liable.

if you haven’t already admitted to driving them don’t.  Add the above to your defence, as per the other thread.  It is still true.

Thanks Coupon-mad

The council advertises the car park as part of the park and talk about ANPR on their site as below...do you think it's possible that the car park may be privately owned and not owned by the council?

unfortunately i already admitted that i was driving in my appeal i made to them

Coupon-mad

This isnt private land. The other thread covers the issues and ANPR is not lawful.   

You should complain to the Council showing them the LGO Kent decision about parks operated there and tell them you will take the matter to the LGO because councils are not allowed to run public car parks as if they were private land (whether using a private operator or not).

Also show them what happened to Wycombe council who were banned by the DVLA for setting up ANPR!

The Deregulation Act 2015 banned ANPR enforcement by councils for parking contraventions on or off street.  The TMA 2004 applies and they should be running the park properly with statutory enforcement and not under contract law.

Then take it to the LGO citing the Kent parks decision and and the Deregulation Act and the Wycombe council precedent.