Driver fined because landowner changed their mind on parking space

Jenni_D

Dispute resolution hearings (DRHs - AKA try to convince the defendant to pay up) are a pointless waste of court time ... even though they were introduced to try and save court time. PCN cases are not suitable for such DRHs.

MFR123

Hi guys, so my court case is soon (next week), quite nervous tbf but I guess it'll be an experience.

Recently, I looked back into 2 years worth of emails and found the email (finally) my supervisor sent to us with the date of 21st Sept 2021 telling us the building has been bought but the owner has allowed us to park there as long as we don't park directly in front of the door as that is needed for their trucks. My car was parked opposite the place they told us not to park in so I DID follow their request and left the space for their trucks open.

----------------------------Start---------------------------

The message dated 21/09/21:

" Hi all,

The attached building across [our building] has been procured, the owners have kindly asked that you should not park your cars on the bays immediately next to the building, this is to allow work trucks and workman access etc. I have asked for us to use the other parking spaces in the meantime, and they are happy with this. Can you stop parking there from this THURSDAY please."

Then on 15/10/21 [The day I actually got mine though I didn't know yet], sup sent another email:

" It appears there is a change of mind from the owners of the building, I have received 2 occurrences from staff where a PCN has been issued. I have not managed to contact the owner to clarify our previously agreed stance.

In the meantime, I would suggest that staff stop parking their cars on their allocated spaces, please use the over spill car park opposite [another building]. "

----------------------------End---------------------------

However, I didn't put this in my defense nor WS as I couldn't find it then. Is there any way for me to use this evidence as it would at least give context to what I was saying?

Coupon-mad

Eeek!  

Do a very concise (signed & dated under a statement of truth) Supplementary WS attaching that email as an extra exhibit - explaining in the SHORT WS that you have just found it again and believe it will assist the court - and email it straight to the local court marked

URGENT: SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT to be added to the hearing file for claim number xxxxxxx on DATE/06/23.

Copy in the C's solicitors.

FIRST THING MONDAY MORNING.

Expect them to object at the hearing but do it anyway and say (at the hearing if challenged in the validity of this late submission) that:

(a). the Claimant has not suffered any detriment, as it should not be news to the parking firm when the operation went 'live', and

(b). This final exhibit merely illustrates the account already given in the first witness statement, and assists the court in achieving the Overriding Objective - a just decision at minimum cost.

MFR123

Excellent!

Thank you

But with point (a), the parking operator started on 10th oct 2021. Can you elaborate on what that means here - I don't quite follow

Correction: My ticket is dated for the 13th Oct 2021, so 2 days before the email was sent out telling us not to park there by our sup

Coupon-mad

Exactly.  Two days BEFORE.

MFR123

I don't want to seem dense, but what did you mean by:
"...as it should not be news to the parking firm when the operation went 'live' " ?

Also, I have blotted out the name of the supervisor as he no longer works there anymore - as I don't want to use his name without permission (I can't get in touch with him) - Is this fine?

MFR123

Also, the email I found for my local court is 

enquiries.[location].countycourt@justice.gov.uk

This is the one I send it to rather than to the CCbaq email we sent the defence and WS, right?

Coupon-mad

You didn't send your first WS to the CCBC, please say you didn't?!

MFR123

Just double checked, WS was sent to the enquiries email... phew! 

Had me worried there... *clears throat* 

Coupon-mad

You had ME worried!!

What I mean about the dates is you are evidencing that the new regime took time to 'bed in' and start.  The Claimant knows this, it never starts the day they put signs up.

Have you already evidenced that there were NO SIGNS in places at all?  If you haven't, pop in a photo proving that too.  Again, it's nothing the C doesn't already know.

In your very concise words about that photo in the WS, unless you already have this in your first WS, include a URL to the IPC CoP, as I posted in Feb:

This is Parallel Parking Ltd who are in the IPC.  You say there are signs up NOW but you can say that's too late, because the IPC CoP, here:
https://theipc.info/brandings/2/resources/documents/Code_of_Practice_v8.pdf

...says at page 30:

"Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions

Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges."