UK PARKING PATROL FORCE - RECEIVED CCJ

Coupon-mad

No, and don't try.

You are right to state you were driving.  Paragraph 2 is fine.

But what isn't right is that you told us some compelling facts and your reason for being there - and yet none of those great (really good defence) facts made their way into para 3 of your defence!

vnds_t

Thanks for the feedback. I was just reminded that it was 2 incidents on the same day, first one was for 34mins over the allotted 20mins and second one was for 2mins. Based on your reply, I have got this as my second and third paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant does admit to being the driver of the hire vehicle registration: xx68 xxx.

3. The Defendant was attending BOX PARK WEMBLEY location for an event as a seller, amongst multiple sellers, who had to unload and load up to 200 boxes of shoes each in the allotted time period, all through a narrow side door entrance. Not all the sellers were private sellers at the event, some were companies who were constructing and breaking down full exhibition stands so there were long waiting times to have access to the entrance of the location.

The Defendant did not see the signs. During both the unload and load of his vehicle, there were many large vehicles (both short and long wheel based vans) parked on the same road at the same time, obscuring the view of the road due to the event taking place. During the load period, it was also dark. 

The Defendant did not waste time or park his vehicle there for recreational purposes, once the necessary work was completed, the vehicles were removed immediately.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Coupon-mad

Add that the Defendant had permission to unload there for as long as it took, within reason, and clearly there is no legitimate interest to support this claim and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

And add more paragraph numbers!

Le_Kirk

As well as adding a number to every paragraph, I would alter "The defendant did not see any signs........" to ""There were no prominent visible signs...." or something similar

vnds_t

Thanks for all your help! I've now changed it to the following:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant does admit to being the driver of the hire vehicle registration: xx68 xxx.

3. The Defendant was attending the BOX PARK WEMBLEY venue for an event as a seller, amongst multiple sellers, who had to unload and load up to 200 boxes of shoes each in the allotted time period, all through a narrow side door entrance. Not all the sellers were private sellers at the event, some were companies who were constructing and breaking down full exhibition stands so there were long waiting times to have access to the entrance of the location.

4. The Defendant was recommended to park down Humphry Repton Lane, Wembley HA9 0GL by the event organisers. The organisers gave permission to unload and load at the venue for as long as it took, within reason. Once the defendant arrived to the venue, he had to queue to receive a seller wristband, shown to their selling space and find tables within the venue to place their stock before unloading.

5. There were no prominent visible signs. During both the unload and load of his vehicle, there were many large vehicles (both short and long-wheel based vans) parked on the same road at the same time, obscuring the view of the road due to the event taking place. During the load period, it was also dark. 

6. The Defendant did not waste time or park his vehicle there for recreational purposes. Once the necessary work was completed, the vehicle was removed immediately.

Coupon-mad said:

clearly there is no legitimate interest to support this claim and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

As I used the template in the newbie thread, this is mentioned between paragraph 11 and 12:

11. Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4 (5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case). It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land. There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.

The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

12. Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable. However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.

Please let me know your thoughts again.

Johnersh

TBH I'd work out where the cameras are. In most of these it's on an entry/exit gantry.

If it takes 2 mins to park, that likely means that the actual period parked was within the 20 minute limit and their system sets up the unsuspecting motorist to be caught out. I bet the sign doesn't say you have 20 mins to include time finding a space to park.... 

vnds_t

The photos they sent me is of me parked up towards where the signs are, the signs are small though, not the same size as you'd usually see in supermarket car parks.

As it was so busy that morning with multiple sellers trying to get their stock in, I had to park a little down the road which meant walking my stock over to the entrance probably took longer then what it needed to.

KeithP

vnds_t said:

...walking my stock over to the entrance probably took longer then what it needed to.

Saying it took "longer than it needed to" seems to suggest that you weren't in any hurry. 

I'm  sure you meant to say...
...walking my stock over to the entrance probably took longer than it would've taken had I been able to unload closer to the entrance.

vnds_t

Spot on, do you think this is something I should include?

Coupon-mad

Yes, why not.  The rest looks good.