County court business centre claim form from Uk parking control limited

Coupon-mad

I think there is a letter missing from the claim number of Jopson.  Check the actual transcript as it won't start with 9.

1505grandad

Per Parking Prankster:-

Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E

ox141jf

ok fixed that thanks

Fruitcake

I think, but am not absolutely sure, that the Jopson case number is 9GF0A9E, and the prefix B relates to either the type of case or the type of court in which it is held.

The online transcript does not have the prefix B, but I think either with or without is acceptable. It doesn't really matter since the transcript will be included as an exhibit in the witness statement stage.

ox141jf

I added it.

1505grandad

A post dated 7.11.2016 by bargpole in the thread below states:-

"I think there's an error in the transcription of the case number in that Judgment.

'9GF0A9E' isn't a valid number, they should have 8 digits. As this started in 2015, it's likely that B9GF0A9E is the correct reference.

The letters 'GF' in the citation indicate that the super-efficient Gladstones issued the original claim. Another epic fail."

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5553131/persuasive-appeal-case-lease-rights-beat-ppcs-at-residential-car-parks/p1

ox141jf

ok thanks, is there anything more I should change here?

ox141jf

It seems like people think this is a suitable reply:

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

3. In Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities case number 9GF0A9E, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that loading and unloading is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts. The court transcript of that hearing and judgment, heard on appeal by HHJ Harris sitting at Oxford Court, will be provided at witness statement stage in support of this defence.

4. At the 23/01/2017 when the defendant parked at Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious parking restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not park. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking was not allowed, they would have used an alternative location. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming to park as it was facing their back and located above eye level.

5.  The signs are forbidding in nature therefore there can be no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be no acceptance, and therefore there can be no contract formed. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

6. The property has been boarded up, closed and derelict since prior to 2012, UKPC has declined to provide proof that they had authority or charge to manage the parking area outside the abandoned property.

7.   The Defendant denies accepting any contract with the Claimant. The Claimant has no right to harass the Defendant with demands for payment and threats of legal action.

8. The Defendant avers that the abandoned site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context.

9. Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant. The Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the Landowner themselves.  Meaning at most, the driver is guilty of trespass which is strictly only actionable only by the Landowner, not this Claimant.

Coupon-mad

Still missing the B from the Jopson claim number.

Why are you saying you parked, in 4?  I thought I'd advised you to change that but may be thinking of another case.

Jopson should be a bit lower down and you should be saying above it, that you were not parked, if relying on Jopson.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Still missing the B from the Jopson claim number.

This number 9GF0A9E is taken from the transcript from the Parking Pranksters site.