Brockholes Nature Reserve - 3D Parking, BW Legal

DavidSWP

Hi all,

I've received a County Court Claim from BW Legal on behalf of 3D Parking.  I've acknowledged receipt online to get the extra 14 days.  I've just sent my defense to  CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk .  I probably should have posted it here first to get advice , but have been extremely busy, and I think I'm near the end of the extra 14 days, so I just wanted to get on with it.

Here is the text of the defense, it is mainly based on the template concerning when they try to add additional costs, found on MSE.  I've had to remove the latter paragraphs because MSE says my post is too long, but they are just from the template

I've added quite a lot of stuff about their signage at the start though because they are completely non-compliant with BPA code of practice.  Here's the text of my defense, and I'll try to attach the photos if MSE lets me:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: HXXXXXX

Between

3D PARKING LIMITED 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

MR XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

Exhibits (photographs):

Exhibit A & B - Carpark ‘entry signage’ not showing anything about managed parking

Exhibit C - Car park ‘Bay’ signage.  No managed car park signs at entry or in the bay

Exhibit D & E - signage from before the main car park entrace which appears to relate to laybys and side roads

Exhibit F - Another main car park bay, with  no managed car park signs along one entire side

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

The defendant recalls visiting Brockholes Nature Reserve once within the past few years, but can’t confirm with 100% certainty that this was on the 17th August 2019, although that is likely.  On that one occasion the defendant was planning to attend an event there with his 2 children, and another family with 3 children who arrived in a different vehicle.  Upon arrival the defendant noticed that it was extremely quiet and soon discovered that the event was not taking place due to bad weather and left soon after.  Looking up historical records, there was an event advertised on the 17th called ‘Outdoor Theatre - Gansta Granny’.  The defendant believes that was very likely the event he intended to attend and has sought confirmation from Brockholes Nature reserve that this event did not indeed take place.  The defendant also remembers returning several hours late to search for some lost children’s winter clothing.

3.   The defendant is always extremely careful to abide by any parking rules and regulations, and denies seeing any signage to do with managed parking, tariffs, or indeed  any parking rules in respect of the Brockholes Nature Reserve main Car park at the time of the visit described in paragraph. 2. (above).

4. Further, regarding signage.  Although the defendant obviously has no evidence related to signage from that exact visit date, because none was seen, the defendant has since visited the car park, and walked the vehicular route into it on foot and found that there is no signage related to managed parking, parking tariffs or restrictions what-so-ever at the vehicular entrance to the car park, only 2 signs saying “Welcome to Brockholes Car Park”. Please see photograph exhibits A, & B.  It is also at the location where the ANPR camera is present.  After walking through the main car park entrance, it is seen that the car park is divided into a number of bays.  The largest bay (Bay 1), with space for around 30 cars, is the one closest to the nature reserve buildings and was found to have no managed parking related signage what-so-ever at the entrance to the ‘bay’, and also none anywhere within the ‘bay’.  In addition there were no payment machines in sight, or anything to indicate a tariff was payable.  Please see photo exhibit C

All of these facts are against the code of practice of 3D PARKING LIMITED’s own governing body, the BPA, which states:

<had to remove link to post on MSE>

“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area”

“You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.”

The defendant contends that on the day of the visit (likely to be the 17th August 2019, he would have highly likely driven though the main carpark entrance, and because it was extremely quiet, and bad weather, that he would have driven into parking bay 1.  

In summary.  It is not just merely a case of signage being inadequate, it is the case that signage is completely absent at relevant locations.   There is no managed parking related signage at the main car park vehicular entrance, none along the route to Bay 1, none at the entrance to Bay 1 and none inside Bay 1.

For full transparency,  Brockholes Nature Reserve car park is reached via an unnamed road off the A59, near the M6 motorway junction and the Tickled Trout Restaurant.  This road is approximately 600 meters long and, before you get to the main car park, has various side roads and lay-bys along it with spaces for cars.  Many of the lay-bys, either on the ‘main’ road or side roads were observed to have Tariff related signage.  Even if these were indeed seen and comprehensible, this would lead any reasonable person to assume that 3D PARKING LTD was trying to restrict parking in these sidings leading up to the main car park.  Please see photo exhibits D & E.  After the 2 signs “Welcome to Brockholes Car Park”, which has no managed parking related signage, there are no further side streets or lay-bys.  In addition the other bays within the actual car park, upon walking through, do admittedly have entry 3D Parking LTD signage, and sparse signage within some of the bays, however, a driver going to Bay 1 would not likely  see any of these because they are angled towards someone entering the other bays.  The signage within some of the other bays is also lacking.  See Exhibit F.  There is no reason at all that a managed parking entry sign could not be placed at the actual entrance to the car park, there is plenty of space, and it seems absurd, that there is no such sign there especially given that is where the only observed ANPR camera is sited.  As previously stated, this is against the BPA code of practice.  There is also no reason why there are no signs at the entrance to, or within Bay 1, because this is the Bay most drivers would park in if there was space available there being closest to the actual Nature reserve buildings.

5. PCN and letter of claim.  The claimant states that a PCN was issued, however the defendant has never received this, nor even proof of postage.  The Letter of Claim contains no summary of the basis of the case, merely the statement “Contravention Description: Parking Tariff not Paid”, and contains no evidence to support this.  The defendant has received a few letters from BW Legal about this on behalf of 3D PARKING LTD in the past, but they similarly provided no evidence.

6.  Notwithstanding the fact that no relevant signage could reasonably have been observed, the Particulars of Claim sets out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on any signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  

There are 14 other paragraphs but they are just from the MSE template concerning Bevis etc.  Doe's anyone have any advice on what I can expect?

Thanks,

Dave

w12ee3e

I think you want to slim that down, save the pictures and exhibits for the WS and stick to the basics on your defence.

w12ee3e

PS they should rename the site to brockpotholes

DavidSWP

w12ee3e said:

I think you want to slim that down, save the pictures and exhibits for the WS and stick to the basics on your defence.

What's WS ?  The MSE template is very long in itself though, I've probably only added about 20% extra text of my own.  I do see that it is long though.

KeithP

Did you see anything in the Template Defence thread that led you to include photographs and evidence in a Defence?

Still, what's done is done.
The time to be asking for guidance is before doing something irreversible.

Le_Kirk

DavidSWP said:

w12ee3e said:

I think you want to slim that down, save the pictures and exhibits for the WS and stick to the basics on your defence.

What's WS ?  The MSE template is very long in itself though, I've probably only added about 20% extra text of my own.  I do see that it is long though.

WS = Witness Statement.  All advice is contained within the NEWBIE sticky.

DavidSWP

KeithP said:

Did you see anything in the Template Defence thread that led you to include photographs and evidence in a Defence?

Still, what's done is done.
The time to be asking for guidance is before doing something irreversible.

Yes, it says in paragraph 3 to add witness statement like evidential text, e.g. "you will be talking about what the Defendant saw or didn’t see, in terms of the signs, whether it was dark, whether the signs were obscured by a tree, really small, broken or not lit?".  It doesn't mention photos though admittedly.

TBH I thought the defense was a form of witness statement due to it having a statement of truth declaration at the end.

BTW does anyone know if I need to send this to the claimant?  I was involved in a 14 month long civil dispute recently and had to send everything to the court and to the other side's solicitors.  The MSE instructions don't say to do that, but just thought I'd check.

Umkomaas

The Northampton CCBC will send a copy of your Defence to the Claimant. 

You will send them (solicitors and PPC) a copy of of your WS, which builds on and supports your Defence, at the appropriate time - probably a few months hence. It's all there for you to read in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post.

Coupon-mad

As long as you got an acknowledgement from the CCBC by return email there is no need as that's the CCBC's job.

All next forms (the DQ N180 and later, the WS and evidence - because these will not be attached to your defence at this stage, they'll be lost in the process) must go to the C's solicitor though, from now on.

You should now read bargepole's court procedures thread, linked under the red heading in the NEWBIES thread 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' and please no questions about who to email the DQ to, or how to answer those questions.  All covered in the sticky.

1505grandad

For information:- 

3D Parking Ltd (Trading As 3D Parking Ltd)

www.3Dparking.co.uk

are IPC AoS members NOT BPA  -  or do you know if they were BPA AoS members at the time of the parking event?

DavidSWP

1505grandad said:

For information:- 

3D Parking Ltd (Trading As 3D Parking Ltd)

are IPC AoS members NOT BPA  -  or do you know if they were BPA AoS members at the time of the parking event?

The signs mentioning 3D Parking, where they exist on other parts of the land, have both IPC and BPA logos on them.  I am not sure about at the time of the parking event.