UKPPO Claim Form

Fruitcake

I've removed some of my previous post as I can see you did mention the EA 2010 in your WS.

With regards to para 40, 

Waiting for a space is not parking. This case is relevant but note that "not a genuine pre-estimate of loss" is no longer a valid point.

Parking Prankster: Waiting for a space is not Parking. ParkingEye lose in court. Beware of snakes at Fistral Beach (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)

This and your case can be distinguished from OPS v Norma Wilshaw because in that case the motorist parked in a designated space, whereas in your case you were waiting for a space, which is not parking. 
The parking event had not yet begun, and a contract could not begin until you were parked.
The three elements of a contract are, offer, consideration, and acceptance.
In your case there was no offer of parking to start with until a parking space became available.
You were not able to consider any offer until you were parked and able to read the terms and conditions of parking, and you could not accept the parking contract until you were in fact parked.

pryder

Fruitcake said:

Fake add-on costs, paras 25 -29,

I don't think these fake charges had been invented in 2018 and wouldn't have been on the signs or the NTK as far as I am aware. You need to check the IPC CoPs to see when this changed. The claimant can't add on costs now that did not exist and were not brought to the defendant's notice at the material time.

The 2017 version would have been in force in 2018.

International Parking Community (theipc.info)

The only thing they have on the sign is 'Additional charges will be added to the value of the charge'. 
In the IPC it states 'Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated.' It doesn't have a section about 'Recovery of Parking Charges' as v7/v8 do.

pryder

Fruitcake said:

I've removed some of my previous post as I can see you did mention the EA 2010 in your WS.

With regards to para 40, 

Waiting for a space is not parking. This case is relevant but note that "not a genuine pre-estimate of loss" is no longer a valid point.

Parking Prankster: Waiting for a space is not Parking. ParkingEye lose in court. Beware of snakes at Fistral Beach (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)

This and your case can be distinguished from OPS v Norma Wilshaw because in that case the motorist parked in a designated space, whereas in your case you were waiting for a space, which is not parking. 
The parking event had not yet begun, and a contract could not begin until you were parked.
The three elements of a contract are, offer, consideration, and acceptance.
In your case there was no offer of parking to start with until a parking space became available.
You were not able to consider any offer until you were parked and able to read the terms and conditions of parking, and you could not accept the parking contract until you were in fact parked.

The comparison with OPS v Norma Wilshaw is really helpful - I was broadly going to cover these points but you've articulated it much better than I had so thank you.

Fruitcake

Their para 44 contradicts their para 32

Fruitcake

The images of the site and signage are not date stamped. There is no proof that the Ts and Cs shown on the signs in the claimant's WS were present at the time of the alleged event. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.
It is believed that in fact the Ts and Cs at the material time did not include additional charges. In any case, the amount of the additional charges is not shown on the signs shown by the claimant.

There is no entrance sign.

pryder

Thanks @Fruitcake. Right, think I have most things clear in my mind. Wish me luck!

pryder

To update - I lost the case sadly.
The judge who saw the case was a last minute amendment because the main judge was ill - and he hadn't even seen my WS and asked if I had submitted it in the first place so he spent 2 minutes skimming through it when he found it.

I made my arguments particularly stressing two key points - time of entry was not time of parking, and the equality act points.

But his view was I needed to prove that this discrimination had taken place and why it was unlawful, despite the plethora of evidence I had submitted. I fumbled in this part and even though I eventually was able to highlight the right parts he didn't seem convinced. His argument was that I was not the disabled individual so the equality act didn't strictly apply in this case. He asked me how much time I felt that disabled users should get and I was a bit flustered at this point so said 10% extra which in hindsight should have stretched because then in his final judgement, he quoted my 10% as to why I still am in breach of the terms and conditions. Only small victory was the recovery costs were scrapped but have to pay everything else

Coupon-mad

Sadly, you will have to pay it because an appeal is an expensive risk, but that is atrocious. So sorry you got an appalling Judge.

Carers are covered as well by the Equality Act!

And you should never be put on the spot to say how much longer a disabled passenger with severe mobility issues needs, and how much longer it takes to find an accessible bay when it's busy.  That's not quantifiable and must be flexible, that's the point.

pryder

Thanks @Coupon-mad. It was a very rotten judge who put so much onus on me to prove my case and the claimants solicitor didn't have to say much at all.

But regardless of the outcome, just want to say a huge thank you for the help I've received to get to where I was. It is genuinely really appreciated! 

Coupon-mad

pryder said:

Thanks @Coupon-mad. It was a very rotten judge who put so much onus on me to prove my case and the claimants solicitor didn't have to say much at all.

But regardless of the outcome, just want to say a huge thank you for the help I've received to get to where I was. It is genuinely really appreciated! 

And I'd just like to add:

Do the DLUHC Public Consultation please!