Virgin Active - Twickenham Stadium - Parking Charge Notice - Total Parking Solutions - BW Legal

KeithP

You are right with your Defence filing deadline but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th January 2022 to file your Defence.

Just a few days to go.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

ChickiLaLa

Le_Kirk said:

Therefore did you, by reason of being gym members, have authority to park in their car park?  If that is true, the PPC has no case.

Hi Le_Kirk - to clarify, the area at the front of the gym is a "horse-shoe" shaped drop-off zone shared by patrons of the gym and the Marriot Hotel next door with parking bays for 4-5 cars in the centre of the "horse-shoe". Up until 18Nov2019 parking in these bays was unrestricted and was used by many members of the gym. However, in November 2019 this changed when PPC took over and introduced restrictions of 20 minutes parking (only discovered once the PCN arrived in Dec2019).

1505grandad

Perhaps the following condition in the BPA CoP V7 may be applicable:-

18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that

materially affects the motorist then you must make these

terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such

changes impose liability where none previously existed then

you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the

site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.

Best practice would be the installation of additional/

temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site

making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will

ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with

the previous terms become aware of the new ones.

ChickiLaLa

Hi All,

I'm still looking at my points for defence before putting together the my DS as Registered Keeper (no driver liability has been admitted). Is there any specific order in which the defence points should be listed ?

Point 1:
A few questions have arisen regarding the timing of the first PCN/NTK  ...in summary ....

0 = 08Dec Day of Event (Sun)

1 = 09Dec

2 = 10Dec

3 = 11Dec

4 = 12Dec

5 = 13Dec

6 = 14Dec

7 = 15Dec

8 = 16Dec

9 =17Dec (Tue) issue date of PCN/NTK

10 = 18Dec

11 = 19Dec

12 = 20Dec

13 = 21Dec

14 = 22Dec

15 = 23Dec (Mon) date PCN received by RK

We can only assume the PPC use an automated system to batch-generate these letters which are scheduled for printing and delivery following the issue date. All future communications by post have been received in the same timescales (i.e. 6/7 days after issue). Is this a valid point to raise at the outset of the DS ?

Point 2:
Looking on the Richmond Council website (https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/lbrplanning/Planning_search.aspx?srchAny=tw2+7ba#results), we have found no applications for planning permission to erect CCTV/ANPR cameras and/or signage. Is this something we should add to the DS in case it becomes a relevant point on further investigation ?

Point 3:
I'm still unsure as to how I can post links on this forum to the photographs of the signage so members can provide assistance to confirm they are compliant. On subsequent visits to the location, there seem to be three versions of the notices.
- As you walk in to the gym, there is one notice on a lamppost and another on the outside wall stating "AUTHORISED VEHICLES ONLY" with no mention of a 20 minute restriction.
- The 20 minute maximum stay is only notified on a sign as you enter the drop-off zone from the main road and is easily missed as the driver turns in from the main road whilst also concentrating on avoiding any oncoming traffic leaving the parking/drop-off zone.
- Two additional notices stating the 20 minute maximum stay restriction are posted either side of the 4/5 parking bays, in the centre of the "horse-shoe" which would not be seen unless parked in the bays.

Have uploaded the notices here ... (if it works)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0hcttmcudbkkwbn/AAAotwV_m2Y6AXWvIyAUKevla?dl=0

Point 4:
I have already sent PPC a SAR on 06Jan2022 - no response as yet ... should I also ask for photo evidence of the car being parked in one of the four/five parking bays and/or the car being left unattended whilst in the drop-off zone. the PCN/NTK only show images of the vehicle entering and leaving the location.

Again, I greatly appreciate all the advice and guidance available on this forum.

Umkomaas

9 =17Dec (Tue) issue date of PCN/NTK

10 = 18Dec

11 = 19Dec

Assumed to have arrived (given) on day 11 (two working days after date of issue), unless you can prove otherwise.  Won't be easy. 

Point 2:
Looking on the Richmond Council website 

Pretty irrelevant. The council is the enforcing authority and it would be for them to pursue, and obtaining retrospective planning permission is as easy as taking sweets from a baby. You could quote the need to have all authorities in place before parking enforcement should commence (from their ATA's Code of Practice), but I've never seen a court case ever consider it. 

Point 4:
I have already sent PPC a SAR on 06Jan2022 - no response as yet ... should I also ask for photo evidence of the car being parked in one of the four/five parking bays and/or the car being left unattended whilst in the drop-off zone. the PCN/NTK only show images of the vehicle entering and leaving the location.

They have 30 days to respond to a SAR, so expect nothing much before ~05 Feb.

If the car park is one monitored by ANPR cameras, no other photo evidence is likely to be available, just doesn't happen with any ANPR-dependent PPC. 

ChickiLaLa

HELP PLEASE !!! Just a few hours left to complete the DS and we have a couple of Covid cases in the household now

Apologies in advance as I may be asking lots of questions today ..... Just bumping this again in case anyone could hopefully review the images of the notices uploaded over the weekend and provide some guidance .. link again below for easy access ..

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0hcttmcudbkkwbn/AAAotwV_m2Y6AXWvIyAUKevla?dl=0

Thanks Umkomaas .... I'm a little lost then where to start with the DS then....should points 2 and 3 of the DS concentrate on the following :

1- why they are pursuing RK when the RK has already offered to remedy the situation and stay in honour of the court by supplying the details of the possible drivers at the time (for a reasonable administration fee)
2 - signage is inconsistent at the location with three different notices (see link above)
3 - We still feel the date of delivery of the first PCN/NTK is a valid point as all letters from PPC haven take the same 6/7 days to be delivered .... thought on this please ?

TIA

Umkomaas

1. Once court proceedings have commenced it is too late to identify the driver (with or without an 'admin fee' - what are you thinking about?).  And in any case, even before proceedings, no parking firm would accept a list of 'possible drivers'. 

2. Signs look pretty standard, although you could draw attention to the fact that there is a confusion between '20 minutes only' and 'permit holders only', additionally the parking charge isn't prominent as in the ParkingEye v Beavis case commented upon by The Supreme Court Lords. 

3. Not to put too fine a point on this, you're going to have to prove it. The PPC can hold up PoFA and the Civil Procedures Rules in support, both of which state (paraphrasing) that a letter is served (given) two working days after issue. 

90% of your Defence is written for you, you need to concentrate on paras 2 and 3 where you basically set the scene describing briefly who you are and your role in defending, the type of car park, why the vehicle was there and why the PPC has no case to proceed against you. Look at the hundreds (not all of them!) of Defences that are all over the forum for the type and style of information to put in those couple of paras. - the vast majority of the threads that are opened here these days are those for court cases, we have very few parking cases per se (the real purpose of this forum!). 

ChickiLaLa

Umkomaas said:

1. Once court proceedings have commenced it is too late to identify the driver (with or without an 'admin fee' - what are you thinking about?).  And in any case, even before proceedings, no parking firm would accept a list of 'possible drivers'. 

2. Signs look pretty standard, although you could draw attention to the fact that there is a confusion between '20 minutes only' and 'permit holders only', additionally the parking charge isn't prominent as in the ParkingEye v Beavis case commented upon by The Supreme Court Lords. 

3. Not to put too fine a point on this, you're going to have to prove it. The PPC can hold up PoFA and the Civil Procedures Rules in support, both of which state (paraphrasing) that a letter is served (given) two working days after issue. 

90% of your Defence is written for you, you need to concentrate on paras 2 and 3 where you basically set the scene describing briefly who you are and your role in defending, the type of car park, why the vehicle was there and why the PPC has no case to proceed against you. Look at the hundreds (not all of them!) of Defences that are all over the forum for the type and style of information to put in those couple of paras. - the vast majority of the threads that are opened here these days are those for court cases, we have very few parking cases per se (the real purpose of this forum!). 

Thanks again Umkomaas  .. if you could kindly post a link to the Defences I can use as reference that would be appreciated ...

Also, I have previously seen on this forum the exact format of the DS e.g. line spacing etc .. any ideas ?

Umkomaas

Thanks again Umkomaas  .. if you could kindly post a link to the Defences I can use as reference that would be appreciated ...

I would need to search for them and would take the same amount of time as it would for you to do. Any 'defence' thread (the thread title should give an indication whether the case is at defence stage), that has received critique from forum regulars will have a Defence worth reading. 

Also, I have previously seen on this forum the exact format of the DS e.g. line spacing etc .. any ideas ?

The posting in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, by @bargepole contains all such details. 

ChickiLaLa

Umkomaas said:

Thanks again Umkomaas  .. if you could kindly post a link to the Defences I can use as reference that would be appreciated ...

I would need to search for them and would take the same amount of time as it would for you to do. Any 'defence' thread (the thread title should give an indication whether the case is at defence stage), that has received critique from forum regulars will have a Defence worth reading. 

Also, I have previously seen on this forum the exact format of the DS e.g. line spacing etc .. any ideas ?

The posting in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, by @bargepole contains all such details. 

First Draft of DS Points 2, 3 for critique ... please let me know if I've included too much PII for this forum and I will amend ......TIA

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. Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle when the PCN was issued. A contract requires three elements, Offer, Consideration and Acceptance. This contract would have been with the driver not the registered keeper who is the Defendant in this case, therefore it is denied that any contract with the Claimant was formed.

3.  Defendant became aware if this PCN when it arrived by post on 23rd December 2019 for a contravention alleged to have occurred on Sunday 8th December 2019. The location is well known to me as a regular patron of the Virgin Active gym next to Twickenham Stadium - the area at the front of the gym is a "horse-shoe" shaped parking/drop-off zone shared by patrons of the gym and the Marriot Hotel next door with parking bays for 4-5 cars in the centre of the "horse-shoe". Up until 18th November 2019 parking in these bays was unrestricted and was used by many members of the gym and hotel residents. However, in November 2019 this changed when the Claimant took over parking management and introduced restrictions of a maximum 20 minutes parking - this was only discovered once the PCN arrived in Dec2019 as there had been no prior period of transition notifying of this change.

After inspecting the signage at the location, at a later date, the wording is small and difficult to read by reasonable standards from street level while driving. Additionally, it is also clear that the signs displayed are confusing to say the least as they are not consistent in their message - ranging from “Drop Off Only”, “20 minutes maximum stay” and “Authorised vehicles only” with no mention of the applicable parking charge being prominent on any of the signs.

- The 20 minute maximum stay is stated on a sign as you enter the drop-off zone from the main road and can be easily missed as the driver negotiates the turn from the main road whilst also avoiding any oncoming vehicles leaving the parking/drop-off zone.
- Two additional lower-level notices stating a 20 minute maximum stay restriction are posted either side of the 4 parking bays, in the centre of the "horse-shoe" which can easily be obscured by taller vehicles and would not be seen unless parked in or close to one of the bays.

Since Dec 2019 I have received a constant stream of debt recovery letters from TPS and their legal representatives leading to enormous anxiety and stress in my day-to-day life. Please also consider I might be taking the point that the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

fyi ..I'm still awaiting a response to my SAR submitted last week ... should that be mentioned too ?