Defence - Premier Park Limited & BW Legal

Montarivo

I am fighting a PPC regarding a PCN I received back in September 2020 where I did not see that I was entering a contractual agreement to pay for parking as the signage was small, dimly lit (incident took place at night), and not obviously placed. I now have a county court date set for 1st March 2022 and so have to submit all of my defence documents by next Tuesday 15th February. I have put together a draft copy of my witness statement whereby I argue that the signage at the location is too small, not clear enough that a contractual agreement is entered, and that the charges the PPC have since tried to impose upon me were not cleary specified on the signs.

I notice there is no option for me to upload a file to a post - what is the best way for me to share my defence and witness statement (redacted) with you so that I can get some feedback and advice for my case? I am new to all of this and so am still learning about all of the different laws and regulations, so would greatly appreciate any advice from you all. Thank you

cossimo88

Following as in same position.
If you copy paste the text in the comments it should work

Coupon-mad

Yes just copy and paste the defence you submitted, and which PPC and legal firm is bothering you?

Example WS that were good recently are those by @jrhys and @Nosy but of course you also need to read and use the new Code of Practice published yesterday, because the banning of false 'debt recovery' add-ons definitely helps you knock that part (£60 or £70) of the exaggerated claim for six.

And the section on signage may help you paint a picture of best practice too.

See the thread by bargepole yesterday about the new Code of Practice and £50 PCN levels and the NEW debt recovery fakery ban.

Montarivo

Coupon-mad said:

Yes just copy and paste the defence you submitted, and which PPC and legal firm is bothering you?

Example WS that were good recently are those by @jrhys and @Nosy but of course you also need to read and use the new Code of Practice published yesterday, because the banning of false 'debt recovery' add-ons definitely helps you knock that part (£60 or £70) of the exaggerated claim for six.

And the section on signage may help you paint a picture of best practice too.

See the thread by bargepole yesterday about the new Code of Practice and £50 PCN levels and the NEW debt recovery fakery ban.

The PPC is Premier Park Limited, and my defence is as follows (rest of the template defence omitted for convenience):

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

3.       It is admitted that the Defendant parked in the car park between the hours of 17:20 and 18:49 on the 19th of November 2020, but the Defendant did not see any signs, thus was not aware of the contract they were supposedly entering. Following receipt of the claim form, the Defendant carried out research of the car park on foot to assess the signs intended to inform the customer of said contract.

4.       The car park has only one sign at the entrance, which is not clearly visible upon entering due to its small size and weak lighting conditions. The signs within the car park are also small, are positioned above a wall above eye-level, and are beneath a row of trees that diminish the already weak lighting conditions. The car park is directly adjacent to the venue and is the closest car park for customers visiting the venue, yet there are no signs on the side of the car park where the venue is located.

5.       The Claimant operates parking services at this location during the night time where they employ the aforementioned small, weakly lit, poorly placed signs in order to impose a contractual agreement that depends on the realisation of the trader’s will alone. Therefore, the signs would be considered unfair and void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay a ‘parking charge’ was entered into. 

The PPC are making a claim for £251.16 from me, which is broken down into:

£100 - Principal Debt (this amount is stated on the terms and conditions sign in the car park)
£60 - Recovery Costs (as per ATA AoS Code of Practice)
£6.16 - Interest (at a rate of 8% per annum)
£35 - Court fees
£50 - Solicitor's costs

The PPC, Premier Park Limited, is also asking me to pay them £27 on top of that for the trial fees, bringing the total outstanding balance to £278.16! However, this fee isn't stated in the county court claim form.

In addition to my defence argument that the signage was poor and is not sufficient, I am arguing the usual double recovery costs and the abuse of process as described in the template defence. However, I am slightly concerned the PPC will argue this case isn't actually double recovery, as the original PCN charge of £100 is stated on the T&C sign, meaning the recovery costs are applied once in the £60 ATA amount.

Please let me know what you think, in terms of the effectiveness of me arguing the usual template defence (double recovery, abuse of process) here with the fees mentioned above.

Thanks

D_P_Dance

 I did not see that I was entering a contractual agreement to pay for parking as the signage was small, dimly lit (incident took place at night), 

Most of thes signs are pants.  One company had 700 words of T&C the judge was distinctly unimpressed, read this,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

Montarivo

I have since finished the draft for my defence and witness statement and have uploaded it to google drive.

Witness statement:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/154bedMLIvii_VTdfW6lA4ZKVdGU7Hl-7/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115166667120559343707&rtpof=true&sd=true

The main arguments of my defence are the poor visibility signage and the double recovery of debt. However, I am unsure how to relate my case to the Beavis case, so I have highlighted the draft paragraph in red for now as it was taken from another WS related to a residency PCN case and doesn't apply to mine.

Please let me know what you think of my WS and feel free to make comments within the google doc - I would greatly appreciate any advice on how to argue the Beavis case related to my case, and anything you would change/add. 

Also, I would like to make reference to the recent changes in PCN charges but am unsure how to argue this...is there any inspiration I can take regarding this? Perhaps somewhere in the post by @bargepole last week?

The hearing date is 01/03/22 and so the deadline to submit my WS is tomorrow, 15/02/22 at 10am, so I would really appreciate any feedback you can give today / tomorrow morning. I apologise this post is so close to the deadline, I could give excuses but frankly, I haven't had time to manage this as well as I should have, which I regret. Thank you for your time and effort.

1505grandad

Your opening post 8.2.22 states:-

"I am fighting a PPC regarding a PCN I received back in September 2020 ....."

I am having problems reconciling dates  -  your Defence posted 11.2.22 states:-

3.       It is admitted that the Defendant parked in the car park between the hours of 17:20 and 18:49 on the 19th of November 2020,....."

YET YOUR WS STATES:-

Para 5  -  " I entered the car park at the stated time of 18:53 on October 21st 2020, which was after sunset and dark."

Para 3  -  "After I received the PCN, I carried out some research and during a visit to the site of the alleged contravention, I took the photos shown in Exhibits of this defence."

And your pictures in WS are all dated 25/08/2021 which is not "after" (giving the impression not long after) receiving pcn.

Montarivo

1505grandad said:

Your opening post 8.2.22 states:-

"I am fighting a PPC regarding a PCN I received back in September 2020 ....."

I am having problems reconciling dates  -  your Defence posted 11.2.22 states:-

3.       It is admitted that the Defendant parked in the car park between the hours of 17:20 and 18:49 on the 19th of November 2020,....."

YET YOUR WS STATES:-

Para 5  -  " I entered the car park at the stated time of 18:53 on October 21st 2020, which was after sunset and dark."

I changed the dates and times of the WS so as to not be recognised by the Claimant's solicitor but I realise now this is poitnless as I've already discussed the dates before in other posts, and it is too late in the process for them to gain any advantage by looking at my posts. They have already sent me their WS which I can post today.

Para 3  -  "After I received the PCN, I carried out some research and during a visit to the site of the alleged contravention, I took the photos shown in Exhibits of this defence."

And your pictures in WS are all dated 25/08/2021 which is not "after" (giving the impression not long after) receiving pcn.

The date of the alleged contravention was in fact 29th September 2020. I had moved into the area only 10 days prior, and had stupidly forgotten to update the address on my driver's license until the following May of 2021, so all initial NTKs had been sent to my previous address. My first knowledge of the PCN was from the issue of legal proceedings sent to my new address on 16th May 2021, where the charges had accumulated to £241.87 by that point. I went back and forth with BW Legal as I was trying to work out when this had taken place and if I was even in that car park at the time. Once a bundle of NTKs had been sent to me and I realised it was, in fact, me and my car on the date and time shown, I went to the car park to look for the signs and parking restrictions, which is where the photos of my WS dated 25th August 2021 are from.

I know it was careless of me to not update my driver's license address until the following spring, but I genuinely didn't see the signage on the night of the contravention due to the reasons outlined in my WS, which is why I am determined to argue this case. I hope this won't trash the credibility of my position, but if the people on this forum think it likely will do, please let me know. The claimant has offered me a discount to get the claim struck out, so I can always pay £208 by 22/02/2022 to have this claim resolved before the hearing...though I really hope I don't have to give them a penny.

D_P_Dance

the charges had accumulated to £241.87 

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

1505grandad

"I know it was careless of me to not update my driver's license address until the following spring,...)

It is the log book you should also update with new address which is what the DVLA supply to the ppc. Have you done this?  -  if not a fine of £1000 may be due.

Montarivo

1505grandad said:

"I know it was careless of me to not update my driver's license address until the following spring,...)

It is the log book you should also update with new address which is what the DVLA supply to the ppc. Have you done this?  -  if not a fine of £1000 may be due.

Yes I have updated both driving license and logbook now.

You're right, my mistake. What I meant to say was that I only updated the adress on my driving license when I moved, and didn't update the logbook until the following spring. Hence the PCNs didn't reach me until I changed the logbook.