UK PPO BW Legal Witness Statement

soleldn

Hi All,

I have a hearing for a country court claim brought against me by UK PPO and BW Legal next month. I submit AoS, Defense, DQ etc on time and am now drafting my Witness Statement which is due to be sent on Thursday 3rd March. A summary of the case is: a couple years ago I went to a friends apartment which is on a site “managed” by UK PPO. On the day there were temporary barriers erected to restrict entry to residential roads, due to an event going on in the area. The temporary barriers were manned by stewards. The stewards granted me access to the site as I told them I was there for a resident and they also informed me it would be okay to park there and no time restrictions applied. I stayed on the site for 30 mins and left, and then returned later that day to also be let in by stewards and given permission to park, this time staying on the site for 50 mins. A few days later I received 2 PCNs for the 2 visits made this day for overstaying the 20 minute time limit that was allegedly in place at the parking site.

My key defence points are:

• Promissory estoppel as the stewards and employees of the landowners/Claimant allowed me to park and informed me there were no time restrictions
• Insufficient signage to bind the reader into a contract
• No grace period offered
• No proof of landowner authority
• Abuse of process

I have began to drafted a WS but wanted to clarify one point:

The Claimant provided no photos of signs at any point in the process. I did not take photos of the signs at the time but have found some from before and after the incident on Google Street view. See below the Google Street view photo from 6 months before the incident, in 2019. I have circled 2 signs, Sign 1 in red and Sign 2 in yellow. Sign 1 is at the site entrance and the text is quite visible in the 2019 Google Street view shot and in subsequent GSV shots. While it is possibly visible to a moving vehicle, it is vague and I don’t think binds a driver to a contract. I took a close up picture of Sign 1 last week, shown below, and the text remains the same as in the 2019 GSV shot.

Sign 2 as seen in the Google Street view shot is only visible in the far distance and it is impossible to read what it says. It could easily be missed if you didn’t know it was there in the GSV picture. The Sign 2 visible in the 2019 GSV is still there today but it is impossible to know if the text has changed and if it is the same sign or not. I doubt the Claimant will have a picture of the sign at the incident date, but could they use a picture from before or after the incident as evidence? If so, should I pick apart Sign 2 with a recent close up picture of the Sign terms and use this in my Witness Statement? The text as it stands today is too small to be seen by a moving car so there are points to be made against it, but I have no proof whether or not the sign was the same at the incident date or not. I also don’t want to be handing the Claimant evidence that could be used against me if the Sign is found to be compliant.

For these reasons I am unsure whether or not to address Sign 2 in my WS and if this should be based on a recent close up picture or the picture in the distance from GSV. I would really appreciate some advice from the forum on what to do about this.

Google Street View picture from 2019 - 6 months before the incident showing Sign 1 (red circle) and Sign 2 (yellow circle) (have greyed out bits to hide the location but happy to provide more detail if needed):

EDIT: (redacted)



Sign 1 Close up picture taken Feb 2022:

EDIT: (redacted)

Trainerman

As regards your question about the signs, my reading of threads here suggests that some claimants will use photographs that are not contemporaneous with the alleged breech. So, if you need to protect against that and it actually helps your case then in my view it is valid. Did you original defence mention that point so you can expand on it ?

Coupon-mad

My rule of thumb is that the Defendant should never supply any close up of a sign.  It can come back to bite you as your evidence may assist the parking firm.

Certainly use a more distanced GSV image, but at an angle showing the way the car would have approached.  Not a straight on view like that.

 I doubt the Claimant will have a picture of the sign at the incident date.

They should have, because that's a basic requirement for AOS members to evidence breach in a particular day.  And this was probably a self-ticketer (a resident after a £10-£15 bounty per PCN) and they have to photograph the sign as well as the car.

Were either of them windscreen PCNs?

Or were the pics of the car captured on foot but the PCNs were later sent by post?

If so, then you have a strong argument against the second one, by referring to the fact the image processing was covert and predatory and failed to bring the 'consumer notice' (the FIRST PCN) to the attention of the driver on site.

This breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement for prominence of consumer notices, which caused the driver to take a 'transactional decision' they would not otherwise have done (i.e. returning later that day and repeating the unknown 'breach' thus incurring a covert SECOND PCN').

The authority that confirms this is the correct interpretation in consumer law, is in the new Parking Code of Practice published by the UK Government on 7th February (quote the section about self ticketing).  State that these PCNs were both covert and predatory and you put the Claimant to strict proof of who issued the tickets, if a self ticketer you believe they were an unregulated lurking resident, incentivised by a bounty, which is not just against the new statutory Code but also against the IPC Code that applied at the time.

 could they use a picture from before or after the incident as evidence?

Yes, but don't provide any close ups!

Also don't miss the fact the new statutory code has now banned the fake £60 or £70 add-on for pseudo 'debt recovery'.  Bargepole has written a paragraph to cover that and I posted an adapted version this week, that doesn't require people to add the sum of money that is objectionable (because people keep getting it wrong).

And I wrote my own version because I think it's important to quote the Ministerial Foreword that says that the false costs add-on was 'designed to extort money from motorists' so it is crystal clear this is a steer to the courts to disallow it in all existing cases.

soleldn

Thanks for your responses. I did mention the point in my defence. 
The PCNs were issued by an automated system based on ANPR cameras at the entry and exit point to the site. Neither were windscreen PCNs and were received a few days after the incident. This is why I believe they may not have a picture of the sign at the contravention date.

Will exclude all close ups and only include GSV shots. If any more photos of signage are included in the claimant’s witness statement, will I have a chance to respond to this before the hearing?
Will add in the point around prominence of customer notices and update to reflect your paragraph on debt recovery.

Thanks!

soleldn

If I am showing Sign 1 (sign upon entry to the site) in the GSV picture and then commenting that the text on the sign cannot be binding, do I not need to include a close up picture of the sign?

Coupon-mad

No, and don't show that angle.

Use the new Code of Practice as I suggested (can't have featured in your defence as it's newly published this month). Not just the bit about the ban on fake 'costs'.

soleldn

Will exclude the close up angle, but please see below the GSV approximate view from a vehicle approaching the site and turning into the road (sign circled in red). Is this okay to include or do you mean even this angle shouldn't be shown?

EDIT: (redacted)

Coupon-mad

Nope, pull it back 5 or 10 metres into the road your car was coming from.  Or do it from the right.

Fruitcake

If possible, see if you can find an image with the No Through Road sign obscuring the entry sign to show that a motorist could not have seen that sign.

Make sure your GSV pictures show the image capture date at the bottom.

You should also state that you want the claimant to provide witness statements from the steward(s) on duty at the time of the alleged event.

soleldn

I found the below GSV shot from April 2021 (1.5 years after the incident) that doesn't seem to have any sign at the entrance at all. Is it a good idea to include this and if so should I also show the below shot from March 2019 a few months before the incident (that shows the sign was there) and then address the poor signage?

In my mind the issue with only showing the shot from April 2021 (without a sign) and excluding the photo with the sign, is that if the Claimant then includes a picture of the site with signs, I will not have made any points about poor signage so won't be able to defend that as strongly. Also the Claimaint could argue that the sign was there at the time of the incident and then removed. Please correct me though if that's not the case?

Sorry for dwelling on this point a bit but the rest of my WS is pretty much done so its just the photo evidence that may change it a bit!

April 2021 GSV shot without sign:



March 2019 GSV shot with sign showing:

soleldn

Is anyone able to tell me if I will get a chance to respond to any additional photos/evidence the Claimant provides in their witness statement pack?