Parking Control Management - Defence help, please!

Parking_Fighter

Date of Claim: 07/02/2022
Acknowledgment of Service filed: 23/02/2022

Court claim received and filed by AoS (I believe deadline for defence submission is tomorrow (11/03/22). Defence construction is underway using Mar-22 document.

The facts of the case are that the driver parked the vehicle in a car park which was located across the road from the drivers home address at the time and used whilst the driver was moving good in and out. The driver was loading and unloading goods. The signage in the car park is terrible (there are two very small signs). The driver soght to park on the road but there no spaces were available so the driver had no choice but to park here to move things into / out of their home. 

Defence below (only the relevant customised paragraphs) (paragraph 2/3): any advice welcome:

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

3. The Defendant parked the vehicle in said location for a short period of time as they were both loading and unloading their vehicle as part of a house move from their flat (which was situated across the road). Due to unavailability of spaces on the road on the day, the Defendant was forced to unload and load in the area the alleged contravention occurred. The Defendant further averts to the fact that the vehicles was parked in a manner not to obstruct traffic to and from the parking location.

3.1. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Services) case where the judge said stopping/delivering is not parking.

Thanks in advance!

KeithP

Parking_Fighter said:

Date of Claim: 07/02/2022
Acknowledgment of Service filed: 23/02/2022

I have received a court claim and filed by AoS (I believe I have until tomorrow (11/03/22) to submit by defence).

You have longer than you thought - not much longer though.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th March 2022 to file your Defence.

That's not far away, but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

See your other thread for my comments on your excessive use of the word 'I'.

Coupon-mad

Due to unavailability of spaces on the road on the day, the Defendant was forced to unload and load in the area the alleged contravention occurred.

Remove the above.

You can't just say (effectively) there was no space on the road, so you put the car on private land that's unrelated to the flat.

Jopson won't apply, if this car park was nothing to do with the flats.  You had no right or expectation to be able to park there.

Were there no double or single yellows on street?  They are there for loading/unloading activity.

Parking_Fighter

Coupon-mad said:

Due to unavailability of spaces on the road on the day, the Defendant was forced to unload and load in the area the alleged contravention occurred.

Remove the above.

You can't just say (effectively) there was no space on the road, so you put the car on private land that's unrelated to the flat.

Jopson won't apply, if this car park was nothing to do with the flats.  You had no right or expectation to be able to park there.

Were there no double or single yellows on street?  They are there for loading/unloading activity.

Thanks - I'll remove Jopson / point on no space on the road. There were double yellow lines and single yellow lines but it's located on a main road, and we were carrying large boxes / items which meant it was safer to park in the location to add / remove items as we needed to have the door / boot open to move things around..

I hope that helps?

Coupon-mad

Yes but doesn't help your defence much because main road or not, that's what yellow lines are there for - exempt activity stopping is allowed.  That's where the car should have been. Couldn't have been ticketed.

Anyway that's irrelevant to your defence, and the case will really be about whether the Judge thinks the signs are clear enough.

Parking_Fighter

Hi all - I am just finalising my WS can you please let me know if you have any comments please?

I will use the whole WS referred to in the Newbies thread - below is the bits that I will personalise for the case. The case is in 4 weeks time, but I am on holiday from tomorrow, so looking to submit later today. I have put in [ ] description of the pictures that I will add as Exhibits supporting my points.  Any help would be appreciated.

1.         I am XXX of XXX, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

2.         In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

 

Sequence of events and signage

 

3.         The approach and entrance to the car park is on a double-track road with single yellow lines (Exhibit xx-01) [PICTURE OF THE CAR PARK FROM THE ROAD]. This is a busy road beside the bus station where stopping is both impossible due to the single yellow lines and heavy traffic (including many buses) not being able to pass. The only safe way to stop to “view” any visible car park terms and conditions is by entering.

 

4.         At the point of entry, the entrance terms and conditions sign is not visible or readable (Exhibit xx-02) [PICTURE AS YOU ENTER THE CAR PARK]. As outlined by the Claimant (see Claimant's Exhibit XX-3), the sign located on the far wall as you enter the car park is easily obstructed by vehicles parked between the Claimant’s vehicle and the sign the Claimant relies on. The sign located on the right hand side of the car park, cannot be seen or read on entry, or noticeable given how high it is located.

 

5.         Further, the Defendant attests that the sign’s terms and conditions are too high and the font is too small to read from standing beside it. Exhibit xx-XX [PICTURE OF THE SIGN AS IF YOU ARE READING IT] is of the entrance sign, taken from eye level whilst standing below it to demonstrate that the sign’s are unreadable to an average person.  

 

6.         In addition, the Defendant would typically expect the parking location to prominently display charges (either per hour / per minute basis) for parking in the car park, so that it is easy for any driver to understand that payment is required to park in the car park. The Defendant confirms no signs exists at all in the site in question, as does the Claimant’s own evidence submitted to the honourable courts. The only reference to “payment” is on the sign which references a payment line, but as indicated above, this cannot be easily read or seen from normal height.

 

7.         Further, the Claimant would expect, for a modern car park, a card machine to be available as a further indication that the car park was a paying site but none exists at the site, further providing evidence that the signage and other factors do not clearly indicate that the site is a paying site.

 

8.         The Claimants Exhibit XX-2 [CLAIMANT'S PICTURE SHOWING VARIOUS SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE SITE - I'M SHOWING MOST ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE SITE] provides evidence of “various” signs located in around the site, the only two that are relevant to the purported claim are highlighted within Exhibit xx-XX  [PICTURE OF THE CAR PARK FROM THE ROAD], the others relied on by the Claimant are not applicable to this case as they are located in different locations throughout the site, and from a reasonable person would not assume these belong to the same site as there are multiple entrances to the site. These, in the Claimant’s view, do not form part of the dispute, so the Defendant asks the Honourable Courts to disregard these signs as they are not applicable to the Claim at hand.

 

9.         A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this sign in exhibit xx-09 for comparison. In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.

Coupon-mad

Don't use the RobertCox example there as it's out of date now.  Since then, we've seen the new statutory Code of Practice published then temporarily withdrawn this year, so there is more to say.

Excel v Wilkinson is meant to be an exhibit in every single case.  See the example WS bundles by:

@Daiapolon2021 

and

@aphex007 

Adapt those instead.  And don't forget your costs assessment page.  See those 2 threads.