Draft defence - am I along the right lines?

1505grandad

As above  -  also:-

"6.       I visited a resident at xxx, returning to my car the next day 11th July 2021 to a PCN, the amount of which has now been inflated to £160."

Did you mean to state that as in the D and WS you appear to be defending as RK only?

I may have missed it but who is the claimant?

BQ1771

Thank you, I have amended the whole WS to the more recent format and wording, easier to incorporate my defence in this draft too.  

I still cannot post links so I have included below my index and circumstances (visited a friend at a residential property and got a PCN for not displaying a permit).  *The claimant is Parking and Property Management Ltd.*

I'm unsure whether to include a couple of the photos that you can see signage in the distance? As I can't post these either!
TIA

Index

Content	Page number
Witness Statement	2-10
XX-01 Approach road (photo)	11
XX-02 Forward view of Walkers Place on entry, no visible signage (photo)	12
XX-03 Left view of Walkers Place on entry, no visible signage (photo)	13
XX-04 Right view of Walkers Place on entry, no visible signage (photo)	14
XX-05 View from the car near parking spaces (photo)	15
XX-06 Driver’s view in driver side wing mirror, no visible signage (photo)	16
XX-07 Driver’s view in passenger side wing mirror, no visible signage (photo)	17
XX-08 Driver’s view in rear-view mirror, no visible signage (photo)	18
XX-09 Driver’s view to right once parked (photo)	19
XX-10 Driver’s view to left once parked (photo)	20
XX-11 Photograph of vehicle, signage illegible from a distance (from claimant SAR)	21
XX-12 Beavis case sign	22
XX-13 ParkingEye Limited v Beavis – Paragraphs 98, 193, and 198	23-24
XX-14 Excel v Wilkinson case transcript	25-34
XX-15 Defendant’s Schedule of Costs	35

1. I am Ms X of X, 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. Firstly, it should be noted that the Claimant has suggested that my defence constitutes a false statement, which is refuted because the Defendant has spent many hours on research and should not be criticised for using some wording which has already been provided.  I have appended actual signage, photographed myself on 12th September 2022, and will refer to these throughout.

 

4. The approach and entrance to the residence and car park is on a double yellow line and as is visible from exhibits XX-01 through to XX-04 there is no signage visible at the entrance to Walkers Place nor on the approach to the parking spaces.

 

5. The Claimant asserts that the motorist is legally obliged to make themselves aware of the terms and conditions at the time of parking.  Exhibits XX-05 to XX-10 show the view from the car whilst parking and once stationary in a space.  Signage is not clearly visible from any angle nor in any mirror as a driver, as such I refute this assertion.  It is not reasonable to expect a motorist to be bound by terms and conditions which are not abundant nor clearly marked.  This is illustrated in the photographs of signage provided by the Claimant as well as exhibit XX-11 (also provided by the Claimant after a SAR), the text of the signs is not legible.

 

6. I visited a resident at X, returning to my car the next day, 11th July 2021 to a PCN, the amount of which has now been inflated to £160.  Due to the lack of adequate signage, I was not aware prior to being issued a PCN that there was a permit system in place nor was I ever in possession of a permit as the Claimant asserts. 

 

7. A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye was 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-12 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.

 

8. This Claimant has failed to provide adequate notice of any terms, let alone the parking charge, which is not 'prominent' in reality. It is noted that the Claimant is relying upon an image of the vehicle near a sign which is not legible in the photograph, or from a distance (exhibit xx-11). I took the evidence photographs appended to this statement myself (on 12th September 2022). I can state from my own knowledge that signage is not prominent and therefore a motorist has no real opportunity of becoming acquainted with terms that they are later expected to be bound to.

 

BQ1771

1505grandad said:

As above  -  also:-

"6.       I visited a resident at xxx, returning to my car the next day 11th July 2021 to a PCN, the amount of which has now been inflated to £160."

Did you mean to state that as in the D and WS you appear to be defending as RK only?

I may have missed it but who is the claimant?

How would I need to phrase it to be stating it as the D?  The claimant is Parking and Property Management Ltd.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

If you were the driver then it is best to be honest, as you have in this WS.

1505grandad was just pointing out that you didn't originally say in your defence that you were the driver, and he was just checking that you are happy to take this more straightforward stance in court.

I can state from my own knowledge that signage is not prominent and therefore a motorist has no real opportunity of becoming acquainted with terms that they are later expected to be bound to.

Terms that they are later bound by. Not 'to'.

You should append an extra case: PACE v Lengyel.  Search the forum to find it and the wording people have used about that case, where it was successfully argued that there was no contract on offer to non-permit holders, who would find it impossible to comply.

BQ1771

Thank you.  I have added a paragraph
8.2 In the alternative, any contract that was established was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance as the Defendant had no information how to obtain a valid parking permit and no means of securing one, as discussed in PACE Recovery and Storage v Lengyel. C7GF6E3R.

BQ1771

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a4d6pry8dszpf483xlk4i/Witness-Statement-Redacted.docx?dl=0&rlkey=u3nxlnbdy84afeg2t3uqo61fj

Coupon-mad

I'd get rid of exhibit 11 as they will provide that pic themselves and it doesn't help your case really.

Pace v Lengyel has to be an exhibit.  It's found in the Parking Prankster's case law pages when you Google search for it.

All your photos need the date embedded (Google how to show this on a photo using a free date imprinter) or just screenshot each pic on your phone which has the same effect.  Then put the screenshot dated photos in as evidence instead.

BQ1771

Thank you.  I'll add Pace v Lengyel as an exhibit and take out xx-11 too. Googling date stamping as I type this...  

Thank you for your advice and for all of the time and information you and others have spent putting together all of this information. I'd have been lost without it.

BQ1771

Hi again,
My hearing is going ahead in a few days.  In addition to my cheat sheet, a copy of my WS is there anything else I should take or have in mind to say?  
Thanks all

Umkomaas

BQ1771 said:

Hi again,
My hearing is going ahead in a few days.  In addition to my cheat sheet, a copy of my WS is there anything else I should take or have in mind to say?  
Thanks all

This might give you a flavour of how a typical small claims court hearing might pan out. Take a look at this if you've not previously seen it - originally posted by forum regular @KeithP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU