Court Claim - Premier Park Ltd

Coupon-mad

I don't think you should say "the vehicle which was has been given the ticket" because presumably it wasn't ticketed on the day or you'd know who was driving & who found that PCN affixed to the car.

The WS bundle we tell people to adapt is the one by @aphex007

Deku_

@Coupon-mad Thanks yet again, Coupon. Appreciate all your input thus far.

I've put together a draft, using @aphex007 's W/S as a template. 

It can be found here: https://pdfhost.io/v/b3hbCERZO_W_S_Parking_4

I've got a section around the different versions of T&C's the claimant has submitted, as well as a section of the interpretation of their Customer License Agreement which I'd be very keen for some feedback on.
@Fruitcake I'm led to believe contracts are your speciality


Appreciate you guys all do this in your spare time and NFP so I'm rather conscious about continuous pinging and questions! 


edit: Updated URL for most recent Draft.

1505grandad

Some observations on quick skim read:-

Check spellings i.e."practi(s)e"

Para numbers not sequential

Para 35  -  "I did not agree to it."  -  are you stating you are the driver (as only the driver is liable for the contract via signage and purported add-ons).

Deku_

Thanks @1505grandad. Good catch on Para 35.

Adjusted numbers, formatting and spellchecked. 

I will be submitting this afternoon, off the back of previous advice to assume the 27th of Oct Deadline on my notification letter is a typo and today is the deadline at 4pm.


Updated URL for Witness Statement Draft:

Formatting, Spelling updated.
Paragraph 33. added (CPR 44.11 further costs)
Schedule of Costs included

https://pdfhost.io/v/b3hbCERZO_W_S_Parking_4

Deku_

I'm going to submit the most recent draft momentarily. It's as good as I can make it, I think.

Thanks for the input and help everyone. 

Deku_

Hi all. My Hearing Date is now approaching (Tuesday 1st Nov). I've been searching and scanning the forum for other cases that have went to hearing to help prep for the actual hearing.

I've put together this Crib Sheet for the day and would appreciate any feedback if possible:

Crib Sheet

Paragraph 3) Claimant has offered nothing as to who was driving. 2 drivers insured and made this trip regularly - cannot say with confidence who was driving.

Paragraph 4)  Claimants customer license agreement has unclear statements surrounding pre-existing in house parking systems. Exhibit XX-02

Paragraph 5) Claimant has offered images of signs that display 2 versions of terms and conditions. This goes against BPA Code of practise. If this is a change of T&Cs, not clear when this occurred + if a grace period was offered.  This also amounts to unclear signage. Exhibit XX-05

Paragraph 11) Claimant exceeds maximum amount claimable from a registered keeper and has added interest on to this false sum. 

FROM CLAIMANT BUNDLE:

Paragraph 41) Claimant makes reference to the Defendant claiming not to have received Pre-Action Correspondence. At no point in my Defence or Statement have I made such a claim. This leads me to believe the Claimant has used a generic Claim template - which they have admonished in Paragraph 39 - advising the defence should be struck out for using a "generic" Defence. By their own argument, the claimants case should be struck out on this basis. 

I'm specifically unsure about the final point.. The Claim has a section saying I claim to have not received Pre-Action correspondence which is not true.

I'm also expecting the judge to be unfavourable toward me because I ignored the PPCs initial letters. I'm not sure I can defend this? I was considering advising I've had previous dealings with Premier Park, years ago, where I did make contact and was met with uncooperative and hostile communications (all true but I'm not able to prove this) until they eventually stopped contacting me. But I'm not sure this would be wise as it's unsubstantiated and probably just completely irrelevant?

Coupon-mad

Not irrelevant!  Say your bit, plus the fact that there are no truly 'independent' appeals services that the public have any confidence in.  This is proved by the incoming statutory Code of Practice which will replace both POPLA and the IAS with a properly independent Single Appeals Service.

Whilst the new CoP is temporarily withdrawn, that is ONLY to revisit the level of parking charges. Nothing else is being changed (and certainly not the commitment to the Single Appeals Service).

But that's minor.

This is only a thing if you can then explain to the Judge why this matters:

"Paragraph 3) Claimant has offered nothing as to who was driving. 2 drivers insured and made this trip regularly - cannot say with confidence who was driving."

OK...so what will you say if crusty Judge muses:

"but how does that matter Mr/Ms Defendant? Private parking firms can hold registered keepers liable, can't they...?"

Deku_

Thanks @Coupon-mad.

This is only a thing if you can then explain to the Judge why this matters:

"Paragraph 3) Claimant has offered nothing as to who was driving. 2 drivers insured and made this trip regularly - cannot say with confidence who was driving."

OK...so what will you say if crusty Judge muses:

"but how does that matter Mr/Ms Defendant? Private parking firms can hold registered keepers liable, can't they...?"

So, I believe my response to this would be:

"While Private Parking Firms can hold registered keepers liable, they must meet criteria set in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12. In this case, I suggest Paragraph 12 hasn't been met as they have breached the relevant National Authority (BPA) by having unclear and contradicting signs on their site (Paragraph 5 of Witness Statement for Evidence of signs with different T&Cs). In addition, if the court is to determine these conditions were met, the claimant can only recover the amount established in their Notice to Keeper letter which is outlined in the same Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5). (para 11 of Statement"


Something along those lines? 

Deku_

Well I'm as prepared as I can be, I think. Hopefully tomorrow goes alright; although I am admittedly rather anxious about it!

Any last minute advice before I am reamed out by a PPC-Sympathetic Bournemouth judge?

KeithP

Have you seen this video?...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Just three or four people sitting round a table having a discussion.