County Court Claim received, parking fine from 2 years ago - drafting a defence

Qrbrrbl

Latest version:

3. On the 22nd November 2019 the Defendant visited McDonalds at Ring Road, Horsforth, Leeds, LS16 8EB. The Defendant parked in the car park at this location and was a customer at the aforementioned McDonalds restaurant. At no point when parking did the Defendant see any clear, prominent signs showing the contractual arrangements near the bay used. There was also no signage easily visible between the bay used and the restaurant. The Defendant therefore does not agree that any form of contractual relationship was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant that would render the Claimants charges valid.

4. The Defendant believes that the Claimants entrance signage at the above location does not comply with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme’s Code of Practice version 7 January 2018 which was in effect at the time of the alleged offence (AOS CoP). The AOS CoP requires that entrance signage be situated in such a manner that “[…] it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.” (AOS CoP Appendix B – Entrance Signs”. At the location above, the entrance signage is located alongside the entrance with the bottom of the sign being on the floor. When driving into the car park, this is not clear and obvious, and was hidden from the Defendants view by the vehicle being driven at the time.

5. The Defendant believes that the Claimants signage within the carpark at the above location does not comply with the AOS CoP. The AOS CoP requires that signage stating terms and conditions “[…] must be conspicuous and legible” (Clause 18.3). Signage within this car park – with the exception of the signage in front of the disabled bays where the Defendant did not park – is located at a height of approximately 9ft with the bulk of the terms and conditions in a small font, making them illegible from ground level, especially when still within a vehicle.

6. The Defendant believes that the £100 charge for overstaying the maximum parking period is unreasonable and therefore must be clearly identified with attention drawn to this clause in accordance with Lord Dennings “Red Hand Rule”, which states “[…] the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.” The signage at the above location displays the charges for overstaying the maximum parking term in relatively small black text on a large sign which does not stand out in any way.

7. The Claimant has provided evidence in the form of photographs of the vehicles “entry” to and “exit” from the car park taken by ANPR cameras, both of which have times superimposed onto the images. Based on the angles from which these images are taken it is clear that the two images were taken by two discrete cameras. The Claimant has not provided evidence of any sort of synchronisation or calibration of these cameras to display the same times and the times shown on the images differ from the Defendants own understanding of the time of entry to and exit from the car park. It is therefore disputed that the Defendant overstayed the maximum parking period at all, especially when taking into account the minimum grace period included in the AOS CoP clause 13.2 - “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

Coupon-mad

That's very good.

Qrbrrbl

Fantastic, will get it submitted on Monday morning via email. Thanks for your help.

Whats the next step after that?

Coupon-mad

The 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.  That's why I put them there, in the first post.

Qrbrrbl

Looking at the N180 now - there is a new question D1 which isnt covered on the guidance:

Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without a hearing, i.e. by a judge reading and considering the case papers, witness statements and other documents filed by the parties, making a decision, and giving a note of reasons for that decision?

What would be best on here?

All the rest of the questions (hearing venue etc.) are moved down one, so the address for the hearing is now E1 instead of D1.

1505grandad

Covered by the following thread:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6364201/new-questions-on-the-n180-form/p1

Qrbrrbl

Perfect, thanks. Had a read through a couple of the threads on telephone hearings too

Not sure if I have to provide a reason given my local court isnt in the pilot, but would the following be seen as good reasons?

- Likelihood of distractions from family / children
- Potential issues with legibility of all parts, sound quality etc 
- Potential for network issues

Is there anything else I could add that dont come down to doubts over the ability of a court to make the right call over the phone? I cant imagine potentially insulting the competence of the court would help at this point.

KeithP

Qrbrrbl said:

Perfect, thanks. Had a read through a couple of the threads on telephone hearings too

Not sure if I have to provide a reason given my local court isnt in the pilot, but would the following be seen as good reasons?

- Likelihood of distractions from family / children
- Potential issues with legibility of all parts, sound quality etc 
- Potential for network issues

Is there anything else I could add that dont come down to doubts over the ability of a court to make the right call over the phone? I cant imagine potentially insulting the competence of the court would help at this point.

But that new question is about the case being determined on the papers. Nothing to do with a telephone hearing.
So your three reasons are inappropriate.

Qrbrrbl

Good point. What sort of reasons would I use for papers then? The thread about the new question just points people to the thread on telephone hearings

Coupon-mad

The other ones in the Telephone Hearings thread.  Page14 I seem to recall I drafted a response as to why no hearing on the papers.

That's why we are signposting to that thread.