County Court Claim Issue Date 13th May '22

Coupon-mad

Put articles like this into evidence:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/parking-changes-strike-macclesfield-superbowl-16448277.amp

"Macclesfield Superbowl declined to comment, saying it was a matter for UKPC.

But in an email...the company said the new system was brought in as the car park was becoming full of non-customer cars.  It also says: “We have added extra signs on all till points and the front door for customers viewing inside the building."

One wonders how they concluded that "the car park was becoming full of non-customer cars"...?  

Perhaps because UKPC told them they had a problem that didn't actually exist.

Fruitcake

Billy_Bamford said:

I am working on the WS statement, but am genuinely struggling to find evidence with regards to the signage relating to the car park when the event took place. UKPC no longer "manage" the car park, who only managed it for a short amount of time, obviously the apparent signs are no longer in situ, plus I've had a look on Google Maps - the latest update being June 2017 (which is before UKPC's control). Is this lack of evidence likely to have a detrimental impact on my case? 

UKPC signs are always inadequate and incapable of forming a contract because the charge for breaching parking Ts and Cs is always in tiny font.
If the signs mentioned a free parking period, it will have been in large font to draw the eye. Anything about there being a hidden keypad will be buried in smaller font and not readable by a motorist.

Search the forum for "hidden keypad" and do a forum or internet search for UKPC signs. You will see what I mean about the font size.

UKPC will include images of signs. They won't be readable. They may also include a perfectly clear and readable stock image.
If you get to see the claimant's WS before you need to submit yours, then you can comment on the signs, and the fact that any stock image is simply that from a file held on a computer, not one from the site.
Please post a copy here for us to check over when you receive it, just make sure you redact personal data, but don't redact anything already in the public domain. Seeing the landowner contract is very important so please ensure you show it to us, unredacted. If the PPC has redacted anything, then please tell us.

Even if you don't get to see their WS, you must attack it as if you have and put them to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Motorists should have been warned about the keypad upon arrival by members of staff. If the driver didn't go inside then this can't have happened, so the signs should have been so prominent that a motorist could not fail to see it and would therefore have known they needed to go inside to register for free parking.
Do a search for Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule and include that in your section about the keypad not sufficiently being drawn to the driver's attention.

Billy_Bamford

Please can someone give their opinion on my Witness Statement? It obviously needs tidying up (page No's, Front page Index etc.).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gdb4zo5pyvrao8z/Document 5.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Remove #22 (not relevant to your case).

Remove the first sentence (only) of #27 and the sub-heading above it alleging abuse of process.  Adding the fake DRA 'fee' is not 'banned' at the moment.

Remove the phrase from the end of #4 that admits to 'overstaying a grace period by waiting'.

Go read the incoming new DLUHC Code of Practice and find the bit somewhere that states that picking up or setting down passengers is exempt activity. USE THAT AS AN EXHIBIT and refer to it in a new paragraph just after you talk about stopping to pick up a child passenger. I recall that exemption is there somewhere because I was on the Steering Group that put the new Code together.

Whilst the DLUHC Code is temporarily stalled, the intention of Government is clear and ONLY the clauses about the level of parking charge and the banning of the extortionate 'DRA fee' are being revisited.

The rest is untouched and crystal clear in meaning.  The BPA has told its members to start complying immediately with the new Code because it is coming.  Clearly, picking up passengers (stopping but staying in the car, inside the boundary of a public venue and near to a building) is a necessary activity when it is a child or a disabled person for example.  This sort of brief stop is not activity that is subject to a parking charge under the will of Parliament, given the Code has already passed and was given Assent in the Spring of 2022.

Billy_Bamford

Was this the thing you were referring to about the new DLUHC Code of Practice? 

Annex F: Exempt vehicle cases, no-stopping zones, and appeals

   F.3 Appeals

In considering appeals parking operators must recognise the following as mitigating circumstances warranting cancellation of a parking charge, subject to evidence being provided:

....as a result of delay resulting from childcare arrangements;

Coupon-mad

No. There is a bit about setting down passengers.

Billy_Bamford

Thanks for your help and guidance, I will remove the parts that you've highlighted. I have searched high and low for the part specifically related to the setting down/picking up of passengers and its exemption in the DLUHC Code of Practice, but can't seem to find anything. 

1505grandad

Conbtrol + F (passengers) shows:-

2.19 and 2.24 (Terms and Conditions)

Billy_Bamford

1505grandad said:

Conbtrol + F (passengers) shows:-

2.19 and 2.24 (Terms and Conditions)

I'm guessing you're referring to this?

2. Terms and definitions

2.19 parked/parking

an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle)

A vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has left the vehicle or turned off the ignition

2.24 parking period

the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.

Jenni_D

2.24 seems to be supporting what C-m was saying.