Friend at WS Stage - Due next week. UPDATE: Court Report 6/1/23 3 August 2022 at 10:35AM edited 6 January at 7:50PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 24 replies 662 views

Taiko

Trying to assist a friend of mine who, very late in the day, asked if I could loan them cash to pay. By the time I discovered this, a claim had already been issued (DBC for UPKC). Claim is an in-person hearing in Sussex, and I have offered to travel up as a lay rep to help present their case as they suffer from severe anxiety and panic attacks. I'm going to help them with what they need to include in their WS based on the sticky, but wouldn't mind a quick opinion on a few points. 

- Windscreen tickets issued four years ago on retail park where D worked. Employee parking not usually given on this site, however D had medical issues at the time and requested to park closer to this. 

- SAR to PPC showed 5 tickets issued within the period, however claim is only for 3 of these. Appears that two may have already been cancelled. Belief held was that all had been due to whitelist. 

- D left employment in July 2021, and having approached old employer unable to obtain any confirmation regarding this consent.

- GSV shows usual UKPC signage, as both customer parking and no unauthorised vehicles on separate signs. Claimant WS only shows customer parking sign. 

- Contract with landowner alludes to share of proceeds. Think I read this links into VCS/Somerfield cases? 

- LA contract states is "for the term or until this contract is terminated in accordance with the terms if earlier"

 - Term is defined in the contract as "the period of this contract being 12 months or any shorter period if terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions of the contract". 

Based on the above definitions, the contract provided would have ended many months before tickets were issued. 

Issues I can see in prepping this is the struggle to get anything from the previous employer, given the length of time between the matter and the issue of a claim. I've suggested payslips etc for the period in question, as well as doctors information to support this, but wonder if it would be enough. 

Likewise, I wonder if it is worth alluding to the unclaimed tickets, which seem to suggest the employer correspondence was handled by the claimant to cancel them in the first place. Should the reason they are not claiming for those two that were issued be challenged in order to support the case that evidence had been given of an exemption? 

I wish they'd told me about this earlier as would've been able to do so much more to help, but does seem mental health issues have overrun things. Thanks all in advance for any input. 

Johnersh

1. Is the medical condition obvious. Eg. If D struggles to walk, the likelihood of him/her having being permitted to park is obvious on balance of probabilities, not least where an employer has a duty of reasonable adjustment.

2. If D held gainful employment with the retailer for 1+ years, parking daily, why only 3-5 tickets? Isn't this more likely the product of an over-zealous parking attendant than a withdrawal of permission.

3. No one can give targeted comment without sight of Cs statement, but it is usually generic, prepared by a paralegal or someone who:

* has never visited the site
* relies solely on information on a PC, such as a mock-up of the sign, rather than photos in position
* consists of argument, not fact from their own knowledge
* does not have actual content from the parking attendant or store manager

Taiko

Thanks for the reply. In answer to the points:

1 - Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, diagnosed one month prior to the first ticket being issued. Now supported by doctor's medical records confirming date and that the issue was, and still is, ongoing. 

2 - Parking did continue until the end of employment, 2.5 years after the ticket date, with no further tickets issued. Does lean into the consent issue, so will therefore ensure they include in WS. 

3 - Will dig out and copy over relevant parts from the statement this evening to discuss. 

Coupon-mad

CFS meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010, so attach the evidence of it.  Use Johnersh's words and phrases, as he is a rare breed if a solicitor who actually 100% 'gets' parking law!

We have a terrific group of regulars here. We also had a retired Judge posting here at one point, but he doesn't any more and I won't name him (not from Sussex but I knew who he was).

For an example of other exhibits and arguments against the false added £70, copy and adapt the WS bundles by @Daiapolon2021 or @aphex007

Le_Kirk

Have you access to the defence that your friend posted?  Obviously the witness statement is in support of and backs up the defence.

Taiko

Managed to get hold of the defence, which actually does appear to be from the main sticky, albeit with some minor additions. Admitted they were the driver, and stated that they had consent from their employer to park there on medical grounds, as well as issues with the signage. 

Will use those WS statements as a guide to help them put things into their own words. I'll go through the claimant WS tonight and do the redactions as well so can share here. Like has been said though, it's probably a generic statement from them that hasn't really been adapted! 

Bit of luck it'll follow the current trends of a late discontinuance, if not I'm hoping that Wh*resham is nice for the in-person! 

Taiko

Anyone for a Friday Court report? 

Case was originally supposed to have been held in Horsham back in August, but was overbooked, and was allocated to Brighton today. I acted as lay rep for this, with District Judge Owen presiding over the case. Witness statement submitted was a modified version of the Aphex statement. 

When UKPC submitted the claim form, it was the usual nonsense from Yasmin at DCBL, so was a bit surprised when a Mr Hyder from ELMS Legal appeared, with no sign of the claimant, although that part we weren't sure about. The reason being we hadn't received any notice that they weren't attending and wished the written statements to be considered. Mr Hyder looked through the paperwork when the DJ questioned him over this, and was adamant that there was something there, but unable to prove it. The statement was therefore given less weight.

DJ Owen then asked Mr Hyder to set out his case, and proceeded with the usual bits about signage, and a contract with the landowner. This is where it started to fall apart for them, as he made repeated references to the contract with the LL being the reason they were entitled to pursue. DJ Owen however picked up a point that I was going to raise, in that the contract itself was dated Jan 2017, and "term" was in the definitions contained within the contract as being "12 months or sooner". All tickets being claimed for in this case were dated October 2018. Mr Hyder then tried to draw attention to a clause in the contract about the LL not tampering with equipment, and therefore in them keeping it in place that was enough evidence that the contract was still in force at the time of the tickets. 

In cross examination, we used images from GSV to show a different type of UKPC sign, the No Unauthorised Parking one, was on site. By the claimaint's own maps, there was no delineation of the areas of the car park, and I drew attention to CRA about the most advantageous terms being applicable; as the defendant had obtained, albeit verbal, consent from a line manager to park in the customer car park when the symptoms of her CFS worsened. We explained that there was no written evidence of this discussion, and that it was not possible to obtain it; the event happened 4 years ago, the defendant left employment there 18 months ago, and had no contact with her previous manager. Mr Hyder tried to push on this lack of evidence, stating it should have been written down and submitted, but we reiterated the position that the event happened so long in the past, and obtaining this was near on impossible. 

DJ Owen then took time to ask some questions directly of the defendant, which I was not able to get involved in. Erroneously, we hadn't actually named the line manager, or the store, within the WS, so that's one thing I need to make sure I'm on top of for future. I'm sure you guys would have picked it up! In any case, she maintained calmness, hopefully due to some preparation beforehand. I'd given her some crib notes, and asked similar questions before we entered, and she was able to confidently respond to DJ Owen, which I think gave added credibility to her witness statements. 

One of the questions asked was about permits, which she confirmed she was issued in December 2018. We then highlighted that she had continued to park throughout November without any tickets issued, confirmed by UKPC's supplementary witness statement which they submitted late, so thanks for that. Probably worth mentioning as well that the UKPC WS was written by a Mr Little at UKPC, who Google reliably informs us didn't begin employment with UKPC until December 2020. With him not being there to question, and the lack of November 2018 tickets between the previous issues and the permit in December, the oral evidence we gave was given extra weight, as it cast doubts as to whether a manual record on site was being kept. 

Mr Hyder wasn't happy about this, and the fact that we had no evidence of parking there in November. This served as a good reminder that it's not for us to prove their case. 

There was a few bits in cross examination that left me with a bit of a sinking feeling, but the end result was as follows:

- Case dismissed in full.
- Defendant awarded £150 in costs, being time off work, travel and parking. 
- Mr Hyder tried to claim his legal fees, and was shot down quite brutally. 

There was also an interesting bit that was able to bring up with the Judge. Within the UKPC Supplementary WS, they mentioned two additional tickets that were not included in the claim for October 2018. I think the difference was those two said "left site", whereas the others were overstays. 

Yesterday morning, my friend received an LBA for those two tickets, so as part of the closing this point was raised, as UKPC hadn't fully advanced their case and were effectively trying to claim again for the same thing. DJ Owen is also including within the judgment an order to prevent this claim from proceeding, as they are one and the same and should have been brought together. 

This is where I'd like some opinions please. Should this be:

- Respond to the LBA, citing today's winning case
- Allow UKPC to receive the judgment from today, and see if DCBL decide to hang themselves and  send a claim. 

Also convinced my friend to take part in the consultation, so that's an added one on top of my own. 

Great effort all that have contributed on here for these. Let's continue to win in 2023! 

Umkomaas

Great stuff @Taiko, excellent win and super court report. Nice one. 👍

Grizebeck

Well done. Good report and i would do the latter personally. Others may not agree

patient_dream

Great read, well done.

UKPC certainly know how to pick their legals who get sucked in with their rubbish

DCBL may well try to hang themselves again, they have been doing it for a while now

But Elms ? mates of VCS/EXCEL ... SUCH A NASTY LITTLE CARTEL OPERATING

And well done also to DJ Owen who saw through the scam

Taiko

Did make me laugh when he mentioned Elms, as felt then we were onto a good thing. 

From what I can tell, their advocate has been called to the bar in November 2022, but seems to be unregistered at the moment. Just made it feel that little bit sweeter!