private parking ticket - county court claim stage / questions regarding BPA's code of practice

Coupon-mad

Ok so you can CERTAINLY say that no grace period to fetch a permit was allowed and this breaches the 'consideration period rule' long established by the industry (both trade bodies set this at a mandatory minimum 5 minutes). The only evidence of actual parking time is two minutes flat and the Defendant also has dashcam evidence that the total stay onsite was minimal. This will be produced with the Defendant's Witness Statement in due course.

I would also add another numbered paragraph that obtaining a permit proved impossible as they had run out, therefore the term on the sign was rendered void for impossibility and the lack of permits would have been down to the Claimant not supplying sufficient permits for the needs of visitors.

Search the forum for PACE v Lengyel and refer to that case too. It was impossible for you to comply with the term and you could not have left any quicker than you did, by the time you discovered the issue of the shop's lack of permits. Effectively you rejected the terms by leaving quickly.

blackmasked

Coupon-mad said:

Ok so you can CERTAINLY say that no grace period to fetch a permit was allowed and this breaches the 'consideration period rule' long established by the industry (both trade bodies set this at a mandatory minimum 5 minutes). The only evidence of actual parking time is two minutes flat and the Defendant also has dashcam evidence that the total stay onsite was minimal. This will be produced with the Defendant's Witness Statement in due course.

Thanks for the tip on referencing PACE v Lengyel.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot see how I can argue that they have not given me 5 minutes to get the permit if. Here's a timeline of events including my dash cam and their pictures.

12:07 - I enter the car park

12:09 -  I park and leave the car, as shown in the dash cam footage
12:14 - PPC takes first picture
12:16 - PPC takes last picture

12:19 - I exit the car park, as shown in the dash cam footage

Coupon-mad

Hmmm...I wouldn't use the dashcam evidence at all!

blackmasked

If I don't use dash cam evidence I cannot prove I left quickly.

If I do use it, I can prove that I left quicky but then the argument regarding grace period goes out the window.

Coupon-mad

I don't think it does.

Up to you - what feels right that you are comfortable saying at a hearing?  Stick with whatever stance you prefer but consideration period IS a point for you either way.

Trainerman

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think it does.

Up to you - what feels right that you are comfortable saying at a hearing?  Stick with whatever stance you prefer but consideration period IS a point for you either way.

As also, IMHO, there should be an adequate period allowed as the 'system' dictates that you have to go and collect a permit. Forget the dashcam, but you can (surely) happily say in court that you went for a permit, were told there were non, returned to vehicle and left.

You received a ticket for following exactly the so called system, and this has to be wrong as you were not allowed enough time. My argument would be that even the mandatory five minutes is not relevant if it does not allow sufficient time. To be a fair contract, it has to be possible to comply

As well as void for impossibility., as mentioned earlier

Castle

And an unfair term under Schedule 2 Part 1-Paragraphs 3 and 18 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A term which has the object or effect of making an agreement binding on the consumer in a case where the provision of services by the trader is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader’s will alone.

A term which has the object or effect of obliging the consumer to fulfil all of the consumer’s obligations where the trader does not perform the trader’s obligations.

fisherjim

The BPA COP suggests a minimum grace period of 5 minutes, this is a minimum not a maximum period and is site dependent. Quite clearly in this instance it is not sufficient and was in any case frustrated by the  store's ridiculous verification/permit system, where it seems entrapment of customers for the profits of a third party takes precedence over customer satisfaction.

If this system is so poor surely there are masses of complaints about similar instances?

blackmasked

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3. The driver was parked at xxx as a legitimate visitor to a store adjacent to the car park.
When the driver arrived at the location and entered the store to obtain a permit, he was told no permits were available.
That's due to the fact that a number of permits were borrowed by visitors, but never returned, thus creating a shortage of said permits. Realising that there were no spare permits, the Defendant then returned to his vehicle and left the site.
Subsequently the store changed its policy and now requires shoppers to swap some form of ID for a permit for the duration of the visit.

4. Any contract that was established was rendered invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance as the Defendant had no means of securing a permit, as discussed in PACE Recovery and Storage v Lengyel. Case number: C7GF6E3R.

Thank you kindly for your advice. Without you I would have most likely just given up and paid whatever they claim I owe.

KeithP

blackmasked said:

Realising that there were no spare permits, the Defendant then left the site.

Do you perhaps want to clarify that the vehicle also left the site?
Maybe just add a few words so that it reads...
"Realising that there were no spare permits, the Defendant then left the site with his vehicle".

Although there may be better ways of saying it, you need to make it clear that the vehicle was removed from the car park, not that the driver just simply wandered off.