County Court claim - Minster Baywatch

SJRRJS

Hello all (and thank you in advance for any advice provided).

Background:

Received two parking charge letters from Minster Baywatch which were ignored and have now received a County Court claim dated around 2 weeks ago. (I am trying to keep specifics vague – not sure how necessary this is).

My teenage child sadly died last year, and I have not been doing well mentally since, which in all honesty is why I have been ignoring this until now.

The claim relates to time spent parked in a National Trust car park back in April, where we went for a walk. It’s located approx. 30 miles from home. As far as I recall there were no signs on the way into the car park or anywhere obvious that detailed charges, I parked near the entrance and didn’t see any signs, nor did my partner.

 

I have read through as much of the info in the stickies as possible, and have completed the form at MoneyClaim.gov.uk last week to acknowledge service of the claim.

Approx figures claimed:

Amount claimed: £160

Court fee: £35

Legal representative’s costs: £50

Total = £245

 

Defence-wise I intend to use the template here so:

 

Section 1. Copy from template

2. Admit I am the registered keeper + driver.

3. Explain I was there for a walk. My only real defence is I genuinely didn’t notice any signs on the way in or where we parked, which was right near the entrance of the car park. I will drive back there and take photos or a video at some point this week, but if it so happens that there is adequate signage and I simply missed it, what is my plan here?

There is a mass of 1-star reviews on TripAdvisor from people that have received similar fines, is it worth mentioning this?

4-14. Copy from template

 

Do I include all of sections 15-27 from the template?

 

Thank you

Fruitcake

I'm so sorry you have received this on top of so much tragedy. It is indeed no wonder why you ignored it until now.

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it is never too late to do so even if you think it will do no good.

It is not a fine.

Use the whole of the template.

Please tell us the issue date on the claim form, and the date upon which you completed the AoS.

Please show us the exact wording of your version of paras 2 and 3 of the template.

Please tell us the precise location because I think that site has come up before and there may be conflicting signs such as the place being operated by two different companies. Brandsby Wilson and Minster Baywatch, I think. 
If you can confirm this before-hand then it will be worth including in your defence if you have time.

SJRRJS

Fruitcake said:

I'm so sorry you have received this on top of so much tragedy. It is indeed no wonder why you ignored it until now.

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it is never too late to do so even if you think it will do no good.

It is not a fine.

Use the whole of the template.

Please tell us the issue date on the claim form, and the date upon which you completed the AoS.

Please show us the exact wording of your version of paras 2 and 3 of the template.

I think that site has come up before and there may be conflicting signs such as the place being operated by two different companies. Brandsby Wilson and Minster Baywatch, I think. 
If you can confirm this before-hand then it will be worth including in your defence if you have time.

Thank you.

The issue date on the claim form is 12th September and I completed the AoS on 18th September. The place was Crickley Hill, Birdlip.

I will try and head back there over the next few days and then draft paras 2 and 3 of my defence and post here.

Coupon-mad

I'm so very sorry to hear about your family tragedy.  Sending you all good vibes to find the strength to handle this unwanted rubbish. Agreed: no wonder you couldn't deal with this scam PCN.

Have you looked at the signs on Google Streetview and changed the image date to one from the approx time?

Have you found other threads about this notorious place on here and on pepipoo forum by Googling 'Birdlip parking charge' or 'Crickley parking charge' and looking NOT for reviews but specifically for forum threads and also images?  I've seen threads about this place and someone has probably posted pics of the signs on a forum discussion in recent years.

KeithP

SJRRJS said:

Fruitcake said:

I'm so sorry you have received this on top of so much tragedy. It is indeed no wonder why you ignored it until now.

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it is never too late to do so even if you think it will do no good.

It is not a fine.

Use the whole of the template.

Please tell us the issue date on the claim form, and the date upon which you completed the AoS.

Please show us the exact wording of your version of paras 2 and 3 of the template.

I think that site has come up before and there may be conflicting signs such as the place being operated by two different companies. Brandsby Wilson and Minster Baywatch, I think. 
If you can confirm this before-hand then it will be worth including in your defence if you have time.

The issue date on the claim form is 12th September and I completed the AoS on 18th September. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th October 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

SJRRJS

Fruitcake said:

I'm so sorry you have received this on top of so much tragedy. It is indeed no wonder why you ignored it until now.

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it is never too late to do so even if you think it will do no good.

It is not a fine.

Use the whole of the template.

Please tell us the issue date on the claim form, and the date upon which you completed the AoS.

Please show us the exact wording of your version of paras 2 and 3 of the template.

Please tell us the precise location because I think that site has come up before and there may be conflicting signs such as the place being operated by two different companies. Brandsby Wilson and Minster Baywatch, I think. 
If you can confirm this before-hand then it will be worth including in your defence if you have time.

Hello again, 

It has taken me a while to get this sorted, but this is what I have for paras 2 and 3. For the rest I have just copied the template exactly as it is (except for adding my name, claim no, etc. at the top).

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The defendant travelled to Crickley Hill to stop for a walk on a journey home. The defendant did not see any signs relating to parking charges on the road into the car park, at the car park entrance, or where they parked (near the car park entrance).

The defendant has since returned to Crickley Hill and has noted that there is one small sign relating to parking charges on the road into Crickley Hill (image A), presumably missed as they were concentrating on driving over the adjacent cattle grid.

The only other sign relating to car parking on the road in, is a sign for disabled parking (image , with no mention of parking charges.

Upon entering the car park, again the defendant noted that there are no signs. Image C shows the car park entrance.

Further into the car park there are some small signs that mention parking charges, and a ticket machine towards the back of the car park (Images D, E, F). The defendant parked at the front of the car park, near the entrance on a busy Sunday afternoon in May. With other vehicles of varying sizes and people around, the signs were not visible and the route walked did not take the defendant past any other signs relating to parking, or the ticket machine.

The defendant contends that the parking charges were not clearly displayed on the way into Crickley Hill, nor at the car park entrance where they parked their car or they would have paid the £2 charge.

The defendant also notes that there are many other people that have fallen foul to similar unfair parking charges, as seen on the TripAdvisor review page for Crickley Hill: (Link to page, it wouldn't let me post it as I haven't been around the forum long enough).

Two such reviews can be seen in image G.

According to the signs it is run by Brandsby Wilson but the claim is from Minster Baywatch, but I wasn't sure if I should mention it (or how to), as my defense is basically that the signs weren't clearly visible.

I have added my images below (are they necessary?). Also is the trip advisor bit even worth including?

Thanks again!


Images:

A



B



C

D



E




F




G

Le_Kirk

Evidence does not go with the defence but later at witness statement stage.

Coupon-mad

Yep, no links or photos in a defence.

According to the signs it is run by Brandsby Wilson but the claim is from Minster Baywatch, but I wasn't sure if I should mention it (or how to), as my defense is basically that the signs weren't clearly visible.

It's been written dozens of times before, in POPLA appeals mainly but you will find the wording useful to crib from.

Search the forum for Bransby (NB: no 'd' - it's not as you spelt it).

SJRRJS

Thank you. How does it look now?


Defence, 2nd draft:

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The defendant travelled to Crickley Hill to stop for a walk on a journey home. The defendant did not see any signs relating to parking charges on the road into the car park, at the car park entrance, or where they parked (near the car park entrance).

4. The defendant has since returned to Crickley Hill and has noted that there is one small sign relating to parking charges on the road into Crickley Hill, presumably missed as they were concentrating on driving over the adjacent cattle grid. The only other sign relating to car parking on the road in, is a sign for disabled parking, with no mention of parking charges.

5. Upon entering the car park, again the defendant noted that there are no signs at the entrance.

6. Further into the car park there are some small signs that mention parking charges, and a ticket machine towards the back of the car park. The defendant parked at the front of the car park, near the entrance on a busy Sunday afternoon in May. With other vehicles of varying sizes and people around, the signs were not clearly visible, and the route walked did not take the defendant past any other signs relating to parking, or the ticket machine.

7. Upon the return visit to the site, the defendant notes that the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (Agent), as shown on the signage at the site. At no point has the defendant had any contact from or with BW Parking Solutions.  The defendant believes Minster Baywatch (Stranger) has no right to create or enforce a contract. 

8. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was agreed by the driver. 

9. The defendant contends that the parking charges were not clearly displayed on the way into Crickley Hill, nor at the car park entrance where they parked their car or they would have paid the £2 charge.

10. The defendant also notes that there are many other people that have fallen foul to similar unfair parking charges (evidence can be provided).

11. Photos and video footage are to be presented as evidence in this case, illustrating how the site suffers from poor signage and notifications.

12. The facts in this defence…

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 8, 10 and 11 as they are repeating the same point and don't add anything.

SJRRJS

So, am I good to go with this do you think?

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The defendant travelled to Crickley Hill to stop for a walk on a journey home. The defendant did not see any signs relating to parking charges on the road into the car park, at the car park entrance, or where they parked (near the car park entrance).

4. The defendant has since returned to Crickley Hill and has noted that there is one small sign relating to parking charges on the road into Crickley Hill, presumably missed as they were concentrating on driving over the adjacent cattle grid. The only other sign relating to car parking on the road in, is a sign for disabled parking, with no mention of parking charges.

5. Upon entering the car park, again the defendant noted that there are no signs at the entrance.

6. Further into the car park there are some small signs that mention parking charges, and a ticket machine towards the back of the car park. The defendant parked at the front of the car park, near the entrance on a busy Sunday afternoon in May. With other vehicles of varying sizes and people around, the signs were not clearly visible, and the route walked did not take the defendant past any other signs relating to parking, or the ticket machine.

7. Upon the return visit to the site, the defendant notes that the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (Agent), as shown on the signage at the site. At no point has the defendant had any contact from or with BW Parking Solutions.  The defendant believes Minster Baywatch (Stranger) has no right to create or enforce a contract. 

8. The defendant contends that the parking charges were not clearly displayed on the way into Crickley Hill, nor at the car park entrance where they parked their car or they would have paid the £2 charge.

 

9. The facts in this defence…