Civil Enforcement Claim form

Ed2022

@C_Angel I got a rather irate response from the Rex Centre...do not think they like being called hypocrites.  
But do contact the MP, it is worth the effort - both the local one and your own (if both aren't the same).

Your NTK is within 14-days of the incident date and a properly formatted letter compared to the junk I received.

@Coupon-mad - really valid points about the problems of APNR.

C_Angel

Coupon-mad said:

Just state in your WS that the Defendant suffers with her mental health and both appeals to the Claimant were actually put in by her mother for her, but in any event the fact that the Defendant was effectively being charged a penalty for breastfeeding (and as a result, could not possibly have seen any signs from the car) was ignored.  This is exactly the sort of issue that ANPR car park operators miss by offering their cheap camera system free of charge to landowners.  Leaving a car park unmanned means discrimination and harassment of protected persons will happen (ANPR doesn't even record blue badges, let alone breastfeeding mothers, or any other drivers whose reason to stop in a safe place is due to a minor vicissitude and who could not be deemed to have accepted a contract on unseen signs where the £100 penalty clause is far from prominent. Even more reason in ANPR car parks, for the signs and terms to be large and conspicuous with the £100 risk unmissable (ref Lord Denning's well known 'Red Hand Rule'), which was not the case here.

Thank you @Coupon-mad this is so true!

C_Angel

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. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at presumed car park on 426-428 Coventry Road, B100UG on 16/05/2021.

3. The defendant was travelling with a baby and the baby became agitated. The defendant believed this was down to the baby needing to feed so the defendant pulled into an area of off-road parking and was unaware it was pay and display. The defendant proceeded to breastfeed the baby and left the area once they finished feeding the baby.

 

Discrepancies with the alleged car park address

4. The claimant reports that a breach of contract between the claimant and the defendant took place at the Islamic Place of Worship car park on 426-428 Coventry Road, B10 0UG. The defendant refutes that such an event took place at this address. The defendant argues that according to the address of 426-428 Coventry Road, B10 0UG on the NTK, when this address is searched it brings one to a built-up area of 2 storey buildings and a series of shops and cafés, and no car park at this address.  

5. The physical address of the presumed car park appears to be on a different street altogether- Watts Road, B10 9RJ, and the entrance to the presumed car park appears to be Watts Road, B10 9RJ. This can be confirmed when searching the area via Google Maps and when physically going to the presumed car park. Watts Road is a residential street that consists of several private dwellings adjacent to the presumed car park.

6. There are discrepancies with the postcode for the alleged car park. The car park postcode given on the Notice To Keeper and the PCN claim form is B10 0UG. A quick Google Map search confirms that 426 Coventry Road has a registered postcode of B10 0TH. As mentioned, when the postcode B10 0UG is searched it appears to be part of quite a built-up area of 2 storey buildings that consists of a series of shops and cafés, and no car park appears to be located at this postcode.

7. Therefore, based on the above serious discrepancies the defendant argues that the claim is completely meritless, since the Notice To Keeper does not define the relevant land where the alleged event took place.

 

Equality Act 2010 (EA2010) discrimination 

8. Under the Equality Act 2010, the passenger of the vehicle should not be discriminated against for breast feeding her baby. 10 extra minutes was a reasonable grace period that the mother required to feed her baby.

9. Breastfeeding is a protected characteristic protected by the Equality Act 2010 that justifies adding 10 minutes to the minimum grace period allowed by the British Parking Association code of Practice. Considering this grace period, no breach of contract has been breached by the defendant.

10. At most this situation should be considered as a frustration of contract since breastfeeding is an event outside the control of the defendant which could not be reasonably foreseen.

 

Inadequate Signage

11. The defendant argues that the parking signage in the alleged car park was inadequate and deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

12. According to picture evidence and a Google Search the signage is limited and somewhat confusing- according to the PCN Claim form the car park is entitled “Islamic place of worship”, but according to picture evidence and Google Search the main sign at the front of the alleged car park is entitled “The Unity Centre” and appears outdated with font that has faded and is ineligible.

13. This discrepancy with the name of the car park further highlights the incompetency of the claimant to state clearly the precise, correct location where the alleged contravention occurred, and further boosts the argument that the claim is completely meritless, since the Notice To Keeper does not define the relevant land nor correct car park name where the alleged event took place.

C_Angel

edited draft- I hope this is enough substance? Thanks very much everyone for your help. 

Ed2022

@C_Angel

Discrepancies with the alleged car park address

4. The Particulars of Claim states that the alleged breach of contract took place at the "Islamic Place of Worship" car park. The Defendant refutes that such an event took place at this address. The Defendant states that according to the address of 426-428 Coventry Road, B10 0UG on the NTK, this address when searched online brings one to a built-up area of 2 storey buildings and a series of shops and cafés - there is no car park at this address.  

5. Searching the area via Google Maps and on physically going to a car park within the same locality; there is a car park that is entirely off another street, Watts Road, B10 9RJ, adjacent to residential dwellings. Watts Road is a residential street that consists of several private dwellings adjacent to the presumed car park.

6. There are further discrepancies with the postcode for the alleged car park. The car park postcode given on the NTK and the Parking Charge Notice claim form is B10 0UG. A quick Google Map search confirms however that for the "Islamic Place of Worship" car park (as stated in the Particulars of Claim), for the address 426 Coventry Road the registered postcode is in fact B10 0TH. When the postcode B10 0UG is searched it appears to be part of a built-up area including a 2 storey buildings that consists of a series of shops and cafés, and no car park appears to be located at this postcode. The address is 468 Coventry Road.  

7. Based on the above significant discrepancies, Defendant argues that the claim is completely meritless, since the NTK does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) - it does not define the relevant land where the alleged event took place.

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.

Coupon-mad

That's all good.

Remember to use my words at WS stage!

Plus, I think you should read, understand and have ready the following additional 3 cases to append with your WS later on, as authorities about stopping for a 'minor vicissitude' not meaning the person has accepted a parking contract, especially where the signs are wordy, unlit and generally poor and the vital term of the £100 risk was not 'bound to be seen' and fails Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule:

Jopson v HomeGuard
Spurlng v Bradshaw
and
Vine v Waltham Forest 

You will also need to read the maternity provisions of the Equality Act 2010 so you will be able to take the Judge to the statute law provisions and duty upon service providers.

Ed2022

Coupon-mad said:

That's all good.

Remember to use my words at WS stage!

Plus, I think you should read, understand and have ready the following additional 3 cases to append with your WS later on, as authorities about stopping for a 'minor vicissitude' not meaning the person has accepted a parking contract, especially where the signs are wordy, unlit and generally poor and the vital term of the £100 risk was not 'bound to be seen' and fails Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule:

Jopson v HomeGuard
Spurlng v Bradshaw
and
Vine v Waltham Forest 

You will also need to read the maternity provisions of the Equality Act 2010 so you will be able to take the Judge to the statute law provisions and duty upon service providers.

I've put the links in here for you @C_Angel

Jopson v HomeGuard - https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf
Spurlng v Bradshaw - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1956/3.html & https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/spurling-v-bradshaw.php
Vine v Waltham Forest - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22670

Breasting feeding info here - https://maternityaction.org.uk/advice/breastfeeding-in-public-places/

Fruitcake

It is only a minor point, but the Jopson case number begins with a B. For some reason internet searches often omit that leading letter.

B9GF0A9E

In your para 12 I suggest you add a word to "alleged car park" to alleged car park location.

You could also say that the Islamic place of worship is on the first floor of a building with no vehicular access.

Have you mentioned that the signs say Starpark, not CEL.

C_Angel

Thank you very much everyone for your help, its been really appreciated. Defence form emailed to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk today, I will keep you updated. 

@Ed2022 thanks for the edited paragraphs above. I've made some slight changes to my own, plus I included a bit more about the name discrepancies, I'll post it here should you need it. Please keep me updated on your case too.

C_Angel

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. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at presumed car park on 426-428 Coventry Road, B100UG on 16/05/2021.

3. The defendant was travelling with a baby and the baby became agitated. The defendant believed this was down to the baby needing to feed so the defendant pulled into an area of off-road parking and was unaware it was pay and display. The defendant proceeded to breastfeed the baby and left the area once they finished feeding the baby.

 

Discrepancies with the alleged car park address

4. The Particulars of Claim states that the alleged breach of contract took place at the "Islamic Place of Worship". The Defendant refutes that such an event took place at this location. The Defendant states that according to the address of 426-428 Coventry Road, B10 0UG on the Notice To Keeper, this address when searched online brings one to a built-up area of 2 storey buildings and a series of shops and cafés - there is no car park at this address.  

5. Searching the area via Google Maps and on physically going to a car park within the same locality; there is a car park that is entirely off another street, Watts Road, B10 9RJ, adjacent to residential dwellings. Watts Road is a residential street that consists of several private dwellings adjacent to the presumed car park.

6. There are further discrepancies with the postcode for the alleged car park location. The car park postcode given on the Notice To Keeper is B10 0UG. A quick Google Map search confirms that the registered postcode for 426-428 Coventry Road is in fact B10 0TH. When the postcode B10 0UG is searched it appears to be part of a built-up area including 2 storey buildings that consists of a series of shops and cafés with no vehicular access, and no car park appears to be located at this postcode. The registered address for B10 0UG is 468 Coventry Road.

7. There is no registered address/postcode stated on the Claim Form. The Claim Form mentions “Islamic Place of Worship”. When searching for "Islamic Place of Worship" (as stated in the Particulars of Claim Form), none such place exists, and there is no car park by this name on Coventry Road. “Islamic Place of Worship” was also not mentioned on the initial Notice To Keeper form.

8. Searching the area via Google Maps shows that the car park off Watt’s Road is called “Islamic Presentation Car Park”. The postcode for this car park is B10 9RJ. When physically going to the car park within the same locality there is no sign entitled “Islamic Place of Worship” or “Islamic Presentation Car Park”, but rather an old sign entitled “The Unity Centre”.

9. Based on the above significant discrepancies, Defendant argues that the claim is completely meritless, since the NTK does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) - it does not define the relevant land where the alleged event took place.

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.

 

Inadequate/Unclear Signage

10. The defendant argues that the parking signage in the alleged car park was inadequate and deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

11. According to picture evidence and a Google Search the signage is limited and somewhat confusing- according to the PCN Claim form the car park is entitled “Islamic place of worship”, but according to picture evidence and Google Search the main sign at the front of the alleged car park location is entitled “The Unity Centre” and appears outdated with font that has faded and is ineligible.

12. This discrepancy with the name of the car park further highlights the incompetency of the claimant to state clearly the precise, correct location where the alleged contravention occurred, and further boosts the argument that the claim is completely meritless, since the NTK does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) - it does not define the relevant land where the alleged event took place.

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.

 

Equality Act 2010 (EA2010) discrimination 

13. Under the Equality Act 2010, the passenger of the vehicle should not be discriminated against for breast feeding her baby. 10 extra minutes was a reasonable grace period that the mother required to feed her baby.

14. Breastfeeding is a protected characteristic protected by the Equality Act 2010 that justifies adding 10 minutes to the minimum grace period allowed by the British Parking Association code of Practice. Considering this grace period, no breach of contract has been breached by the defendant.

15. At most this situation should be considered as a frustration of contract since breastfeeding is an event outside the control of the defendant which could not be reasonably foreseen.