Parking fine claim county court business centre

ZR18

I have received claimants WS and interestingly the solicitor has also informed me that they’ve submitted WS and also informed the court that they will not be attending final hearing. Not sure what to make of that.
 I can post the claimants WS here if it’s ok do so?
 Thanks 

Le_Kirk

Quite normal, likely they will use a hired local to do the legal work for them.

ZR18

Thank  you Le_Kirk,

am I allowed to post on here claimants response from their WS ? 

Any thoughts and advise from you all will help with my WS .
 Thanks 

Coupon-mad

If you look at other Gladstones claim threads (which we really recommend) you'll see people do sometimes show us bits of their WS but please please please not the whole silly thing which you know (again, from reading other Gladstones threads) is based upon a template.

We don't want to see pages of guff!

ZR18

Apologies if I’ve included more than necessary.

claimants WS

THE DRIVER’S BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

18. xxxxx2022, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Contravention Date’), vehicle registration number xxxxxx, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Vehicle’) was observed by the Claimant to be parked in breach of the terms and conditions applicable at the site. The photographic evidence Exhibit reference GS4 shows the ‘Vehicle’ parked on ‘Site’ for a total duration of 11 minutes and 16 seconds. 

THE DEFENCE

24. The Defendant states inter alia that:

a) The Claimants Particulars of Claim is deficient.

b) The Defendant stopped for 5 minutes to view the signage and left immediately thereafter. A sufficient grace period was not given to the Defendant.
My actual defence “The Claimants predatory (distance) photographs by an unknown third party who did not identify themselves, merely show the vehicle in transit on arrival and turning round, then the driver reading the sign, and leaving at the exit, within 5 minutes of reading and rejecting the terms.  Clearly, this is evidence of a parking contract not being accepted”. 

c) The signage is not clear, unreadable and obscure.

d) The Defendant did not breach a contract, they were at most trespassing on ‘Site’. The Claimant

therefore cannot pursue the Defendant for a breach of tort.

e) The ‘Site’ is not a car park, rather an unmarked layby

f) The Claimant used predatory tactics to entrap the Defendant.

g) The Claimant breached POFA and CRA regulations.

h) The claim is exaggerated/unfair.

i) The Claimant has a Lack of Authority to operate on the ‘Site’ and there was a lack of ADR.

THE CLAIMANT’S RESPONSE

25. The Claimant would like the Honourable Court to note that the Defendant has lodged a template Defence which is heavily circulated on the Internet and is not specific to the facts of this case or the charge at hand. It is highly doubtful that the Defendant would understand the complexities of

5

all the references and established case law mentioned, or the relevance to his case, which is often the case when a Defendant is questioned about such references at Court. Therefore, everything that the Defendant has outlined is not accepted and is denied by the Claimant. The Claimant submits that the Defendant has not correctly pleaded his Defence and the same should stand struck out. Notwithstanding the above, the Claimant responds as follows:

a) The Defendant states the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are sparse. However, the Claimant notes the Defendant has been able to produce a substantive Defence to the same. In this regard, the Claimant believes the Defendant has not suffered any prejudice.

Notwithstanding the above, the Claim was issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of the Claim. In any event, the Claimant confirms that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to namely:-

The date of the charges;

The amount outstanding;

That it relates to parking charges; and That it is a debt.

Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Exhibit references GS-5 and GS-6) and a Letter before Claim dated 20th July 2022 Exhibit reference GS – 8. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the matters that are the subject of this claim.

b) This is denied. The Claimant would like to bring to the Honourable Court’s attention the recent judgment given in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Nick Idle and Vehicle Control Services Limited v Damen Ward. It was found “as regards to the reason for the stoppage and its duration”, that the breach occurs when the vehicle is brought to a standstill. It does not cease to be a breach simply because the car is stationary for a short period. It is the process of bringing the car to a standstill that creates the breach. In applying this to the case of the Defendant, the ‘Vehicle’ was at a ‘standstill’ for a total time of 11 minutes and 16 seconds, not for 5 minutes as the Defendant avers. In this instance, a sufficient grace period of 10 minutes was applied, in line with IPC regulations, The grace period was exceeded by 1 minute and 16 seconds by the Defendant. A reasonable person would have been able to stop, consult the advertised signage, make a decision on whether

6

they want to park or leave and commit to that decision within the timeframe provided, especially as in this case one of the Claimants signs can be seen immediately next to the driver’s door of the vehicle in question. Therefore, it is the Claimants position that the Defendant was parked on ‘Site’ in breach of the sites terms and conditions.

c) The signage on ‘Site’ is clear and unambiguous and informs the driver of the parking conditions at the location. The signage is prominent throughout the parking area and without concession if they weren't seen, they ought to have been. Signage location, size, content and font has been audited and approved by the IPC. It is the driver’s responsibility, to check for signage and obtain any authorisation for parking before leaving their vehicle.

d) This is vehemently denied and unsubstantiated. As this matter is founded in contract not tort.

e) The site in question is clearly not an unmarked layby. However, the Defendant’s assertion is irrelevant when considering the contravention and liability for it. The Claimant operates a parking management scheme on private land with authority provided for by the landowner. It only matters that the ‘Vehicle’ was on the ‘Site’ when the contravention occurred, which in this case it was.

f) The Claimant vehemently denies this assertion. The Claimant grants a contractual license to all, this license allows anyone permission to be at the ‘Site’. This is inferred by the nature of the land and the lack of any general prohibition of entry on the signage. In this regard, the Defendant was offered to comply with the normal conditions, or park otherwise than in accordance with the normal conditions and incur a charge. Terms and conditions of parking on the ‘Site’ were explicitly stated on signs displayed throughout, as mentioned above. The Defendant ought to have been fully aware of the terms of parking on the ‘Site’, and therefore made an informed decision to park in breach of these terms. Therefore, it is the Claimants position that they did not entrap the Defendant nor were predatory or misleading tactics used to lure the driver into incurring a charge. They made their own informed decision to park at their own free will, being fully informed of the terms of doing so.

g) The Defendant’s allegations of non-compliance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is unsubstantiated and denied.

Coupon-mad

ZR18 said:

I’m assuming it was a predatory car loitering, as I didn’t see any CCTV on site or any signs. 

On the PCM UK site, there are 4 photos of my vehicle under “view evidence” 

P1- 14:38:02  - time of entering 

P2- 14:38:29 - just pulled up by sign

P3- 14:45:04 - stationary by sign

P4- 14:49:04 - last photo- I believe when exited site

Going by the above, surely their own evidence shoots down their case (below)?!

"the breach occurs when the vehicle is brought to a standstill. It does not cease to be a breach simply because the car is stationary for a short period. It is the process of bringing the car to a standstill that creates the breach. In applying this to the case of the Defendant, the ‘Vehicle’ was at a ‘standstill’ for a total time of 11 minutes and 16 seconds, not for 5 minutes as the Defendant avers".

Coupon-mad

ZR18 said:

Hi guys, I went back to take some pics

I’ve circled the “private land” the arrow showing where I turned in. If I remember there was a bus on the bus stop which may explain why I didn’t notice this sign. The sign I noticed is behind the phone box at this point.

Realising there are no parking bays or for blue badge holders, turned around and noticed this sign, stopped to read from my vehicle at no point did I come out of the car,I only stopped for a short while before driving out, I’m assuming this is when the enforcement vehicle with camera took a sneaky picture of my vehicle. 

This is the sign approximately 6 feet high and most of the writing is very small print.
How did I agree to contract !?

Use the above photos and argument in your WS and explain this first:

"On that day I was collecting my elderly father -who has very limited mobility and holds a blue badge- from a underground station. Front of station one way street with double yellow lines and bus stops on both sides, beside it is a small private car park, as I entered this car park looking for a parking spot or diasabled bay I  realised there aren’t any, I turned the car round to leave and spotted a signage by the exit, entrance and exit same way. This signage is only clear after you enter the car park. Before I could finish reading this signage while in the car a gentleman  informed me I may have just got a ticket from a parking enforcement vehicle with camera."

AND:

Read the incoming (temporarily withdrawn but published in Feb 2022,,before this event) DLUHC Code of Practice.  Grab the full definition (near the start) of 'parking period'. 

And grab the clauses about camera vehicles.

Coupon-mad

Can you go back (on foot!) and catch a photo of the camera vehicle to show it is either unmarked or has misleading livery?

We've only ever seen a camera van from VCS at airports, never one used by PCM.

What's your WS deadline?

ZR18

Hi Coupon-mad, Thank You so much for reading claimants WS.
Hearing is on 19/04/24, WS deadline 14 days before.
Initialy I assumed it may have been a camera vehicle, I have visited site on foot since, not noticed any vehicles with camera which is why I believe the photos were taken by person on foot.

I took this pic on foot, I am 5’8

Claimants evidence pic1- time of entry

Pic2 Trying to get decent view of signage.
this can be seen below p2&p3 position of vehicle relative to signage 
 

Pic3

Pic4 Time of exit
after realising there are no diasbaled parking available, sent message to inform my father, who also suffers from anxiety and dementia.


Recently Noticed one of the signs changed direction.
Before

After

Coupon-mad

Picking up a passenger isn't part of the Government-defined period of parking as seen in the DLUHC CoP which you need to use.  Hopefully it will be 'live' again by the time of your hearing as the final Impact Assessment is anticipated soon.