COURT CASE WON - Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd - Alleged not parking in the bays

Kpmp54

Hi all,

Claim Form dated 13/10/2022 from Gladstone Solicitors and AOS submitted today (26/10/2022). It was alleged that the driver of the vehicle did not park in the allocated bays whilst shopping at a local Tesco express, but as the pictures show it was extremely dark and bays are not very clear / prominent (the lighting looks to be vehicle lights switched on rather than lighting within the car park). The alleged offence took place in December 2018.

SAR details received from Private Parking Solutions (London) Limited (I include pictures and documents they have sent (redacted) here: www.dropbox.com/s/uwscy7o4wx0euoo/Image%201.pdf?dl=0

---

Here is the personalised sections of the Defence statement:

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

3a. The Defendant attended the car park and used it to shop at Tesco Express South Harrow located at 28 Shaftesbury Cir, Shaftesbury Ave, London HA2 0AT and was parked in the car park for short period of time.

3b.The Defendant alleges that there is inadequate lighting in the area to clearly see the signage the Claimant relies on given the alleged offence took place when it was dark, in addition the white lines in the car park are not prominently marked out and difficult to see given the lack of lighting.

Can you please let me know if there is anything else I should be adding 

Coupon-mad

Looks perfect, given your facts.  

Kpmp54

Here is a link to the folder with other docs (redacted): www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/vre766haxyiy490iivj8l/h?dl=0&rlkey=86w9os0zw815yqrfr8evcme2j

fisherjim

I assume it was here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5716314,-0.3534137,3a,75y,143.42h,78.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syIEwH0_l4rX5Ee8YG6QJQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5717883,-0.3530541,3a,75y,225.75h,76.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEiEqJow7UW4XkSDdfXLIcg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

KeithP

Kpmp54 said:

Claim Form dated 13/10/2022 from Gladstone Solicitors and AOS submitted today (26/10/2022).

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 15th November 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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'.

Le_Kirk

Kpmp54 said:

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

3a. The Defendant attended the car park and used it to shop at Tesco Express South Harrow located at 28 Shaftesbury Cir, Shaftesbury Ave, London HA2 0AT and was parked in the car park for short period of time.

3b.The Defendant alleges aver that there is inadequate lighting in the area to clearly see the signage the Claimant relies on given the alleged offence took place when it was dark, in addition the white lines in the car park are not prominently marked out and difficult to see given the lack of lighting.

Can you please let me know if there is anything else I should be adding 

I would use the word as shown above, it is stronger than allege.

Kpmp54

fisherjim said:

I assume it was here:

www.google.com/maps/@51.5716314,-0.3534137,3a,75y,143.42h,78.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syIEwH0_l4rX5Ee8YG6QJQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

www.google.com/maps/@51.5717883,-0.3530541,3a,75y,225.75h,76.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEiEqJow7UW4XkSDdfXLIcg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is the one!

Kpmp54

Le_Kirk said:

Kpmp54 said:

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

3a. The Defendant attended the car park and used it to shop at Tesco Express South Harrow located at 28 Shaftesbury Cir, Shaftesbury Ave, London HA2 0AT and was parked in the car park for short period of time.

3b.The Defendant alleges aver that there is inadequate lighting in the area to clearly see the signage the Claimant relies on given the alleged offence took place when it was dark, in addition the white lines in the car park are not prominently marked out and difficult to see given the lack of lighting.

Can you please let me know if there is anything else I should be adding 

I would use the word as shown above, it is stronger than allege.

Thanks so much - I will change the wording to this now and submit first thing tomorrow - I appreciate it all of the help!

Kpmp54

All - please see my WS extract below (redacted) - any pointers would be welcome! (XX-XX) indicates Exhibits to be inserted now the main body of the WS is complete (subject to any comments). Forgive the formatting below 

1.       I am [ ] and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

2.       In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

 

Sequence of events signage and condition of the Site

 

3.       The Defendant visited Tesco Express, South Harrow located at 28 Shaftsbury Circle, South Harrow, HA2 0AT (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Site’) at around [ ]pm on the [ ] 2018 using vehicle registration [ ] (‘Vehicle’) to shop at the Tesco Express located on the Site. Given the time lapse between the claim being made and [ ] the Defendant cannot locate copies of the receipt.

 

4.       The approach and entrance to the car park is on a double-track road (XX). This is a busy road beside the bus station where stopping is both impossible due to lack of parking spaces and traffic (including many buses) not being able to pass. The only safe way to stop to view the car park terms and conditions is by entering.

 

5.       The Claimant avers that the Claimants witness statement has been prepared by the Claimant’s solicitors who have no understanding of the Site, merely they have prepared the Claimant’s Witness Statement via a ‘Desktop’ review using Google Maps, and no actual evidence has been presented to substantiate the Claimant’s argument and position – for example:

                                         I.         The Claimant has appended a generic sign (XX-XX) with no photographic evidence to support the existence of the sign in question at the Site; and

                                        II.         The Claimant has appended a site plan (XX-XX) which the Claimant avers adequately shows prominent display of signs across the Site. No photographic evidence of the various signs in question have been presented to evidence this. In addition, the Claimant’s Witness statement does not provide any information on what the difference is between the green and yellow hexagons overlaid on the site mean.

 

It is the Defendant’s view that the Claimant has not satisfied the burden of proof to show that the existence of the signs and locations of the signs actually existed to evidence a contract has been entered into.

 

6.       Due to the lack of photographic evidence the Claimant has also not proved that the signs in question meet the British Parking Association Code of Practice Version 7 – January 2018 which existed at the time of the alleged offence (XX-XX). These include the positioning of the signs at the entrance which  “…the driver should be made aware of from the start” and “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract…” as well as the overall size of the signs as well. No evidence of which has been provided on any of this within the Claimant’s Witness Statement.

 

7.       A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this sign in exhibit xx-09 for comparison. In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.

8.       The Defendant avers that the parking bay markings are inadequate as they are neither prominent both under daytime conditions (XX-XX) or under darkness (which is when the alleged offence took place) (XX-XX). The parking bay lines are considered inadequate in quality to be considered “clear” as there are missing sections of the line to clearly identify “marked bays” as per the sign relied on by the Claimant (XX-XX).

9.       The sign relied on by the Claimant (XX-XX) states “ No parking on yellow or hatched areas” which would indicate that yellow or hatched areas existed at the Site. The Defendant avers that some do exist at the site and the Defendant would have expected yellow lines or hatched areas to be present in the area where the Vehicle was parked to clearly outline that the area is not for parking.

10.    As evidence under XX-XX, the Site is in a poor condition evidenced by large pot-holes and damaged lighting (XX-XX) further providing the Defendant’s claim that the site is not adequately invested in to substantiate the Claimant’s claim.

11.   The location of the parked Vehicle posed no obstruction to other vehicles or pedestrians using the car park. It is clear that many other motorists thought the same and parked adjacently next to the Vehicle given the poor lighting conditions of the Site (XX-XX).

12.    The Claimant claims a sum of £[ ] in addition to £35.00 Court fee and £50.00 related to Solicitor costs. The Claimant has failed to detail how the cost has increased from £160.00 as described in the Reminder Notice dated [ ] 2019 (XX-XX) when, to the best of the Defendant’s knowledge no further correspondence has been received from the Claimant. This is further evidenced by the lack of evidence presented by the Claimant in this regard.

I've added also added the normal wording relating to Beavis, landowner contract, abuse of process and Witness costs per https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77614685/#Comment_77614685 so have not included here.

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

Depends what you mean by adding the usual wording.

The example in the NEWBIES thread by RobertCox (using the old Crosby case from Southampton) is out of date now, and there are newer ones this year.

Kpmp54

Hi all - Redacted WS uploaded at the below link - any feedback most welcome. I'm looking to send today as I am away from tomorrow. Thank you in advance!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6c08if1hq1s4pnl/Claimant WS (Redacted).pdf?dl=0