CCJ Set Aside - Premier Park Limited - Gladstones

Umkomaas

Does this mean I still have the right to transfer liability to the driver? it's a long shot but hoping I can.

Not once court proceedings have commenced. 

KeithP

Flynn9197 said:

Does this mean I still have the right to transfer liability to the driver? it's a long shot but hoping I can.

Why do you want to do that?
Do you understand that the keeper has more protection in law than an admitted driver?

The set-aside Judge gave you a good hint when he suggested...

I wasn't the driver at the time which is what I told the judge and when he asked about my defence he kinda suggested it should be based on the schedule 4 freedoms act 2012.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 defines all the steps that the Claimant has to comply with to be able to transfer any driver's liability to a keeper.

Flynn9197

Looking over the documents they sent over, there was no notice to the driver as the ticket was created by an ANPR camera, 

So the only document they have provided is the Parking charge notice which was sent to me as the keeper? Is this the NtK?

Coupon-mad

Yes please show us the POC.

Your case is now like the one by @Harvez (same stage). It's not the same location is it?

You will both be using the Template Defence.

Flynn9197

THE PARTICULARS

1. The Claimant is and was at all material times involved in the management and enforcement of parking on

private land. The Claimant achieves this by way of a variety of schemes including, but not limited to,

warden controlled sites and ANPR. The Claimant does so in accordance with the authority granted to them

under the terms of a Landholder agreement. In accordance with the terms of the Landholder agreement the

Claimant is authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question. The

Claimant does so in return for a right to raise charges from the users of vehicles who infringe the

‘regulations’ (a relevant obligation) which relates to the entitlement to use the same. As a result, the

Claimant does issue Parking Charge Notices in relation to vehicles parked in breach of the terms and

conditions, on sites that they manage. The landholder agreement confirms that the Claimant has a

legitimate commercial interest and sufficient standing to:

a. Issue PCNs as a result of the Terms and Conditions (as detailed in the signage) being breached;

and

b. Bring proceedings in its own name.

2. The Claimant is and was at all material times a member of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) as

evidenced by the logo displayed on the signage at the site and the Claimants correspondence.

3. The Claimant is and has been at all material times a signatory to the Keeper at the Date of the Event

agreement (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KADOE’). Under the terms of the agreement with the DVLA

the Claimant is entitled to request that the DVLA provide the Claimant with the details of a vehicles

registered keeper as at a specific date under the reasonable cause criteria, provided that certain criteria are

met.

Site Details

4. The Claimant provides, manages and enforces private parking at the land located at Exeter Cathedral, The

Cloisters, Exeter, Devon EX1 1HS (the ‘Site’). The agreement between the landowner and the Claimant

sets out, inter alia, the Claimant’s standing and rights to manage and enforce the regulations in situ at the

Site. (Document 1)

5. The “regulations” (‘Terms and Conditions’) are displayed on signs erected by the Claimant at various

points throughout out the Car Park. (Document 2) The Terms and Conditions of the Site, Inter alia,

express the following conditions for any motorist using the Site:

VEHICLES PARKING WITH A VALID PERMIT OT TICKET FULLY ON DISPLAY IN THE

WINDSCREEN AREA. NO EXCEPTIONS, PARK IN A MARKED BAY ONLY

ALL PERMIT HOLDERS MUST HAVE THEIR VEHICLE PRE REGISTERED BEFORE USING

THE CAR PARK

6. The signs are displayed at various points throughout the site as evidenced by the attached site plan.

(Document 3) The Driver would have had the opportunity to read and understand them when entering and

then parking at the Car Park. An objective observer would consider this action to have been done in

acceptance of the Terms and Conditions. It is the signage that forms the basis of the contract between the

driver and the Claimant (the ‘Contract’). The signage also states that any breach of the terms and

conditions of using the site will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge in the sum of £100.00, plus

additional costs if the same remains unpaid.

7. It is the Claimant’s case that such terms and conditions are clear and fair to all motorists, in accordance

with their ATA’s Code of Practice and established case law. However, if the motorist believes them not to

be, they always have the option to leave, and not enjoy the benefits offered from using the private car park.

The signage situated across the Site forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the

location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance,

their performance of parking (as opposed to leaving) in accordance with the Terms and Conditions is the

act of acceptance.

8. If a driver choses to remain in breach of the terms and conditions of parking at the site, it is the Claimant’s

position that they agree to pay the parking charge, detailed on the signage, plus any additional costs

associated with the same. Given that the Driver has the choice as to whether to accept them or refrain from

remaining at the site, it is the Claimant’s case that the Terms and Conditions should not be considered

unfair or unreasonable.

9. Every recipient of a PCN from the Claimant is afforded the opportunity of appealing the PCN, via their

internal appeals process, if they consider that it is issued in error or was unlawfully issued. In the event that

the recipient fails to exercise their right to appeal via the internal appeals process or they are dissatisfied

with the outcome they have the right to make an appeal to the appeals service hosted by their ATA. Both

limbs of the appeals process are designed to ensure that a person who is aggrieved by the issuing of a PCN

has the opportunity to have the opportunity to engage in ADR both with the Claimant itself and an

independent appeal entity at an early stage.

Breach of the Terms and Conditions

10. On the 15th May 2021, vehicle registration number BJ07 UJB was observed by the Claimant to enter the

Site. The photographic evidence shows the vehicle entered at 20:07 and exited at 20:30 representing a

parked duration of 22 minutes. (Document 4) The Claimant’s records show that no data was entered on

the day which matched the Defendant’s VRN for a permit or ticket. The vehicle was therefore parked in

contravention of the terms and conditions. (Document 5)

PCN

11. The Claimant obtained the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA, under the terms of the

KADOE. The Defendant was named as the Registered Keeper. The address supplied by the DVLA as

being the Registered Keepers address is an address by which notices concerning the Vehicle can be sent

and is deemed to be current, given that it is the Registers Keepers responsibility to update the DVLA of any

changes. The Claimant issued a postal PCN to the Defendant as they were the Registered Keeper of the

vehicle at the time of the contravention. (Document 6)

12. The PCN gave the Registered Keeper three options:

i. To pay the PCNs;

ii. If they were not the driver to provide the Claimant with the driver’s full name and a

serviceable address, in order that liability could be transferred; and

iii. To appeal the PCNs initially via the Claimant’s internal appeals process and then if

dissatisfied by the outcome to appeal the PCNs to POPLA.

13. No payment was made and no response was received. The Defendant is therefore pursued as the registered

keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS:

(i) The sum of £100 in respect of the unpaid PCNs (The Principal Debt).

(ii) Additional costs as referred to in the signage on display at the site and referred to in the Liability

Notice sent to the Registered Keeper in the sum of £70.

By virtue of the IPC Code of Practice where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may

be added. This sum must not exceed £70 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court

Proceedings have been initiated. The Claimant therefore seeks an additional amount of £70 in addition

to the monies in respect of the unpaid PCN as a contractual entitlement which the Court should

enforce. The Claimant however understands that the additional costs, as to the amount, are completely

at the courts discretion and are subject to its equitable power to disallow unreasonable expenses. It is

the Claimant’s position however, that as the PCN remained unpaid additional costs were incurred by

them that were both reasonable and reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case. The

Company had to divert time and resources to recover the PCN charge, including but not limited to

referring the matter to debt recovery services and instructing Solicitors (incurring yet further expense),

costs which would have been avoided had the Defendant paid the PCN within the 28 day period,

specified in the notice.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

1. Judgment for the principal sum of £100.00.

2. The additional costs of £70.00 or such other amount as the court considers fair and reasonable (not

exceeding £70) given the circumstances of the case.

3. Any additional costs incurred by the Claimant to date.

4. The Claimant also seeks interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984

Flynn9197

The user you have tagged doesn't exist apparently 

Umkomaas

Flynn9197 said:

The user you have tagged doesn't exist apparently 

Try @Harvez63

Flynn9197

Coupon-mad said:

Yes please show us the POC.

Your case is now like the one by @Harvez (same stage). It's not the same location is it?

You will both be using the Template Defence.

Same PPC but different parking location 

Coupon-mad

OK, same as your situation otherwise because you've both got a CCJ set aside first. Well worth you both bookmarking each other's threads.

Why was your car there 22 minutes; picking someone up, dropping them off, or intending to park but tried to pay and could not, or what?  Was it dark?  Signs unlit?

That's what you put in as your defence paragraph 3 and, obviously, you must also edit para 2 as the Template Defence already tells you to, if you were also the driver.

Flynn9197

Coupon-mad said:

OK, same as your situation otherwise because you've both got a CCJ set aside first. Well worth you both bookmarking each other's threads.

Why was your car there 22 minutes; picking someone up, dropping them off, or intending to park but tried to pay and could not, or what?  Was it dark?  Signs unlit?

That's what you put in as your defence paragraph 3 and, obviously, you must also edit para 2 as the Template Defence already tells you to, if you were also the driver.

I don't think I could answer any of those questions as I wasn't the driver, Looking at google maps some of the signs are blocked by vans which could of happened on the day. The Entrance to their car park also has a smaller car park which has no signs on the entrance. The signs for the T&C is for Exeter Cathedral but the area for Exeter Cathedral School doesn't have any signs on the entrance.