No 30 day extension requested too late.

Goldfinch_1997

Keith P - Thanks - I'll remove the other post.

I've added further numbers.

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.         Defendant’s appeal:

 

The defendant was visiting Llangrannog on that day to see family on Mother’s Day.

The village was busy and once parked up the defendant attempted to pay for parking at the cash only machine.  The only machine available onsite was out of order and not taking any cash payments.

4.         The alleged breach of contract here is based on payment being made after the grace period had lapsed but the grace period details were not clearly displayed or defined and not sufficient due to a frustration of contract as alternative methods of payment were not possible in the time.

The defendant was unaware of the grace period.

Numerous signs relating to the parking were displayed at the car park with a large amount of information to read.  Most were confusing with fonts too small to be read at a distance.

Payment was made covering the entire length of time the car was “captured” on site therefore there was no loss to cover.

The defendant states that the signage at the site relating to the grace period information was inadequate.  The text on signs informing motorists of the 10-minute grace period to pay, was small, with no emphasis placed on it.  The defendant believes that it would not have been possible to read and understand all of the information within the 10 minutes along with the time to park and pay with the methods available at the time.  The defendant questions whether this complies with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

 Previous court rulings support that a grace period of 10 minutes at this location is unreasonable as the alleged contract is impossible to perform.

The defendant states that a sign on site stated:

“Do not leave site without first purchasing a ticket for parking” this was not possible on site as there was no phone signal.

 The definition of “grace period” is not clearly defined.  As such there is no evidence that the defendant exceeded the grace period to pay, as the PCN shows images of the vehicle arriving but not parked, and therefore was not at that point in contract.

 A “grace period” should allow for time to:

·         Park;

·         Read and understand all the information. 

·         Collect payment:

Queuing at single onsite payment machine;

Allow time to make alternative method of payment when machine fails. 

Finding a phone signal, call, register and make payment).

 All of the above were required in this instance and were not possible in less than 10 minutes.

5.         Alternative methods of payment provided were by phone call (by SMS but for registered users only) or online.  Both require a phone signal. 

There was no phone signal to make calls or use personal wifi.  This meant the defendant was physically prevented from paying. 

Issues raised by others (including a local campaign group Llangrannog Welfare Committee) mean that the claimant was aware of these issues prior to issuing this PCN.

BPA (British Parking Association) recommended in 2019 that the option to pay by phone/ app/ text should be removed as there is no phone signal at the site.

The defendant persisted to search for a signal and paid for parking.

 The defendant states that a sign on site stated:

“Do not leave site without first purchasing a ticket for parking” this was not possible on site as there was no phone signal.

 The defendant adds that payment (for 1 hours’ parking) was made covering the entirety of the period the car was in the car park (according to the ANPR images). 

The car left the car park well within the hour. 

 

6.         The PCN relies on the parking session times matching the entry and exit times.  As keeper the defendant has not been provided evidence by One Parking Solution of calibrations between the cameras.

 

7.         The charge seems disproportionate. There were no costs to the landowner since the parking costs were covered.   As the registered keeper the defendant therefore feels the charge is excessive and unreasonable. 

 

8.         As of the 14th February 2023 the parking machine at the beachfront in Llangrannog has been replaced and it is now possible to pay by coin and cards.  Signs have also been replaced.

Coupon-mad

Remove 6 and 7 which add nothing.

Remove: "Defendant’s appeal:"

This is a court defence, not an 'appeal'.

Add more paragraph numbers.

Add in a point that the Defendant's research has shown that one of the signs states the grace period is 15 minutes, not ten. 

Goldfinch_1997

Thanks for that.

"Appeal" removed.

More paragraph numbers added.

15 mins note added in at point 7.

I'll adjust the rest of the paragraph numbers.  Does it read OK?

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

 

3.         The defendant was visiting Llangrannog on that day to see family on Mother’s Day.  The village was busy and once parked up the defendant attempted to pay for parking at the cash only machine.  The only machine available onsite was out of order and not taking any cash payments.

4.         The alleged breach of contract here is based on payment being made after the grace period had lapsed but the grace period details were not clearly displayed or defined and not sufficient due to a frustration of contract as alternative methods of payment were not possible in the time.

5.         The defendant was unaware of the grace period.  Numerous signs relating to the parking were displayed at the car park with a large amount of information to read.  Most were confusing with fonts too small to be read at a distance.  Payment was made covering the entire length of time the car was “captured” on site therefore there was no loss to cover.

6.         The defendant states that the signage at the site relating to the grace period information was inadequate.  The text on signs informing motorists of the 10-minute grace period to pay, was small, with no emphasis placed on it.  The defendant believes that it would not have been possible to read and understand all of the information within the 10 minutes along with the time to park and pay with the methods available at the time.  The defendant questions whether this complies with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

 

7.         The defendant’s research has shown that one of the sign stated the grace period was 15 minutes and not 10.  Previous court rulings support that a grace period of 10 minutes at this location is unreasonable as the alleged contract is impossible to perform.

The defendant states that a sign on site stated:

“Do not leave site without first purchasing a ticket for parking” this was not possible on site as there was no phone signal. 

 

8.         The definition of “grace period” is not clearly defined.  As such there is no evidence that the defendant exceeded the grace period to pay, as the PCN shows images of the vehicle arriving but not parked, and therefore was not at that point in contract.   A “grace period” should allow for time to:

·         Park;

·         Read and understand all the information. 

·         Collect payment: Queuing at single onsite payment machine;

Allow time to make alternative method of payment when machine fails. 

Finding a phone signal, call, register and make payment).

All of the above were required in this instance and were not possible in less than 10 minutes.

 

 

9.         Alternative methods of payment provided were by phone call (by SMS but for registered users only) or online.  Both require a phone signal.  There was no phone signal to make calls or use personal wifi.  This meant the defendant was physically prevented from paying. 

 

10.       Issues raised by others (including a local campaign group Llangrannog Welfare Committee) mean that the claimant was aware of these issues prior to issuing this PCN.

BPA (British Parking Association) recommended in 2019 that the option to pay by phone/ app/ text should be removed as there is no phone signal at the site.

11.       The defendant persisted to search for a signal and paid for parking.  The defendant states that a sign on site stated:

“Do not leave site without first purchasing a ticket for parking” this was not possible on site as there was no phone signal.

 

12.       The defendant adds that payment (for 1 hours’ parking) was made covering the entirety of the period the car was in the car park (according to the ANPR images). 

The car left the car park well within the hour. 

 

13.       The PCN relies on the parking session times matching the entry and exit times.  As keeper the defendant has not been provided evidence by One Parking Solution of calibrations between the cameras.

 

14.       The charge seems disproportionate. There were no costs to the landowner since the parking costs were covered.   As the registered keeper the defendant therefore feels the charge is excessive and unreasonable. 

 

15.       As of the 14th February 2023 the parking machine at the beachfront in Llangrannog has been replaced and it is now possible to pay by coin and cards.  Signs have also been replaced.

Coupon-mad

You haven't removed 13 & 14 which I already advised are non-points.

And every paragraph needs a number.

Le_Kirk

For a defence that is way too long; it only needs to be a short sharp, punchy set of legal/technical arguments and keep the story for the witness statement (WS).  So long as you include the main arguments, tried to pay, cash PDT out of service, no phone signal, long queues, grace period not on signs or confusing then you can tell the whole story in the WS.

Goldfinch_1997

Coupon-mad said:

You haven't removed 13 & 14 which I already advised are non-points.

And every paragraph needs a number.

Will do.
Le_Kirk said:

For a defence that is way too long; it only needs to be a short sharp, punchy set of legal/technical arguments and keep the story for the witness statement (WS).  So long as you include the main arguments, tried to pay, cash PDT out of service, no phone signal, long queues, grace period not on signs or confusing then you can tell the whole story in the WS.

Yes, I did wonder…I’ll have another go at it.

Goldfinch_1997

How does this look?  Still too wordy?

3.         The defendant was visiting Llangrannog on that day to see family on Mother’s Day.  The village was busy and once parked up the defendant attempted to pay for parking at the cash only machine.  The only machine available onsite was out of order and not taking any cash payments.

4.         The alleged breach of contract here is based on payment being made after the grace period had lapsed but details of which were not clearly displayed or defined (too many signs and lots of information to read) and the time not sufficient due to a frustration of contract as alternative methods of payment (paying by phone or online) were not possible.  The defendant questions whether this complies with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

5.         Payment was made covering the entire length of time the car was “captured” on site therefore there is no loss to cover.

6.         The defendant’s research has shown that one of the signs stated the grace period was 15 minutes and not 10.  Previous court rulings support that a grace period of 10 minutes at this location is unreasonable as the alleged contract is impossible to perform. 

7.         There was no phone signal to make calls or use personal wifi, that meant the defendant was physically prevented from paying.  Issues raised by others (including a local campaign group Llangrannog Welfare Committee) mean that the claimant was aware of these issues prior to issuing this PCN.  BPA recommended in 2019 that the option to pay by phone/ app/ text should be removed as there is no phone signal at the site.

 8.         As of the 14th February 2023 the parking machine at the beachfront in Llangrannog has been replaced and it is now possible to pay by coin and cards.  Signs have also been replaced.

Coupon-mad

The BPA trade body cracked down and ordered that those payment methods be removed and they stopped OPS from operating there for a good few months.  There was pressure from MPs and several press articles about OPS "ruining the village as a tourist attraction".  The problems have not gone away.

Goldfinch_1997

March 2022 they were still in place.  It’s the community I grew up in and it’s ruining lives…This isn’t about a parking ticket. It just so wrong.  That community is being held to ransom. 

Coupon-mad

So is half of Sussex held to ransom by OPS ...I am with you.  Astonishingly, that firm has the BHCC contract for all the Council estates.  Poor residents.