Park Watch (Deepdale Preston) County Court Defence Review - "Not Wholly within Bay"

Marshac85

Hi, 

I have a similar case to this one at Deepdale Retail Park, Preston https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6383456/park-watch-county-court-defence-review/p1

The company is Park Watch (Defence Systems Ltd) and the charge is for "not parking wholly with the parking bay" way back in June 2018. I have to point out that this was my good lady's "parking" (aka "ditching")  and not mine..! ...but I've dug my heals in Re not paying them and have carried out all correspondence to date. I've had 2 other charges dropped in the last 10 years-ish, thanks entirely to the advice of this forum....however this time Park Watch appear to want to go the distance.

The telephone hearing is now set for the 3rd April 2023 and the Witness Statement etc need to be emailed over this coming Monday 20th March. 

We appealed to their internal process initially, which obviously failed. Then I didn't bother with POPLA, knowing that they all pee in the same pot. We ignored the letters for a few years, then out of the blue they started the proceedings. 

As per the similar linked thread above, I have no photos from at the time, and the Parking Company no longer have this contract, hence none of their original signage exists at the site anymore. I've given the WS my best shot using what I hope is the correct/advised format, but I would really appreciate a steer in the right direction please at this final hurdle. Apologies if I'm being thick, but is it possible to share the MS Word WS as an attachment?! 

I'm also a bit confused with the fact that I've had nothing at all from the Claimant in terms of their "case". A lot of the info I've read, including the template WS I've used, reads as though the Defendant in that case was privy to the Claimant's case/photos/etc...should I have been served with their position by now? I'm just feeling a little in the dark as to what they have up their sleeve...or is that normal?!

Not_A_Hope

The Claimant will have the same deadline as you to provide a WS usually 14 days before the hearing.

You cannot attach an Word document to your thread on the forum but if you want comments you can provide a link to a Dropbox file.

Coupon-mad

You could host it in Dropbox.

1505grandad

A heads-up re signs obtained from another poster  -  not sure if already known but some show CP Plus as managing site.

Marshac85

Thanks all. Here's a onedrive link to the WS that hopefully works. Might not let me with being a new member.... h t t p s : / / 1drv.ms/w/s!ArU1uqNsy_t3jMUPwkmGFswbaT0_3Q?e=QVvbFo 

And just for a laugh, here's the wife's parking....

Marshac85

just in case the WS doesn't open at the URL (with the spaces closed), the main premise of the WS is that there is no demonstrable consequential loss to the landowner, given that this very large car park was for Toys R Us + years later Costa and Gregs, but at the time of this terrible parking, Toys R Us had ceased trading and was boarded up. 

This is what I cribbed the 'Bevis against this claim' extract from the template WS to anyway:

The Beavis case is against this claim 

 1. This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, where the Supreme Court found that whilst the £85 was not (and was not pleaded as) a sum in the nature of damages or loss, ParkingEye had a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing the charge where motorists overstay, in order to deter motorists from occupying spaces beyond the time paid for and thus ensure further income for the landowner, by allowing other motorists to occupy the space. The Court concluded that the £85.00 charge was not out of proportion to the legitimate interest (in that case, based upon the facts and clear signs) and therefore the clause was not a penalty clause. 

 2. However, there is no such legitimate interest where the apparent contravention of terms bears no evident detriment to ensuring further income from the landowner. Given that the number of available parking bays is ‘by design’ a function of the expected footfall of the businesses in operation on that land; and that the business attracting the largest footfall by far had ceased trading, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. This is just the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court had in mind when deciding what constitutes a (rare and unique case) 'justified' parking charge as opposed to an unconscionable one. 

Is this going to wash?!

Marshac85

The other arguments I've used are:
1) the 'inadequate signage' argument, comparing what I think was on site at the time, to the Bevis example
2) the fact that Park Watch didn't reply to my SAR correctly and are in breach of GDPR (I think/hope...?!)

The Claimant failed to respond in full to the Defendant’s GDPR Subject Access Request of the 23rd October 2022 where the Defendant requested “all supporting data that Park Watch hold in relation to ‘the contract’ believed to be in place and allegedly contravened by the driver”. Dated photographs were requested of any signage believed to have formed a mutually understood and accepted contract. The Claimant did not provide the requested “company records that confirm that this mutual data, i.e.  the ‘contract’ was at the location on 14/06/2018”. The Claimant did not comply with UK GDPR in their clear refusal without explanation to provide the requested information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) make it quite clear that any refusal to comply with an individual’s access request must inform the individual of: the reasons why; their right to make a complaint to the ICO; and their ability to seek to enforce this right through the courts. If the Claimant believed the Defendant’s request to be ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’, the Claimant must have been able to demonstrate this to the Defendant. 

B789

Having just had a quick read of your WS, para #3 doesn't make sense. Your SAR to the PPC does not oblige them to send you any information that is not about you. 

1. Firstly, it should be noted that the Claimant rejected the Defendant’s initial appeal on the grounds of there being “in excess of 50 signs installed from both entrances and in and around the Shopping Centre clearly displaying the parking conditions that are in place including the requirement to park within the lines of the parking bay. Parking space at this popular venue can be challenging especially at peak visitor times therefore parking within the lines of the parking bay is of utmost importance.” The Defendant does not accept the Claimant’s statement as fact. Consequently, the Defendant requested information from the Claimant which supported this claim, via the issuing of a Subject Access Request in line with their ‘Right of Access’ under the UK General Data Protection Regulations.  

B789

And again... in #4:

1. The Claimant failed to respond in full to the Defendant’s GDPR Subject Access Request of the 23rd October 2022 where the Defendant requested “all supporting data that Park Watch hold in relation to ‘the contract’ believed to be in place and allegedly contravened by the driver”. Dated photographs were requested of any signage believed to have formed a mutually understood and accepted contract. The Claimant did not provide the requested “company records that confirm that this mutual data, i.e.  the ‘contract’ was at the location on 14/06/2018”. The Claimant did not comply with UK GDPR in their clear refusal without explanation to provide the requested information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) make it quite clear that any refusal to comply with an individual’s access request must inform the individual of: the reasons why; their right to make a complaint to the ICO; and their ability to seek to enforce this right through the courts. If the Claimant believed the Defendant’s request to be ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’, the Claimant must have been able to demonstrate this to the Defendant. 

 Nothing about an SAR is relevant here. At the risk of repeating myself, an SAR only requires the DPO to provide any data they hold about the "subject". The "subject" means the the person requesting the SAR. They are not obliged to provide your a copy of a contract if it is not about you.

You may be confusing PAP where the claimant has to produce a copy of everything they intend to rely on in court.

B789

1. The Defendant’s route taken was to turn right at this principal roundabout. There is one (1) very small sign present just after the right turn off the roundabout (exhibit XX-03), however it should be noted that the Land has changed ownership since the date of this alleged offence and that all previous Park Watch owned signage is no longer present at the site. The sign visible on exhibit XX-03 presumably belongs to the new Landowner or Parking Company and is not a Park Watch sign. 

Has the landowner changed or is it just their agent who administers the car park?

B789

Again... #11:

1. Google Street View imagery of the Defendant’s parking position and immediate surroundings however is date stamped October 2018, which is notably after the alleged incident of June 2018. Given that the Claimant failed to comply with the Defendant’s Subject Access Request (to provide dated images of the signage present at the time of the alleged incident), the Defendant can only assume that any example signage identifiable in exhibits XX-05 through to exhibit XX-09 was put in place after the date of the alleged incident.  

GDPR blah blah is not relevant. You are placing so much reliance on your SAR which has nothing to do with the claim. The only reason you request an SAR is to make sure that you have a copy of everything that the PPC has about you, namely anything that has involved correspondence or mentions you or your car is supplied. Nothing about an SAR has anything to do with "evidence" that has nothing to do with you personally, eg. their signs.