CAPITAL CAR PARK CONTROL / DBL LEGAL COSTA COFFEE PCNs

Metaphysicist

Hi all,

I need someone to confirm my defence is ok to get these PCNs thrown out please. I have to file my defence with the county court in under a week. I received a CCJ which was set aside by the Judge due to me not receiving the notice of claim in time Royal mail was on strike. I have used help from other forums to build my defence. PPC is !!!!!! as it is as they have lost money when their solicitor has not been able to uphold CCJ for now. 2 PCNs was in the parking bay, 1 PCN was on the double yellow outside the Costa. Any advice/tips highly appreciated. 

Kind regards 

I am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I confirm that I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. I confirm that my vehicle was parked in a bay belonging to Costa Coffee 688-690 Chigwell Rd, Woodford, Woodford Green IG8 8AH. The vehicle was parked there by invitation from the staff/tenants residing/working at this commercial address at the material time/s.

Defence: I have parked in the Costa coffee bays many many times during my morning commute to work to purchase my morning coffee without any issues. I have of course stopped going to that Costa Coffee due to the nightmare it has created with these parking tickets. Staff in the Costa in question have always maintained that I was allowed to park anywhere in that area as its private land owned by Costa coffee. After I received these tickets I went and spoke to the Costa staff and they advised that I was allowed to park there at the period I did and they are not sure why I have received the tickets and its total rubbish according to the staff members. I told staff that I will be conducting my own due diligence as I was not aware that parking was restricted here for paying customers who use the Costa coffee bays. Staff who seemed really helpful said that they would support me in cancelling the PCNs in question as it is completely misleading and unfair. Costa have also raised their own investigation and yet to come to a conclusion REF: CAS-808984-V3Y0R4- CRM:0497572157. 

Signs were not clear in accordance with what is required.

1). Confusing Unclear ambiguous inadequate signage so no valid contract formed.

2. No valid contract with landowner

3). Breaches in BPA CoP version 8

1). Confusing Unclear ambiguous inadequate signage so no valid contract formed.

The Car Park had confusing, unclear, ambiguous, inadequate signage and insufficient information so is not compliant with the BPA Standards and creating unreasonable and unfair terms so no contract is formed with Capital Carpark Control and therefore no agreement to pay £100.

I believe the signs that Capital Carpark Control are relying on at 664-690 Chigwell Road were confusing and misleading, the small print is too small for anyone to read. The signs did not properly and clearly warn and inform the terms of this car park correctly and as such failed to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Part 18 appendix B.

Upon entering the road – see Image 1a. The car spaces are labelled Costa Only which is very misleading.

The first sign – see image 1b. This sign says pay by phone parking, again misleading and impossible to read.

The second sign – see image 1c. These signs fail to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Part 18 appendix B. The signs are also so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of the car and climbed a stepladder to try to read them. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead.

 4) Signs
18.1) A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.
18.3) Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

 Upon entering the road from a 30mph road there are no signs at the entrance to the road and each sign displays a different message as stated above and with supporting imagery.

The signage has now since changed to the following:

Image 2a – A-board sign has been left outside by the costa shop due to the signs not being legible and customers complaining.

Image 2b- Close up of A-board Sign

Image 2c – The road markings have since changed from Costa Only to Costa Staff Only.

 These images back up my argument that the signs are inadequate, and the parking charge immediately cancelled.

I would also like to add that the majority of these signs have been updated/upgraded now to meet the compliance required to enforce PCNs. If you compare images before and now then you will see clear differences.

 5. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses' ' that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is ParkingEye - v - Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract. In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company. 

6). Breaches in BPA CoP version 8, include:

 19.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use. A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example:

 • when there is no clearly defined car park entrance

• when the car park is very small

• at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations

• at parking areas where general parking is not permitted

 At 664-690 Chigwell Road there was no entrance sign to display any parking restrictions.

7. I did, at all material times, park in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding me in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, I deny having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct. I was authorised by the car park owners ‘Costa’ and parked there as a paying customer for years before this nightmare began. 

8. My vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to paying customers authorised to park there by the landowner being Costa per advised by staff. 

9. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Refer to the Beavis vs ParkingEye case [2015] EWCA Civ 402, the Claimant offered no licence to park if not a ‘permit holder’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.

10. This is clear from several cases. An example In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.

11. Inadequate signage - I have attached the picture of the entrance provided by Capital Car Park Control and also attached two pictures of the entrance that I have taken. The pictures that I have taken clearly show that there are no BPA compliant signs at the entrance. I have since visited the site on a number of occasions and it is still the same.

12. Signs saying Costa Only and Costa Staff Only are contradictory. Change to surface markings and temporary warning signs support this.

Signs are above head height, so over 2m to the bottom of the signs and not visible to a driver. Only one bay has signs. 

There is no entrance sign. It does not comply with the BPA CoP. There is an image in the CoP of what a sign should include, both mandatory and optional (which would still be best practice.)

Signs do not suitably bring the charge or parking conditions to a motorist (BPA CoP failure). Too small to read from more than the width of a car.

Double yellow lines removed indicating no restrictions other than the surface markings. This is also very confusing to the driver. Half of the double yellow is black half is still yellow? Costa staff claimed the whole of that part of the land belongs to them and parking is authorised for paying customers. 

The new Code of Practice gets this right and talks about 'surface markings' and those are indisputably part of the signage. A court would realise this and the fact that Costa had so many complaints for misleading consumers also shows/supports the first signs were inadequate.

13. I encourage the court to strike out the claims/PCNs against the defendant as there are no sound grounds of a claim and this is a waste of taxpayers time and money from a money hungry unethical company. In my opinion this is pure scam in these hard times with living costs over the roof. 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

KeithP

Sorry, but that looks nothing like a Defence.
Your Statement of Truth even calls it a Witness Statement.

If you have a County Court Claim Form, then please tell us the Issue Date on it.
Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service? If so, when did you do that?

I've seen those pictures before. Have you posted before about this parking incident - perhaps with another username?

B789

Absolutely not a defence. Whoever is "advising" you or your source for that abysmal effort is wrong and you are best advised to have a read of this forums Newbies/FAQ thread near the top of the forum. Second post in that thread will explain exactly what you need to do and when.

Without trawling through your "defence", you need to understand the difference between a defence and a witness statement. Also, the defence is written in the third person. No "I did this" or "I did that". Every paragraph has to be numbered sequentially. You have even put a witness statement of truth rather than a defence one. No evidence is attached to a defence. Evidence is submitted with your witness statement.

So, welcome to the forum where the victims of these scams who receive a claim, win over 99% of them either in court or, more likely, when they are discontinued because of the robust defence that is provided here.

An example of a defence can be seen here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/66hosld75llha3j/2023_defence.pdf?dl=0

Edited to add: Have you tried Plan A yet?

Le_Kirk

OP is it correct that you are filing a defence after a successful set-aside as ordered by a judge?  Notwithstanding that, it is a poor attempt at a defence as others have said (more like a witness statement).  The pictures of that Costa look very familiar; suggest you search the forum for posts concerning that same Costa - unless of course it was you posting under a different user name!

Umkomaas

There are sometimes issues (potentially to your advantage) with Capital Car Park Control Ltd claims.  Terry Szmidt is the person running the business. He used to run the operation 'T Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control', until he (seemingly) 'straightened' out the status of the business, resulting in a new company 'Capital Car Park Control Ltd'.

Often claims are issued in the name of the 'T/A' company, so will you please check the paperwork you have (all of it) to determine whether there are any conflicting discrepancies. 

What were the dates of the parking events?  The new business was incorporated on 24 August 2020.

fisherjim

OP I assume this is the same case as the photos are the same:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333653/parking-at-costa/p1

Le_Kirk

Le_Kirk said:

The pictures of that Costa look very familiar; suggest you search the forum for posts concerning that same Costa - unless of course it was you posting under a different user name!

fisherjim said:

OP I assume this is the same case as the photos are the same:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333653/parking-at-costa/p1

That is the one - good searching (or memory) @fisherjim

Metaphysicist

KeithP said:

Sorry, but that looks nothing like a Defence.
Your Statement of Truth even calls it a Witness Statement.

If you have a County Court Claim Form, then please tell us the Issue Date on it.
Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service? If so, when did you do that?

I've seen those pictures before. Have you posted before about this parking incident - perhaps with another username?

Hi,

KeithP thanks for your kind reply.  I think I’ve confused everyone as I have not been very clear. The witness statement is what I used on the 5th of April and this set the judgement aside as I received a CCJ without my acknowledgement. I have been instructed by the Judge to file my defence before this coming Wednesday so the case can be heard/resolved etc.

I have used the images from another case on here I am a different defendant but it’s as around similar time I received the 3 PCNs and it was a very similar defence. 

My defence uses a lot of similar reasons to my witness statement hence I posted it on here before I was going to edit and change to reflect my statement of defence. 

Hope that clears things up and appreciate your help! 

Metaphysicist

Umkomaas said:

There are sometimes issues (potentially to your advantage) with Capital Car Park Control Ltd claims.  Terry Szmidt is the person running the business. He used to run the operation 'T Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control', until he (seemingly) 'straightened' out the status of the business, resulting in a new company 'Capital Car Park Control Ltd'.

Often claims are issued in the name of the 'T/A' company, so will you please check the paperwork you have (all of it) to determine whether there are any conflicting discrepancies. 

What were the dates of the parking events?  The new business was incorporated on 24 August 2020.

Thanks mate. Tickets was all in 2022 does that help me? Thanks again. 

Metaphysicist

fisherjim said:

OP I assume this is the same case as the photos are the same:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333653/parking-at-costa/p1

Hi,

same Costa same time period different case. Used images and some part of the defence in my case. Thanks 

Metaphysicist

Hi,

I will prepare my defence ASAP and post on here for help/advice. Need to email DCB Legal and Shoreditch county court by Tuesday. Thanks everyone and apologies for the confusion caused. 

Kind regards