Update Judgement - Both struck out (29th Feb) - Victoria Quays - Sheffield, S2 5SY

Johnersh

Needs to be punchier than that inmho. That skelly is ranty and fails to pick up the key arguments made in the pleading.

I'd go for something more like this. Note this is an *example* not a finished product. Your case, your arguments. There may be more to add, but don't lose the wood for the trees.

1. A permit was displayed, which was visible through the windscreen.
2. If the permit was unclear (it is accepted that it was not placed directly in the windscreen on the dashboard) that period was limited in time. 
3. There is no evidence before the Court that the car was observed by the parking operative in situ for a period beyond 30 minutes ('the free period') for which no permit is required.
4. A permit was produced to the operative on site and prior to the issue of the PCN.
5. The defendant now seeks X, a sum YY% in excess of the charge for a whole month of parking in relation to the failure to display a permit clearly, notwithstanding a permit was produced promptly and more than 48hrs prior to a PCN being issued. The claimant will contend that this is sufficient to amount to a penalty.
6. Whilst the Defendant relies on Beavis, the ratio of that decision is clear. The terms imposing a PCN engage the penalty rule. Accordingly if the imposition of the charge is disproportionate to the breach the PCN is capable of being a penalty.
7. The distinguishing features of this case are:
* That the defendant was shown a permit at the material time (within minutes of first seeing the car). Any period of breach is de minimis.
* That the defendant had previously received payment in full for a permit authorising the claimant to park 24/7 on site.
* That the parking operative must have seen previously a permit in the claimants distinctive car (and it follows had actual knowledge of) the driver having a permit.
* That the defendant has incurred no financial loss.
* That the defendant has no legitimate purpose in issuing a PCN where the claimant was a permitted driver, had not overstayed and the defendant is not reliant upon the PCN as a sole revenue stream.

Coupon-mad

One important feature is that the ticketer/Defendant company had seen the permit and knew there was no legitimate reason to pursue this one, well before they decided to obtain DVLA data.

In breach of their own contract (which required windscreen PCNs) no PCN had been issued at the point when the operative saw the permit in full and spoke to the Claimant.  That decision to get DVLA data anyway was made afterwards and that decision was unlawful.   No KADOE 'reasonable cause'.

Anto_28

Added this to the distinguishing features section:

Parking at the site is not accessible to the public. It has barrier entry requiring an access code to enter.

Anto_28

Just going through the 50 or so pages of exhibits from VCS and saw this.



Is it worth mentioning at the hearing the signs VCS claim exist….. well dont, and never have. Not sure it adds much to my case, but would show the witness is unreliable?





This isnt the only inconsistency in there. Paragraphs 7 and 30 both contradict JB1 (sign exhibit) with all 3 of them having different wording.

Fruitcake

You should mention anything and everything that helps your case. You should challenge the existence of the signs, state they are not there, and put the claimant's rep to strict proof that the contrary is true.
Are there any photos of signs in their WS? Quite often a PPC will provide stock images of signs that are nice and clear and legible, but only because they are nothing more than a computer file. They don't have screw-holes. They are disembodied without a background to show they are attached to a wall or a pole.

Do you have your own date-stamped images of the site, or dashcam footage to show their non-existence? 

Have you shown us the claimant's WS? The best way to do this is to upload a redacted copy to a web hosting site such as Dropbox or similar then post the link here. Please tell us which parts you have redacted, and which parts the claimant has redacted.

Anto_28

WS Url: https://pdfhost.io/v/ZLx7cW.7f_Witness_Statement_VCS - all redactions by me

To answer the Questions.

They have a digital sign exhibited, and also an unclear pucture of the sign (from the patrol officers awful quality photos)

I have this picture showing no signs, with my cars dash showing the date soon after the ‘alleged’ contravention

Johnersh

I doubt the judge will be interested in minor sign wording discrepancies.

It is not in dispute that there was a sign that the o/p was aware of and a permit system. The filed defence to the counterclaim admits as much.

Focus on BEST arguments and be prepared to bin more minor points that either don't land or aren't needed. You simply need to look for points the DJ is most interested in.

You could say that most of the signs aren't present thereby emphasising the statement is generic commentary and contains little fact or knowledge, which is precisely why the parking attendant should have attended. A written statement from an employee in the legal team is self-evidently limited.

Johnersh

Oh and paging everyone for another supreme court authority on penalties, pre-estimates of loss and consumer terms.
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2024/6?s=03 

Anto_28

Yep my plan is to go hard on the big hitters we’ve identified first and then if the opportunity arises and/or the judge asks for specific questions to the WS only then raise the more minor points. I feel quite confident and well prepared for the 29th 🙂

The ‘notes’ i’ve made from reading the WS are below (not necessarily going to include all in)

Point 7 & 30 - the wording in the WS is not the wording on the sign - Minor

Point 11, 17 & 29 - AH01 and AH08 conflicting the points raised which show a valid permit being displayed inside the front windscreen - Major (AH08 is PO evidence)

Point 17 - AH01 & AH08 evidence that the permit was displayed and AH10 evidences the Defendant knew this, Put to strict proof the details were not clearly visible. As JB is not the Patrol Officer, the statement made is based on pure speculation and not fact.

Point 18 - Page 4 of JB2 shows the permit inside the front windscreen. AH01 is also produced.

Point 20 - AH05 outlines what constitutes a ‘reasonable cause’. None of the causes apply in this case.

Point 21 - If the court finds the Defendant has no reasonable cause to obtain my personal data, and therefore no legitimate interest to process the data, then I respectfully ask that the court also find there was no legitimate interest in sharing my personal data with a 3rd party company.

Point 28 - Proportionate and reasonable go against District Judge Jackson (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson)

Point 30 - As JB is not the Patrol Officer, the statement made is based on pure speculation and not fact. No evidence to support the Defendant’s claim the details were not easily identifiable.

Debszzzz2

Why do you keep calling the defendants "parking attendant" a "patrol officer"? They are certainly no "officer" of anything. Calling them an officer accords them a title to which they are not entitled or worthy.

Calling him/her an "officer" creates a misleading impression of their authority and responsibilities. "Parking attendant" describes their role as an employee or agent of an unregulated private parking company.