One Parking Solution Stanmer Park Village

B789

Interesting that the NtK does not reference PoFA nor have any of the necessary wording but in the PoC they try to claim keeper liability underPoFA.

forummseuser01

ParkingMad said:

The consultation Brighton and Hove City Council had with Stanmer Village residents says that parking controls in the village (managed by OPS) match those in the adjacent Stanmer Church car park (managed by BHCC).

https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s161648/Stanmer%20Village%20Parking%20Management%20APX.%20n%203.html?CT=2

Parking controls in the village would match the nearest car park i.e. the Church car park (9am -8pm)

 

Hi Parking Mad, 

That is an interesting document!

Thank you

forummseuser01

Hi all,

I have drafted the following for paragraph 3 of my defence. I would be very grateful for any feedback you are willing to provide.

The defendant entered in no contractual obligations as the claimant did not adequately notify the defendant of the existence of any such contractual obligations. The British Parking Association (BPA) (of which the claimant is a member) code of practice para 19.1 states: ‘you must use signs to make it easy for them (the driver) to find out what your terms and conditions are.’ Appendix B of the Code of Practice states:  ‘Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area.’ The defendant’s position is that the signage at the site was inadequate to allow for understanding of the claimants terms and conditions by virtue of being unlit, poorly positioned and obscured by other signage and foliage. The defendant’s photographic, video and open source evidence demonstrates this to be the case.

The defendant's view is that the claimants hours of enforcement of their terms and conditions stands in stark contrast to the hours of enforcement notfied throughout the park and in public consultation with local residents, and the claimant has not taken reasonable steps to allow for the defendant to understand the claimants terms and conditions."    

Coupon-mad

That's good.

Assuming your two paras above are going to be numbered 3 and 4 within the Template (and obviously all of the rest of the defence below these facts will be re-numbered) I would add:


5.  This is a site owned and the spaces provided by Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC). The Defendant has discovered that much of the site is subject to a Traffic Order and falls under statutory enforcement, after major and well-publicised complaints about the way this Claimant was operating at Stanmer Park. The Claimant is put to strict proof that this area is in fact 'private land' (putting a sign up and/or BHCC carrying out a poll of residents does not make it so) and that they have authority to make any 'contracts' with drivers, and litigate in their own name.

6.  Further, the only prominent signs at the entrance to the park, then on approach to and within Stanmer Village (which looks like a continuation of the public road/bus route which runs through the park) carry at least the BHCC logo and on some signs the Council's name. On any reasonable interpretation, the only party with the standing to litigate in this case is the landowner, not this Claimant, and therefore this agent has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169.

forummseuser01

Coupon-mad said:

That's good.

Assuming your two paras above are going to be numbered 3 and 4 within the Template (and obviously all of the rest of the defence below these facts will be re-numbered) I would add:


5.  This is a site owned and the spaces provided by Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC). The Defendant has discovered that much of the site is subject to a Traffic Order and falls under statutory enforcement, after major and well-publicised complaints about the way this Claimant was operating at Stanmer Park. The Claimant is put to strict proof that this area is in fact 'private land' (putting a sign up and/or BHCC carrying out a poll of residents does not make it so) and that they have authority to make any 'contracts' with drivers, and litigate in their own name.

6.  Further, the only prominent signs at the entrance to the park, then on approach to and within Stanmer Village (which looks like a continuation of the public road/bus route which runs through the park) carry at least the BHCC logo and on some signs the Council's name. On any reasonable interpretation, the only party with the standing to litigate in this case is the landowner, not this Claimant, and therefore this agent has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169.

Thank you very much. It is very reassuring to receive your feedback and the additions you have provided. In all honesty I do not really understand much of the defence document including the above paras. How much of this should I be prepared to defend in front of the judge should this claim reach the hearing stage? Or should I just be concerning myself with providing a narative to support para 3? Please note I have read the Newbies thread and I have understood the need to prepare the evidence as per points a) to i) regarding the filing of evidence and the witness statement. The last thing I want to do is waste anyone's time by standing in front of a judge and be ill prepared. But I am prepared to read further and summarise my understanding of these paras if this is necessary. Again, thank you for your input.

Coupon-mad

You do need to understand your defence.

What don't you understand about the above or the Template? For example, if you Google Fairlie v Fenton you will find a short synopsis on various websites telling you exactly what it means for an agent.

I've never studied law and find it (Fairlie v Fenton) an easy concept.

forummseuser01

Coupon-mad said:

You do need to understand your defence.

What don't you understand about the above or the Template? For example, if you Google Fairlie v Fenton you will find a short synopsis on various websites telling you exactly what it means for an agent.

I've never studied law and find it (Fairlie v Fenton) an easy concept.

I am somewhat daunted by the task at hand to be honest and I would really appreciate your feedback. In all honesty I don't find it easy.

I have searched for information, from what I can glean Fairlee versus Fenton is about the claimant acting as an agent of the landowner. If the agent accepts no liability this leaves the landowner open to be sued rather than the agent, if this is the case then the agent is not in a position to enter into a contract with the defendant so the whole claim is mute. Is my understanding correct and would that be a sufficient synopsis to state to the judge? Would I need to hold a copy of the source material in front of the judge?

But first I would need to check the sign and if OPS do not accept any liability then they will fall foul of Fairlee versus Fenton and the 'contract' would likely stand to be struck out (according to Fairlee versus Fenton, Is that correct? 

Is there anyway of reading the relevant extracts from the source judgements? Is there a library where these judgements can be viewed? I have tried the national archives and the British and Irish Legal Information Institute but to no avail.

I fear wasting the judges time and making myself look a total idiot!

I am grateful for the help you have provided to date.
 

Coupon-mad

You don't need to check the sign. OPS do not 'make the contract their own'.

The entrance to Stanmer Park is practically opposite the Amex stadium. I know it well and so does @ParkingMad (and we know how crap the signs are up at the Stanmer Village top end) so we advised you with local knowledge. We are the 'Brighton ladies' on this forum and we've beaten OPS in court several times.

The judgment is linked on some websites, e.g. Swarb or Casemine and your understanding of it is correct.  Easy innit?

You already know from reading the massive red capitals (to grab your attention) sub-headed section:  'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' in the NEWBIES thread, at what stage evidence and authorities are sent into court.

Not with the defence and not suddenly at the hearing either.  You don't just rock up with stuff out of the blue on the day.of the hearing.  There are simple stages to tread.

Nor will a Judge expect a normal person to speak like a lawyer.  But you DO need to use the template defence and understand it.  And use the words I advised you to add. I think you are feeling daunted even though I've written 98% of your defence for you and all you need do is sign, date, save it as a PDF and email it..

All this is far easier than you think.  Why not read how @[Deleted User]  got on at Worthing court this week?

forummseuser01

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need to check the sign. OPS do not 'make the contract their own'.

The entrance to Stanmer Park is practically opposite the Amex stadium. I know it well and so does @ParkingMad (and we know how crap the signs are up at the Stanmer Village top end) so we advised you with local knowledge. We are the 'Brighton ladies' on this forum and we've beaten OPS in court several times.

The judgment is linked on some websites, e.g. Swarb or Casemine and your understanding of it is correct.  Easy innit?

You already know from reading the massive red capitals (to grab your attention) sub-headed section:  'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' in the NEWBIES thread, at what stage evidence and authorities are sent into court.

Not with the defence and not suddenly at the hearing either.  You don't just rock up with stuff out of the blue on the day.of the hearing.  There are simple stages to tread.

Nor will a Judge expect a normal person to speak like a lawyer.  But you DO need to use the template defence and understand it.  And use the words I advised you to add. I think you are feeling daunted even though I've written 98% of your defence for you and all you need do is sign, date, save it as a PDF and email it..

All this is far easier than you think.  Why not read how @[Deleted User]  got on at Worthing court this week?

I will read @[Deleted User] now. 

I am very grateful that you have written the defence, believe me. I guess what I find daunting is in understanding the arguments sufficiently to be able to make a good representation in front of the judge and, potentially any claimant legal rep. But I hear what you are saying. There are stages and there is time to get my head around the arguments. Absorb them, and practice a recital so I am not left speechless on the day! 

Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

I am about to do a complaint to the DVLA about BHCC and their use of OPS.  Some time this month I will do it.  Do you want to be a case study?

Pm me if happy that I mention your case - anonymous of course, I'm not asking for data.