Premier Parking Enforcement - Court Claim

RocquéRecords

Hi Coupon-mad, I have found the template to be perfectly clear. I must apologize as I was reacquainting myself with all the information, and it had been a while since I last read through all the information. Consequently, I inadvertently focused on the wrong parts of the newbies post and missed the crucial 12-step section that linked to template defense instructions, where all my questions were answered.

RocquéRecords

Hi Everyone, just a few quick questions:

For the D1 section is it better to put:

"The Defendant opposes the Claimant’s request for special directions, and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the defendant’s home court, pursuant to CPR 26.2A(3)"

or

"I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party. I feel strongly after all these years of intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and their agents, that I need a voice at an attended hearing. I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions."

and for where I'm based Birmingham/Midlands/Redditch are the closest courts, do you know which one would be the best choice?

Also, for F1 "F1 Have you been advised of your right to give evidence in either Welsh or English?" I answered No, is that okay?

Coupon-mad

The C hadn't made a request for special directions.

RocquéRecords

All submitted now! Hopefully, they choose to just cancel the case.

RocquéRecords

Hi Everyone, I am just preparing my witness statement now and getting relevant evidence. Would I be okay to copy the WS draft by CitizenK? and just make minor adjustments to suit my case?

RocquéRecords

I also don't remember the date or time I was parked there either

Coupon-mad

RocquéRecords said:

Hi Everyone, I am just preparing my witness statement now and getting relevant evidence. Would I be okay to copy the WS draft by CitizenK? and just make minor adjustments to suit my case?

Yes.  That is the most recent exemplar.

RocquéRecords

Thank you, this is what I have changed so far. The rest is the same apart from adding my relevant evidence:

Facts and Sequence of events

1.       Recollection of the Incident:

Regarding the parking incident last year, upon approaching what appeared to be vacant spaces, I encountered conflicting and confusing signage regarding parking permissions. In an effort to avoid any potential violation, I spent approximately five minutes deciphering the unclear signs to determine if parking was permitted after being unsure I asked my daughter to return to the vehicle to go park somewhere else. Notably, I recall encountering a faded and unclear sign without the Claimant's logo or name, which contradicted other signage in the vicinity bearing which had a logo and name. Throughout this process, I remained within the vehicle, prioritizing compliance and safety. My actions were driven by a sincere commitment to adhere to regulations and ensure safety for all parties involved.

2.       Parking Notice: I parked my vehicle in a parking spot with conflicting and unclear signage indicating parking restrictions or regulations. In the absence of signs that are clearly visible and easily readable from within the vehicle or immediately upon exiting, the absence of any contractual agreement becomes evident. (See Exhibits 05, 06, 07, 08 & 09).

 

3.       No Contract, No Breach: In the absence of a "relevant obligation" specified by such signage, there can be no breach. It's reasonable to assert that briefly utilizing a parking spot solely for the purpose of assessing its suitability is entirely justified. This notion becomes even more evident when considering factors such as the presence of a faded yellow box indicating no stopping (as outlined in rule 174 of the Highway Code), and the importance of ensuring smooth traffic flow without obstructing other road users entering and exiting the car park. In such circumstances, a reasonable person would acknowledge the necessity of momentarily occupying the spot to ensure compliance with regulations while also facilitating the flow of traffic. Even if one were to argue ambiguity, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 reinforces this stance, particularly in Section 69, which states: “Contract terms can be ambiguous and subject to different interpretations, especially if they are not clearly documented or easily accessible. In such cases, this section ensures that the interpretation most favourable to the consumer, rather than the trader, is the one adopted.”

 

4.       Grace Period: It is unreasonable to expect any driver to be denied ample time to assess whether parking is permitted in a particular area. Considering the evident absence of clear instructions, I maintain that my decision to halt in this location was both reasonable and made in the absence of any apparent restrictions.

 

5.       Conflicting Company Names & Dormant Companies: The discrepancy between the claimant listed as "Premier Parking Enforcement LTD" and the signage displaying "Premier Parking Logistics" at the car park highlights the contradictory and deceptive nature of the claim. It's important to emphasize that I am not being pursued by the company indicated on the relevant signage. A brief investigation on Companies House reveals that both entities—Premier Parking Enforcement LTD and Premier Parking Logistics—are either dormant or recently dormant, with active proposals for striking off. This pattern of similar proposals in the past raises serious questions about their credibility. Furthermore, both companies have overdue accounts, suggesting a trend of dubious claims against unsuspecting drivers like myself. Additionally, it's essential to recognize that dormant companies are not authorized to collect funds, and they must possess signed confirmation from the landowner permitting them to operate as enforcement at the car park location. This raises concerns about the legitimacy of their operations and their entitlement to pursue claims against individuals. (See Exhibit 10, 11, 12 & 13)

Coupon-mad

If the car was only there very briefly, do not state it was 'parked'.  Remove this:

"I parked my vehicle in a parking spot with conflicting and unclear signage indicating parking restrictions or regulations".

The rest reads very much like Chat GPT wrote it and I'm afraid to say, I just stopped reading at the next paragraph because the chewed up English made it indecipherable.

Please put it in your own words, not AI-speak long wordy stuff, which a Judge will hate as much as we do here! No idea why people use ChatGPT because it screams 'bot' - except for maths & graphs (my kids tell me it's good for that).

RocquéRecords

Thank you, I have changed it back to my original writing and shortened it a bit. I thought ChatGPT would do a better job than my writing as my English has never been amazing

Facts and Sequence of events

1.       Recollection of the Incident:

Last year, during the parking incident, I came across confusing signs when trying to find a spot. To avoid breaking any rules, I spent about five minutes trying to understand if parking was allowed. Unsure, I asked my daughter to return to the car so we could find another spot. I remember seeing a faded sign without the Claimant's logo or name, which was different from other signs nearby. I also stayed in the car the whole time, focusing on following the rules, staying safe and out of the way of other drivers.

2.       Parking Notice: The fact that the signs are not clearly legible from inside the vehicle or upon exiting and have conflicting information show that there’s no contractual agreement. (See Exhibits 05, 06, 07, 08 & 09).

 

3.       No Contract, No Breach: There is no rule violation as there wasn’t a clear obligation shown on the signage. It's fair to say that briefly using a parking spot just to check if it's suitable is reasonable. This is clear as there was a faded yellow box indicating no stopping (as per Rule 174 of the Highway Code) and the need to keep traffic flowing smoothly in the car park. In such situations, it's reasonable for someone to briefly use a spot to ensure they're following the rules be allowing time to read the signs while also helping traffic move smoothly by getting out of the way. Even if there's some uncertainty, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 backs up this idea. It says that if contract terms are unclear, the interpretation that benefits the consumer should be used.

 

4.       Grace Period: It's not fair to expect drivers to be rushed or given no time to figure out if they can park somewhere. With no clear instructions available, I believe my choice to stop in that spot was reasonable, especially since there weren't any obvious restrictions, and the signage was very hard to read either being faded or too small.

 

5.       Conflicting Company Names & Dormant Companies: The difference between the claimant named "Premier Parking Enforcement LTD" and the signage displaying "Premier Parking Logistics" at the car park reveals inconsistencies and raises doubts about the claim's legitimacy. It's crucial to note that I am not being pursued by the company indicated on the signage. A quick check on Companies House shows that both entities—Premier Parking Enforcement LTD and Premier Parking Logistics—are either dormant or in the process of being dissolved. This history of similar proposals in the past casts doubt on their credibility due to the number of times a strike off has been requested and changing being dormant to active. Moreover, both companies have outstanding accounts due, suggesting a pattern of questionable claims against unsuspecting drivers like myself as if they can’t do their accounts on time how are they expected to follow the correct guidelines for parking enforcement. It's also important to note that dormant companies cannot legally collect funds and these respective companies can’t conduct parking enforcement without signed permission from the landowner. This clearly raises concerns about the legality of their operations and their right to pursue claims against individuals as a lot of claims by this company have been thrown at as shown on the many google reviews left as they ticketed and sued people while they were dormant doubling down on their dishonest practices. (See Exhibit 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15)