QDR Solicitors - One Parking Solution, Vantage Point Brighton - CASE WON DISMISSED BY JUDGE

GherkinInTheGarden

Changing 'that requires' to 'which requires'

95Rollers

Good Afternoon @GherkinInTheGarden

Back in  March 2019 I also made the grave error of entering this hell hole of a carpark. My circumstances were quite similar to yours - I also struggled with getting a signal and using the machine so left due this.  I got all the usual PCN and threatening letters from about 3 different companies which I ignored based on the fact I'd done nothing wrong. I got issued the CCBC form exact 2 years later and then faced them in court one year on from that and I won.  Thanks to the good people of thus forum and hours of research. 

I am replying to reassure most people beat them in court regarding this site and I am happy to share my redacted court documents (witness statements/ exhibits/ photos) if and when the time comes.   If you click on my username and look under Threads/ Posts created you'll see all the information regarding my case there.  The thread also contains my court report, photo exhibits plus links to other forum posts on OPS Vantage Point cases. 

Good luck and you've made the right decision by being proactive and signing up here. 

GherkinInTheGarden

Thanks for that, 95Rollers, I did go through your posts with much interest as the cases are similar.  Plus it gives us some reassurance that cases like this can be successfully won, albeit with some effort on our part.

Most of the exhibits in your original posts can no longer be downloaded or viewed BUT I will definitely be contacting you when/if we get to the WS stage for some of your photo exhibits, etc if you're willing to share.   We live a few hours from Brighton and, as its been over a year since the PCN, not sure if the signage has changed.

95Rollers

I don't live in Brighton either and I used Google Street View which allows you to view the Street at the various dates it was image captured (luckily there was one from the relevant month/ year of my case).  I used a before and after- which showed signs get moved round and not consistent with the undated photos they sent in their Witness Statements. 

It's probably been mentioned above, but in case it hasn't- you are NOT obliged to have this heard at Brighton Court. You can choose a court local and convenient to you. Its the Defendants choice (yours).

Coupon-mad

GherkinInTheGarden said:

Hello again - my Defence as it stands now - useful suggestions/comments welcome:

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver and on the material date they visited Brighton and made the innocent mistake of entering what they now realise is a well-documented 'cash cow' car park, at Vantage Point.

3.  The car was never in fact parked because it was idling and had an occupant inside, while the Defendant was making all reasonable endeavours to pay. The alleged breach of a term or 'relevant obligation' is expressly denied because the alleged contract was not concluded by any erring conduct on the Defendant's part.  It was caused by a failure of the Claimant’s payment app that requires an adequate phone signal within the car park, and lack of any offer of alternative cashless means to pay, such as a contactless/debit card.  Due wholly to the Claimant's payment system failure in a (well-known, according to reviews and first hand accounts from other victims) fluctuating phone signal car park, the Defendant was rendered unable to make payment.

4. After several frustrating minutes, they gave up and left the car park and found an alternative place to park in Brighton.  The car was idling (not parked) in this small 'maze' of a dark multi-storey for no more than 10 -12 minutes but the Claimants are relying on images of the car 'in transit' at the exit, which significantly exaggerates the time actually stopped.  The Government's new incoming statutory Code of Practice (linked later in the defence) says at definition 2.24 (parking period): "the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired. ... This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."

5.  At no point was the ANPR system brought to the attention of the Defendant (this is a GDPR breach) and there was no mention of a 'consideration period' by which a driver had to pay. Indeed, the Defendant now knows that the landowner made this Claimant increase the grace period to at least 15 minutes a couple of years ago, due to complaints.  None of this is on the signs and the alleged parking contract was frustrated by the app failure.  Allowing an uncommunicated 5, 10 or even 15 minutes to pay whilst knowingly providing an app that may not work within 15 minutes is clearly a misleading action and an unfair term, which renders the parking charge unrecoverable in law.  There was also no consideration on offer to a driver who - through no fault of their own - finds they cannot park and gain any amenity from the site. Therefore, the elements of a fairly agreed contract (concluded by a 'meeting of minds' and by performance) are simply not there in these circumstances.

(Then re-number the template below)

_______________

Along with removing a few comments in the template Defence about the POC being sparse and another area where its described as woeful, other changes I've made:

WAS:

(i). the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and requires further and better particulars, and

NOW IS:

(i). the alleged breach pleaded in the POC, the contravention being NO PAYMENT TICKET, relies on the Defendant having a mobile phone/data plan, on an adequate mobile signal within the car park, an application successfully being downloaded/working and on the Defendant’s bank interfacing with the ‘app’, and

________________

Looks fine!

----------------------

I also would like to know the following:

A)  if I leave the sub-headings shown in bold in the Defence template, i.e. Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

Yes you do leave all the stuff in about exaggerated charges and market failure.  That gives you a platform to build on in your WS later.

I agree that in the Conclusion, the word embarrassing to describe the POC doesn't fit so just edit or remove a small chunk of the conclusion. 

Defence facts suggested as above.

I am a Sussex lass and visit Brighton a lot. The signs have not improved.  Google Streetview will confirm this and you can use those images in your WS later.

GherkinInTheGarden

Hi all,

I am submitting the Defence today but don't have a way to scan the Defendant's signature.  Is it perfectly OK to just put their name in a font that implies a signature?  Will the court accept this?

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine. Save the signed doc as a PDF (not a word doc) then go back to re-read the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.

B789

Yes.          

GherkinInTheGarden

Answered my own question by downloading Acrobat Sign, sending the document to the Defendant who has now signed it.

95Rollers

Any updates since sending off the paperwork?