Parking court claim

Goodprof

"4.    It was a night time and the car park had poor lighting (Exhibit 05) that makes it difficult to find and read the parking rules. I can assure that there was even less light on the time of parking, and as you can see the photographs were taken with a flash. Also the main sign on the main entrance was on the ground detached from its established place (Exhibit 06) which reduces the chances of seeing it."

I have some others where the fash is visible if it makes any sense.

Goodprof

The first part draw. My wife is saying that it was really dark there, but not sure if the pictures are prooving that

9. On xxx, I visited “xxx” dancing school for the class for 1 hour, which is located in xxx Business Centre that allows to visitor to park on the stated parking.

10. It was a night time and the car park had poor lighting (Exhibit 05) that makes it difficult to find and read the parking rules. I can assure that there was even less light on the time of parking, and as you can see the photographs were taken with a flash. Also the main sign on the main entrance was on the ground detached from its established place (Exhibit 06) which reduces the chances of seeing it.

 

11. Considering the Entrance sign and lighting conditions, these breach a number of rules they need to follow in their own British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and against a number of County Court judgements made in the past.

 

12. The latest BPA Code of Practice (version 8 – January 2020) Section 18, Paragraph 19.3 states that “Signs must be conspicuous and legible…easy to see, read and understand.” (Exhibit 07) The photos of the parking shows that it is neither easy to see, nor read. [Snipped page from BPA CoP used]

 

13. BPA Code of Practice Appendix B also details other rules that entrance signs must follow which this sign is in breach of. (Exhibit 08) [Snipped page from BPA CoP used]

 

14. Appendix B states that the sign “should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk.” The photos in Exhibits 05 show that the lighting conditions have been insufficient.

 

15. It says that I must supply my full and correct vehicle registration number to the reception desk within 10 minutes of arrival on site (Exhibit 07), but as it was out of business hours and I can declare responsibly that no one was present at the reception desk at that time and I was unable to contact anyone at this case. The claimant confirms that a daily pass can be requested from the Main Office during working hours only in their response to my appeal (Exhibit 08), rendering compliance impossible..

 

16. The “xxx” dancing school staff haven’t been informed about parking policy and couldn’t provide the permission for their visitors.

 

17. A windscreen PCN was placed on the car. (Exhibit 05)

 

18. The “xxx” dancing school staff have tried to help to resolve the dispute providing unreliable information, including the information in my appeal (Exhibit 09) where I have mentioned that I am working for “xxx”. Although I wasn’t their stuff I should mention now that I was a candidate. However it does not make any difference, because the parking is free for all, the staff and for other visitors.

 

19. After my appeal I have received a reply from National Parking Management (Exhibit 08) where it says that a daily pass can be requested from the Main Office during working hours only (what I mentioned above). They also stated that it could be done obtaining a pass from “xxx”, but I was unable to find this information anywhere else and dancing school didn’t confirm that.

 

20.  I was placed in a stalemate between two companies and after “xxx” assurance that they will resolve everything, I just had to wait, and that was a result of this case.

Goodprof

The second part. Ignore numbering

CRA breaches

 

4.    Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

 

5.    Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

 

6.    The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

 

 

The Beavis case is against this claim

 

7.    The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs (Exhibit 10) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

 

 

8.    Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (Exhibit 11 for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

 

 

9.    In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There are two main issues that render this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

 

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

 

The signage in this case required customers to supply their vehicle registration number to the main reception desk. However, the office was out of hours on the time I was visiting the business centre, rendering compliance impossible.

 

(ii). Hidden Terms:

 

The main sign on the entrance was detached from its established place making it inaccessible. The car park’s poor lighting makes it difficult to find and read the parking rules during the night time. The purported added (false) 'costs' are hidden and are also unspecified as a sum. Their (unlawful, due to the CRA Schedule 2 grey list of unfair terms) suggestion is that they can hide a vague sentence within a wordy sign, in the smallest possible print, then add whatever their trade body lets them, until the DLUHC bans it in 2024. And the driver has no idea about any risk nor even how much they might layer on top. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

 

(i)               Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

 

(ii)              Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

 

(iii)            Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space".

 

Conclusion

 

10. The claim is entirely without merit. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

 

11. There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

 

12. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Defendant’s signature:

 

Date:

Goodprof

The latest exemplar I found in NEWBIES threadis is from January this year and "With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs" is there. I have just deleted it from mine. What would you say?

Le_Kirk

Try to take some photos without out flash to show how difficult it was to read the signs.

I can assure that there was even less light on the time of parking

What are you trying to say here?  Do you mean assert rather than assure?  What do you mean by less light.less than when, less than when the photo was taken?  Is it your photo or the PPCs?

9. On xxx, I visited “xxx” dancing school for the class for 1 hour, which is located in xxx Business Centre that allows to visitors to park on the stated parking car park.

Maybe better as above.

Also the main sign on the main entrance was on the ground detached from its established place (Exhibit 06) which reduces the chances of seeing it.

Do you mean the sign was broken?

I can declare responsibly that

What do you mean here?  Maybe declare truthfully or honestly would be a better word.  You need to go through your whole statement and read it as if you were the judge and make sure that he would understand what you are trying to say.

Coupon-mad

Goodprof said:

The latest exemplar I found in NEWBIES threadis is from January this year and "With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs" is there. I have just deleted it from mine. What would you say?

You've cut out some paragraphs?

In 11 you say that the cost of debt recovery is eight times less than the fake DRA fee but you haven't used the paragraphs with the IA link that explain this (unless I missed it).

Can you not get some pics this weekend of dark corners at midnight, with your back to that light?  Definitely no flash!

Surely the one that said the DLUHC has 'banned' the fee wasn't the person's final version WS? If so, whose? I will delete it from the exemplars but it sounds like you read their first try rather than their last draft.

Goodprof

Le_Kirk said:

Try to take some photos without out flash to show how difficult it was to read the signs.

Will do, thanks for the advice

Le_Kirk said:

I can assure that there was even less light on the time of parking

What are you trying to say here?  Do you mean assert rather than assure?  What do you mean by less light.less than when, less than when the photo was taken?  Is it your photo or the PPCs?

I've paraphrased this pharagraph, didn't like it either

4.    It was a night time and the car park had poor lighting (Exhibit 05) that made it difficult to find and read the parking rules. As you may see from the photos attached there is only some light from passing car and low light coming from buildings. Also it is visible that the photographs were taken with a flash.

Le_Kirk said:

9. On xxx, I visited “xxx” dancing school for the class for 1 hour, which is located in xxx Business Centre that allows to visitors to park on the stated parking car park.

Thanks, changed to this:

On xxx, I visited “xxx” dancing school for the class for 1 hour, which is located in xxx Business Centre that allows visitors to park in the car park free of charge.

Le_Kirk said:

Also the main sign on the main entrance was on the ground detached from its established place (Exhibit 06) which reduces the chances of seeing it.

Do you mean the sign was broken?

https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/qf/9wmj1clve3hs.png

Le_Kirk said:

I can declare responsibly that

What do you mean here?  Maybe declare truthfully or honestly would be a better word.  You need to go through your whole statement and read it as if you were the judge and make sure that he would understand what you are trying to say.

I am doing it now, thank you for your help

Goodprof

Coupon-mad said:

Goodprof said:

The latest exemplar I found in NEWBIES threadis is from January this year and "With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs" is there. I have just deleted it from mine. What would you say?

You've cut out some paragraphs?

In 11 you say that the cost of debt recovery is eight times less than the fake DRA fee but you haven't used the paragraphs with the IA link that explain this (unless I missed it).

I have put it back now. Will post redacted WS shortly with pics

Coupon-mad said:

Surely the one that said the DLUHC has 'banned' the fee wasn't the person's final version WS? If so, whose? I will delete it from the exemplars but it sounds like you read their first try rather than their last draft.

Links in this thread are not working (@Citizen_K)

@GolfR12   posted his WS in this thread  on a page 4 in January, could not find any other

Goodprof

Is this paragraph is the same you are talking about? Should I try to adapt it or just delete?

28. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There are two
main issues that render this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate
interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:
The signage in this case required customers to supply their vehicle registration
number to the main reception desk. However, the office was out of hours on the time
I was visiting the business centre, rendering compliance impossible.

(ii). Hidden Terms:

The main sign on the entrance was detached from its established place making it
inaccessible. The car park’s poor lighting makes it difficult to find and read the
parking rules during the night time. The purported added (false) 'costs' are
hidden and are also unspecified as a sum. Their (unlawful, due to the CRA
Schedule 2 grey list of unfair terms) suggestion is that they can hide a vague
sentence within a wordy sign, in the smallest possible print, then add
whatever their trade body lets them, until the DLUHC bans it in 2024. And the
driver has no idea about any risk nor even how much they might layer on top.
Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack
of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2both leading
authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been
concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms
Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would
later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking
space".

Goodprof

Anyway, as for me it looks like almost a final version of WS. Not sure if I can do better.

1. Just will try to make photos of sign in a dark.

2. Will do table of contents

3. Not sure about "The Beavis case is against this claim" Paragraphs (from 26). Should I just delete them?

How you guys working with all this, it is a nightmare. Lost all weekend, and still feeling like my job is a crap

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12KzO17YMdhHGL3P7liEAJPG_j7Lz71CH/view?usp=drive_link