DCB legal claims form- Bank Park (oxford road reading)

youngillion

Unfairly Weighted Clause

2. Distinguishing this unfairly weighted clause "you only get 30 minutes free if you take a ticket" with the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis. In the latter case, the court found that the penalty rule is always engaged with a private parking claim but that the operative clause - in the Beavis case - was not a penalty.  This was primarily due to the 'legitimate interest' of encouraging motorists to vacate car parking spaces after 2 hours.Unfairly Weighted Clause

3.The Supreme Court gave valuable guidance as to what could constitute a legitimate interest of a party (or third party) seeking to uphold a clause. Applying that test, in the extant case there is no such legitimate interest to save the clause from being unenforceable. There can be no reason to impose a burden on motorists to have to display a 'ticket' to claim free time when the car park ANPR system already calculates the stay and should simply exempt all vehicles that leave the site within 30 minutes (plus a grace period).

Facts and Sequence of events

4.  Incident: The vehicle entered a parking space on the day on which the claimant suggests in order to purchase food from a fast-food restaurant   for the young occupants of the vehicle who were very hungry. On approach there was no signs to indicate that this was an ANPR controlled car park (See Exhibit 02 (1-4)) , on entry the car was parked in the first bay near the restaurant. The occupants of the car spent a few minutes eating and then left with out noticing any signage that indicated that there was any breach of parking as alleged by the claimant.

5.  Inadequate Signage: As stated above and indicated with Exhibit 02(1-4), there is a lack of clear and visible signage regarding parking regulations. Contrary to the exhibits (Claimant Exhibit 2) sent to the court by the claimant the signage supposedly installed on 3rd November 2020 at the entrance no longer exists as shown by Exhibit 02(1-4) with video evidence available if required by the court. It is also evident that despite the countless complaints on the claimants google review page seen in Exhibit 02(5) and appeals lodged by the defendant and others nothing has been done about it. Dare I say the parking spaces have been used as the firm’s name suggest as a way to make BANK, rather than to provide a useful service for the local populus. And any complaint falls on deafened ears and are brought to court wasting all those involved precious time. Close to four years have passed since the initial installation and the claimant has failed to check if they are still compliant with the Code of Practice, they say they are so strongly bound by.

 

6. In the Accreditation section of the claimants WS it is mentioned that ‘The IPC has a Code of Practice (“Code”) that its members are expected to adhere to. The above-mentioned code of conduct version 7, Schedule 1 (as seen in Exhibit 4)  found at: Code of Practice V7 November 2019-V1-V2.pdf (theipc.info); states that ‘Where a Car Park has a defined entrance, Operators should display entrance signs. It stipulated that ‘Entrance Signs should: a) make it clear that the Motorist is entering onto private land; b) refer the Motorist to the signs within the Car Park which display the full terms and conditions. This requirement has not been adhered to by the claimant for the past 3 years as shown in Exhibit 2(1-5) and thus motorist have been unfairly subjected to a bombardment of PCNs and court action from site which does not meet the strict criteria the claimant uses as justification for their accredited status. Further backed up by the recently (July 2024) published code of conduct which uses the worlds must to reiterate how essential an entrance sign for the control of private parking spaces.

youngillion

this is the revised version 

Coupon-mad

Very good, and yes you do understand correctly, how to distinguish the Beavis case from yours.

At the end of paragraph 2, remove the odd extra 'Unfairly Weighted Clause'

youngillion

Thank you so much , going to submit it tonight , do i have to submit it during working hours?

KeithP

youngillion said:

...do i have to submit it during working hours?

No.                    

youngillion

 

bit nervous but sure it will all be fine. please give me a last look over if possible. 

thank you all

Coupon-mad

Remove the multiple strike-outs and replace them with the second appeal case (persuasive, like Chan) CPMS v Akande.

It's in the suggested a-f list of Exhibits in the NEWBIES thread WS section.

And sort out the line-spacing, to create a consistent 1.15 between lines throughout. Paras 2, 3 and 4 need to be the same line-spacing as the rest.

Remove the above link from this thread, as it shows your full name, Claim number and court.

youngillion

all done and submitted , no response 

youngillion

We won guys!!!!!! Judge struck the case out and agreed the claimant behaved unseasonably and awared research fee and a day's wages. Couldn't have done it without you guys ❤️ 

Coupon-mad

youngillion said:

We won guys!!!!!! Judge struck the case out and agreed the claimant behaved unseasonably and awared research fee and a day's wages. Couldn't have done it without you guys ❤️ 

Yay!  Well done you.  Happy weekend!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

When you get a chance can you tell us more:

- did a rep show up? What did they say?

- what was 'unreasonable'?

- was it the POC? Struck out due to the authority of Chan and Akande?