DCB Legal Court Hearing 28th August

InconspicuousSheep21

The first 3 signs were enclosed in the first WS and the last sign enclosed in the late submitted second WS. You're correct in saying 6 PCNs issued for "Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period Permitted." and 1 PCN issued for "No Parking Out Of Hours" (my shift was 0600-1000, I entered the car park at 05:51:52 and exited the car park at 10:09:46.

I've structured this table below to help explain the timings in relation to the shifts I was working when the PCNs were issued. 

	Scheduled Shift	PCN Reason for Issue	Vehicle Arrival	Vehicle Departure
23/06/2022	1600 - 2000	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	15:54:40	20:04:12
24/06/2022	1500 - 1900	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	14:59:31	19:05:07
25/06/2022	1100 - 1500	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	10:52:45	15:10:45
27/06/2022	1100 - 1500	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	10:53:59	15:08:27
30/06/2022	1100 - 1500	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	10:51:08	15:15:10
02/07/2022	1200 - 2000	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	11:52:22	20:05:51
03/07/2022	0600 - 1000	“No Parking Out Of Hours”	05:51:52	10:09:46

Not_A_Hope

How long did you work and park at this site? The PCNs are all within a two week period probably when you first started work there. If you worked there for some time you can point out to the judge that contrary to the suggestion by the clients solicitor that of breaches of Terms are not allowed subsequently being put on the whitelist preventing you from any further PCNs. By implication there must be different rules in force for all those working there.

InconspicuousSheep21

I worked there for 12 months and 13 days, in that time, for every shift attended, I parked in the same general area in close proximity to the store. You're correct in saying the PCNs issued being claimed were during the first two weeks of commencing employment there. How would I go about prompting the Claimant to provide further information in the context of the exemption/whitelist mentioned in the Contract between the Landowner and the Claimant.

Thank you in advance

Coupon-mad

You don't. You can't ask a hired gun legal rep to answer questions or to adduce evidence.

But you can simply address the Judge and point out the holes in the C's case.

You can say that their Witness Statement is plainly wrong to try to claim that staff were not exempt, because they were, as proved by:

(a) your email evidence, and

(b) the very fact that you worked there for 12 months but all the PCNs are from during the first two weeks of commencing employment. After that there were no PCNs for a year!

The evidence suggests that there was an inexplicable delay (caused by the C's own internal system) in whitelisting the car when employment started. The C will know from the whitelist that the car was exempt after that fortnight. Yet they haven't even admitted there is a staff whitelist and are trying to say there was 'no staff exemption' but that cannot be true otherwise you'd have 12 months' worth of daily PCNs!

Separately:

As for the PCN penalising you for driving in at the retail park entrance at 5.51am (nine minutes before your shift started):

(a) that's not evidence of parking before 6am;

(b) no fair grace (consideration) period has been allowed on arrival;

(c) even if the car did manage to be parked in a bay just minutes before 6am, the term "no parking between 11pm and 6am' is prohibitive.  There is no contract offered by that term.  It's an outright ban on parking, with nothing of value on offer to the driver.  No contract then.

InconspicuousSheep21

So my strongest point is going to be the fact I was given verbal permission by the Landowners tenant at the time. It’s unjust for the Claimant to state or allude that as an employee I had no right to park as I did since the “T&Cs” were not applicable to me as an employee therefore no contract was entered. If there was an obligation to park in accordance with the T&Cs in the 12 months and 13 days I was employed, parking as I did, I would’ve accumulated a ridiculous amount of PCNs. I’m not entirely sure how or why I received the PCNs I did within the first 2 weeks of my employment but it’s reasonable to assume there was some error on the Claimant’s behalf whereby they either did not exempt my vehicle for whatever reason or there was a delay in exempting my vehicle which seems to be the more probable explanation. As an employee on the Land, I knew for a fact all of my colleagues were exempt on the Land as was I.

I acted in good faith upon explicit word given by my employer that I was allowed to park on the Land. 

Would it be unjust of me to allege the Claimant is hiding relevant facts which would prove I was not liable for the PCNs issued such as providing sufficient evidence regarding exempt vehicles or circumstances under which exemptions would’ve applied? I have a feeling this could/would annoy the Judge if i did so?

The fact they state I had “ample time” to appeal the PCNs or “request evidence in support” is completely unfair since they’re using the narrative correspondence was sent by the debt collection agency and a LoC, which was never received hence the CCJ being set aside as there was a failure of notification within that period.

There’s also a disparity between the 2 different signs they’ve submitted in the first and then second WS. One states “no parking between 11pm and 6am” whereas the other almost identical sign in their initial WS does not. They’re quite sneakingly insinuating two signs of very similar nature were up in the car park. How can a clear contract be entered if the Terms on the signs are different with conflicting unclear information. 

I don’t know if I’m missing anything else to mention in Court and I don’t know if what I’ve mentioned above would be suffice to have the Judge rule in my favour. Again I know yous are unable to state for sure if the above would be enough since it’s subjective and just depends on what the Judge decides on the day but if you can highlight anything I’ve missed/is worth mentioning it would be appreciated.

Many thanks!

Not_A_Hope

Would it be unjust of me to allege the Claimant is hiding relevant facts which would prove I was not liable for the PCNs issued such as providing sufficient evidence regarding exempt vehicles 

Just paraphrase @Coupon-mad words when talking to the judge - The evidence suggests that there was an inexplicable delay (caused by the C's own internal system) in whitelisting the car when employment started. The C will know from the whitelist that the car was exempt after that fortnight. Yet they haven't even admitted there is a staff whitelist and are trying to say there was 'no staff exemption' but that cannot be true otherwise I would  have 12 months' worth of daily PCNs!

The fact they state I had “ample time” to appeal the PCNs or “request evidence in support” is completely unfair 

I wouldn’t worry about it. Lots of claims by PPCs have unfair claims and untruths but it doesn’t stop them.  If asked by the Judge briefly explain the nightmare this company has caused you. They know you were authorised and subsequently on the whitelist but have continued to harass you when they had the evidence all along.

There’s also a disparity between the 2 different signs they’ve submitted in the first and then second WS. One states “no parking between 11pm and 6am” whereas the other almost identical sign in their initial WS does not. They’re quite sneakingly insinuating two signs of very similar nature were up in the car park. How can a clear contract be entered if the Terms on the signs are different with conflicting unclear information. 

If the judge doesn’t throw the second WS out you can point out the disparity between the signs. It is a shame you don’t have your own photos of the signs. The ones they are using are stock images of signs from a computer they allege were in place at the time. Many cases have been won on defendants demonstrating the shoddy, inadequate nature of signs 12 foot up a lamp post with tiny writing. These would be incapable of forming a contract. 

UKPCs signs are awful. They do not meet the requirements of their trade association the BPA nor do they meet the high standards required in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis. In particular the £100 charge needs to be much more prominent in order to form a contract. You may not have included signage as part of you defence or WS but as they have provided desk copies you can perhaps wait for an opportunity to highlight the lack of prominent signage to the judge. 

To be honest I suspect a fair minded judge will just throw their claim out. Usually DCBL discontinue their hopeless cases before a hearing but are perhaps keeping going because there are 7 PCNs in play and they think it is worth a punt.

Keep strong and good luck on Wed. 

Coupon-mad

All you are missing is:

1. the preliminary matter discussed this week

and

2. what I said above - all 3 points: a) b) and c) - about the 6am PCN.

A contract MUST offer something of value. A prohibitive 'ban' doesn't. No contract then. No breach.

The same point about 'no contract' can in fact be made about the other PCNs. They offered staff nothing of value because you had the right to park and you are the only party who has adduced evidence to prove that.

There is also no 'legitimate interest' (Supreme Court phrase from Beavis, and well worth using) in penalising staff at a retail park. Therefore all PCNs in this claim are purely penal and there's no commercial justification.

ESPECIALLY as the C must know your car was on the 'exempt list' for the 12 months after this first fortnight.

The phrases in bold are ones to use.

This is unreasonable conduct and you should be awarded your costs for attendance and any travel and printing/postage costs. 

ASK FOR COSTS AT THE END AND TALK ABOUT UNREASONABLE CONDUCT.

Would it be unjust of me to allege the Claimant is hiding relevant facts which would prove I was not liable for the PCNs issued such as providing sufficient evidence regarding exempt vehicles or circumstances under which exemptions would’ve applied? I have a feeling this could/would annoy the Judge if i did so?

This is well worth saying when you ask for costs at the end.  Don't duck it. Don't be shy!

I would say it is wholly unreasonable of UKPC to withhold the exempt list and actually state (under a statement of truth) that it didn't exist when it MUST have done.  Clearly!  All employees were exempt so THERE WAS AN EXEMPT VEHICLES LIST and your year's worth of employment WITHOUT further PCNs at that retail park proves it.

(It might have been different if the C had pleaded from the outset that you were at fault and "failed to exempt your vehicle" but they DID NOT plead the case that way. They've done the opposite and unreasonably pretended there's no whitelist at all).

Use the words 'unreasonable conduct' when asking for costs.

InconspicuousSheep21

Thank you guys! I’ll be drafting all the points mentioned here on a document so I have points for discussion on Wednesday. I’ll be sure to post it all on here including what you guys have just mentioned for a final check. Hopefully on Wednesday I can deliver good news, given that the Judge is understanding and fair of the circumstances under which the Claimant has unnecessarily caused immense stress! 

Once again, thank you!

LDast

Which court?

InconspicuousSheep21

LDast said:

Which court?

Birmingham County Court