SOS; Am I going insane or is it them?

Coupon-mad

I think their hearing is this week, IIRC.

SkattyKatty22

Coupon-mad said:

I have revised my reply.

The NEWBIES thread does already provide hearing tips.

Hi coupon-mad

Thanks for updated response it all really helps me continue even though I am dreading it.

And, thanks for re-directing me to the newbies thread  I kinda knew after I posted I should have done just that 

SkattyKatty22

jr2025 said:

SkattyKatty22 said:

PxxxxxxExx would clarify that it is common terminology for a private parking operator

Absolute BS, how is Joe Public expected to know their lingo?

I have a pretty much identical case to yours, saw "2 Hours Free Parking", parked for two hours, used the petrol station for fuel, food and 10 or so minutes for a migraine aura to pass and on my way.

Don't know if the signage clarifies use of site is 'parking' because they won't send me a copy of 'the contract'.

So very interested in how this one turns out. I wish you luck!

Exactly, its one of the many issues with their crazy response, along with a whole load of other BS all contained in the one sentence;

ParkingEye would clarify that it is common terminology for a private parking operator that the site is managed as a whole car park and is therefore referred to as such. 

What on earth is a whole carpark?? No-one has said anything about parts thereof??

I think they meant to say; the whole site is managed as a car-park

I kept reading it over and over and realised it didn't even make grammatical sense as well as the BS it was attempting to convey.

Then my brain had a meltdown because I was starting to think maybe they have a point and its me that doesn't get it and how can I refute something which is both BS and crazy!!!

They did sent me a heavily redacted copy of their contract with Welcome and as part of my WS I used it as an exhibit to support my case . I selected 5 pages and did a word count on the words parking, staying, stay, and guess what?

Word count parking/carpark; 47
Stay;0
Staying;0

I didn't even cherry pick the pages!!!!

Same for the signs the vast majority literally say parking not staying. 

BUT, they put the second ANPR at the exit of the site and not at the exit of the carpark. 

So now they have to tie themselves in knots by trying to say that going to the petrol station is parking. So I'm going to ask them in what reasonable layperson world POV does a petrol station look like a car park and if indeed it is one why aren't there any of their parking signs on the forecourt along with car parking space markings and clear signs saying

THIS PETROL STATION IS PART OF THE WHOLE SITE? or
THIS PETROL STATION IS PART OF THE WHOLE CAR-PARK? whatever that means

Bless them, they have tried by attaching yet another photo of their parking signs (I've lost count of how many photos of signs they have sent me) placed BEFORE you turn right into, yes you guessed it the PETROL station.

How does this support their case? If they really want to bring up that sign in court I am going to say that if I did see it then what normal, reasonable, layperson, motorist would think it applied to them as they are literally driving past to go to the petrol station to fill up the fuel tank. 

Perhaps that sign should say WARNING you have not passed the exit ANPR camera.

They really need a re-brand to StayingEye and issue SCNs Staying Charge Notices!!

They have decided to pursue me with a response to my defence of 87 pages and a WS of 95! All for something they could have avoided by either changing all the signage to staying on site or putting their ANPR camera at the edge of the car park.

Or do I detect some sneaky stuff going on here?

Like I said I think they have been reading too many Charles Dickens novels.

At this point I am almost wanting lose because then the court will have to tie itself into the same knots and that would be pure dark comedy gold!

Have you started a thread about your case? would be interesting to see where you are in the process. 

SkattyKatty22

Car1980 said:

Remember the magic words 'The onus is on the claimant to prove their claim'.

It's no good them saying "well, obviously we meant the entire site". They have to prove it and point out that fact.

Thanks, yes that it what I've done in my Defence and WS, I even have a receipt as evidence of the time I was at the till in the petrol station.

BUT, still they come with the icing on the cake;

ParkingEye would clarify that it is common terminology for a private parking operator that the site is managed as a whole car park and is therefore referred to as such.

!!!!!! are they even saying????? 

SkattyKatty22

Not_A_Hope said:

Oh do I have to do that? I thought I would just be asked to read out my WS?

The judge will read your defence and WS as well as theirs. They will be asked to speak and then you will get your turn. All you need is a bullet point list of the important issues you wish to highlight to the judge. The judge may ask you some questions but the hearing or needing to speak is nothing to get worried about.

Hi thanks for this  I am not a natural speaker and have suffered my whole life from being shy and anxious .

But this thread has boosted my confidence and as you can see in my post above I am now at the point where I almost want to lose to see how the court will tie itself into the same knots.

Pure dark comedy gold

SkattyKatty22

Coupon-mad said:

You won't be reading out your WS.

Thanks again, I'm writing out my points now and am going to pretend I'm explaining it to a 5 year old when I come to speaking to the court.

SkattyKatty22

KeithP said:

SkattyKatty22 said:

Anyone live near Northampton?

What's the relevance of that question? But to answer it... at a guess... a few million.   

If/when this case progresses towards a hearing, you get to choose where the case is heard.

Hi KeithP

Um, did you read the whole thread or just that post? 

My case is being heard this week and I was having a crisis of confidence due to the crazy statement they made and I needed support.

The question just was a silly plea to wonder if anyone might like to accompany me as I stoopidly didn't even know what was going to happen in court, although I wasn't expecting anyone to.

 Suki

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Yes - if the Judge agrees. Your job is to state your piece reasonably and convincingly.

I perhaps wouldn't do another WS... although... there are two compelling things you might want to add quickly, with a concise supplementary WS:

-  if you look at the official Department for Transport rules about 'services and trunk roads' (Google it) these CLEARLY state that there must be a MINIMUM OF 2 HOURS FREE PARKING. That works in your favour. In fact it could be argued that by only allowing 2 hours 'total stay on site including the petrol station' ParkingEye are in fact breaching the DFT rules.

And

- also Google for the DLUHC's withdrawn private parking Code of Practice 2022. Look at and use the DEFINITION OF A PARKING PERIOD, according to Government. That helps your case too.

Just a friendly attempt to focus your mind on what to actually say & use that has clout.

Their rep will sound slick and may even know the Judge from previous cases, so this can put you on the back foot. Stay calm.

Focus more than your posts here!

Did you send in the supplementary WS attaching those, as suggested? 

SkattyKatty22

Yes miss/sir I'll get back to it and will be sure to include all the advice 

jr2025

SkattyKatty22 said:

Have you started a thread about your case? would be interesting to see where you are in the process. 

I did: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6584677/dcb-legal-cp-plus-court-claim/p1

Submitted defence, waiting for next stage.

Completely agree with everything you say, it's nuts to have a sign with a large, clear "2 HOURS FREE PARKING" and then claim that it actually means "2 HOURS FREE STAY." because all car parking operators know that.

I've asked them three times for a clear pic of entry sign so I can see the small print, even hinting I might pay up if the sign clarifies parking v's stay. Nothing.

I'm praying for you!