Help with defence following EV charging PCN poor signage - DCB

crazymonk1

Hi,

I am hopeful I can get some advice following a PCN I was sent following an incident September 2024. 

Situation:
I had parked to charge my EV in the correct bay. I charged my vehicle for just over 1hr and then left. There were no obvious signs around the charging site indicating parking on the site was to be paid for in addition to the charging. Needless to state I then received a PCN notice from ParkMaven. 
The car was a lease vehicle and I believe the leasing company provided them with my details. 

I initially attempted to appeal the decision advising them that there was poor signage around the EV station with no mention about paying for site parking in addition to the charging. 

I've taken some photos of the charging site below. I have also attached my claim form.  I also wrote to DCB legal regarding the signage issues and demands proof the signs were compliant. Interestingly they sent me an LOA between the landowner and Parkmaven for all the sites they cover across the country. I note at the bottom of this the contract was signed on the 1/10/2024. This is  3 weeks after my PCN notice. Would the company be able to enforce a PCN notice issued before a formal contract was agreed with the landowner? 


My defence initially sent to DBC when appealing;

Thank you for your response. Having visited the site again since my initial Charge notice i believe at the time, the site did not comply with BPA guidelines regarding adequate signage around the site. 

I have since found out that rather than an isolated incident, I have had contact with a number of other EV users who have similarly been given a parking notice whilst paying to charge their vehicles at this site. This would imply that rather than a simple oversite, the Proprietor of the site has made it deliberately obstructive and not followed BPA guidelines around adequate signage especially around the EV charging station which only had signage regarding paying for charging and only allowing parking whilst charging.  I also make reference to The Private  Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 2024 section 3.1.3 which requires that signage be "placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle".

Clearly this is not the case in the area surrounding the EV stations or indeed the site at large. 

In addition I was informed by your client I would have no scope for further discussion around resolution apart from in court. Ideally I would like to avoid this situation.

In view of this i would like to request the client provide evidence the site is fully compliant with BPA guidelines from an independent source, in particular focusing on signage which complies with the BPA guidelines. Given the number of people who seemed to have had similar incidents it would seem that currently the site would not comply. 

I would also like a copy of any evidence to support the claim being raised by the client against myself including photographic evidence."

I have already completed the AOS on the 14th Sep using the information from the Newbies thread.

crazymonk1

Site photos



The only signage about paying for parking i noticed when I returned to take these photos was the small black sticker put on the machine. 

Coupon-mad

Their signs are hopeless (the Parkmaven one) so you haven't breached any term whatsoever!

crazymonk1

I'm hoping to file my defence soon so for para 3, would I just reiterate that the signs are non compliant and hence wouldn't constitute a breach of terms. 

Coupon-mad

More like:

There are no Parkmaven signs in the EV bay and clearly it isn't a 'parking' bay due to the 'no parking' sign at the bottom. The offer & terms for that bay come from Instavolt (who lease that space) not from Parkmaven, whose only green sign confirms the Instavolt offer 'for EVs whilst charging only' with no other caveat to override that consideration.

Gr1pr

Post your proposed draft of paragraphs 2 & 3 and any additional paragraphs,  but not the rest of the template defence 

Then you can get assistance with the content of just any adapted and additions 

crazymonk1

Rough draft including information from coupon-mad earlier. 

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the hirer and lessee of the vehicle.

3.  The Claimant states that there was a breach of terms, however there are no clear signs indicating terms of contract relating to the charging bays. Signage would indicate the EV bays are not in fact parking bays as can be evidenced by onsite photos with no parking signs. The offer and terms for the bay comes from Instavolt. There is only a single green sign relating to the EV bays which confirms Instavolts offer “For Electric Vehicles only whilst charging”  The site did not comply with BPA guidelines regarding adequate signage around the site. The Proprietor of the site has made it deliberately obstructive and not followed BPA guidelines around adequate signage especially around the EV charging station.  I also make reference to The Private  Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 2024 section 3.1.3 which requires that signage be "placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle".

Coupon-mad

You need my words. Consideration has a legal meaning and this is your winning point.

crazymonk1

Thank you, I've added the consideration aspect back in.

3. The Claimant states that there was a breach of terms, however there are no clear Parkmaven signs indicating terms of contract relating to the charging bays. Signage would indicate the EV bays are not in fact parking bays as can be evidenced by onsite photos with no parking signs. The offer and terms for that bay comes from Instavolt. There is only a single green sign relating to the EV bays which confirms Instavolts offer 'For Electric Vehicles only whilst charging' with no other caveat to override that consideration. The site did not comply with BPA guidelines regarding adequate signage around the site. The Proprietor of the site has made it deliberately obstructive and not followed BPA guidelines around adequate signage especially around the EV charging station.  I also make reference to The Private  Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 2024 section 3.1.3 which requires that signage be 'placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle'.