Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 22nd Nov 18, 7:29 PM
    • 14Posts
    • 2Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    UKCPM, Gladstones. No permit displayed in work car park. Defence stage
    • #1
    • 22nd Nov 18, 7:29 PM
    UKCPM, Gladstones. No permit displayed in work car park. Defence stage 22nd Nov 18 at 7:29 PM
    Issue date is 8th Novemeber 2018. AOS has been completed which gives me until 6th December 2018 to file a defence.

    I've written out the following defence and I would be really grateful if someone could give it a look through. It's based on Bargepoles defence about unclear signs with emphasis mine based on the wording included in one of the successful POPLA appeals that my old workmate has sent me. I have been told two previous people who worked there had exactly the same ticket successfully appealed through POPLA but unfortunately I took the outdated advice of ignoring all correspondence and consequently have received the claim form My ticket was issued back on 4th February 2016, almost 3 years ago! And they're trying to charge me £269.33 for all this! Not a chance...

    Anyway, heres my defence.

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    me (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Hamworthy Heating Limited at Fleets Corner Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Furthermore, the defendant makes a submission that there was no loss of earnings the part of the Claimant caused by this incident. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove on the balance of possibilities that they did suffer a loss of earnings as a result of my failure to display the pass at the appropriate time.

    6. Further to the defendants point in item 6, and as a general point, the defendant questions the legality of the ticket(s). Hamworthy Heating Limited has 100 car parking spaces allocated to them under the terms of their lease. These spaces are paid for by Hamworthy Heating Limited and are available for employees only. The defendant was employed by Hamworthy Heating Limited on the date specified and had permission from Hamworthy Heating Limited to park in any of these spaces. On the date specified, Hamworthy Heating Limited had not agreed to, or signed up to, any agreement with the Landlord or the Claimant to police these leased spaces.

    7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    8. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name:

    Signature:


    Date:

    wish me luck
    Last edited by hateUKCPM; 22-11-2018 at 7:41 PM.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Nov 18, 7:41 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 22nd Nov 18, 7:41 PM
    • #2
    • 22nd Nov 18, 7:41 PM
    UKCPM have not offered POPLA for about 3 years and the IPC equivalent is broken (a kangaroo court, reportedly biased in favour of the IPC's paying members). So you missed out on nothing!

    You would NEVER win on appeal v an IPC scumbag firm, but are 99% sure to win in court, if you do not miss any court stages.

    Your point #5 needs deleting (you need to understand the ParkingEye v Beavis case from 2015 killed this argument):
    5. Furthermore, the defendant makes a submission that there was no loss of earnings the part of the Claimant caused by this incident. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove on the balance of possibilities that they did suffer a loss of earnings as a result of my failure to display the pass at the appropriate time.
    Why not read the other UKCPM wins from this week?

    Look for the thread by bargepole, replied on today, about his win at Guildford v UKCPM (on the same thread I have replied and linked the other day's cases, including another poster who also won at the same court, same day!).

    No asking for a link. That's not how this forum works well for newbies who need to be 'on it' as regards finding their way around and reading all the relevant threads they can, at each stage, without links being provided.

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 5th Dec 18, 8:25 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    • #3
    • 5th Dec 18, 8:25 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Dec 18, 8:25 PM
    Thanks for the reply, C-M, I've been slacking the last week while I went on holiday but I removed point 5 like you said and have added a bit more detail, points 8 & 9, in bold. It seems to me as though UKCPM is a member of both parking associations as they appear on the membership lists of both websites...?

    You said I cant go the POPLA route which is fair enough but is the fact that those similar things have been previously successfully appealed through POPLA something to add into this defence?

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    me (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Hamworthy Heating Limited at Fleets Corner Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Furthermore, the defendant questions the legality of the ticket(s). Hamworthy Heating Limited has 100 car parking spaces allocated to them under the terms of their lease. These spaces are paid for by Hamworthy Heating Limited and are available for employees only. The defendant was employed by Hamworthy Heating Limited on the date specified and had permission from Hamworthy Heating Limited to park in any of these spaces. On the date specified, Hamworthy Heating Limited had not agreed to, or signed up to, any agreement with the Landlord or the Claimant to police these leased spaces.

    6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    8. Furthermore, the date of the PCN is 02/04/2016 and in the time taken to issue the claim form it is averred that the signs will have changed, been replaced or updated (to reflect changes in the IPC Code of Practice) and indeed some may have been removed or damaged. There is no evidence that these signs existed throughout the time-span of this claim and it is argued that this operator did not comply with the 'entrance signs' sections of the IPC Code of Practice as it changed between 02/04/2016 to date.

    9. Similarly, the date of the PCN is 02/04/2016 and in the time taken to issue the claim form it is averred that the signs will have changed, been replaced or updated (to reflect changes in the BPA Code of Practice) and indeed some may have been removed or damaged. There is no evidence that these signs existed throughout the time-span of this claim and it is argued that this operator did not comply with the 'entrance signs' sections of the BPA Code of Practice as it changed between 02/04/2016 to date.

    10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name: my name

    Signature:


    Date: 05/12/2018
    Last edited by hateUKCPM; 05-12-2018 at 8:39 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Dec 18, 8:27 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 5th Dec 18, 8:27 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Dec 18, 8:27 PM
    UKCPM is a member of both parking associations
    No they are not, please read the Q&A in the NEWBIES thread...!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 5th Dec 18, 8:42 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    • #5
    • 5th Dec 18, 8:42 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Dec 18, 8:42 PM
    oh jeez really? I though I had read it all a million times. thanks for the heads up!

    yup, I went ahead and removed the BPA reference.
    Last edited by hateUKCPM; 05-12-2018 at 8:45 PM.
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 5th Dec 18, 9:20 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    • #6
    • 5th Dec 18, 9:20 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Dec 18, 9:20 PM
    Right, I've added a bit about needing a fob to get in as that is actually relevant to me as well (point 5).

    In my opinion this is pretty much as good as its going to get so I'm going to print this off and get it signed and sent tomorrow. I'll make sure to keep this thread updated with whatever happens (I'm crossing my fingers they drop the charges, I cba with spending a day in court...).

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    me (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Hamworthy Heating Limited at Fleets Corner Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. The car parking area contained allocated parking spaces for Hamworthy Heating Limited employees. Entry to the parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to employees. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

    6. Furthermore, the defendant questions the legality of the ticket(s). Hamworthy Heating Limited had 100 car parking spaces allocated to them under the terms of their lease. These spaces were paid for by Hamworthy Heating Limited and were available for employees only. The defendant was employed by Hamworthy Heating Limited on the date specified and had permission from Hamworthy Heating Limited to park in any of those spaces. On the date specified, Hamworthy Heating Limited had not agreed to, or signed up to, any agreement with the Landlord or the Claimant to police those leased spaces.

    7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    8. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    9. Furthermore, the date of the PCN is -redacted date- and in the time taken to issue the claim form it is averred that the signs will have changed, been replaced or updated (to reflect changes in the IPC Code of Practice) and indeed some may have been removed or damaged. There is no evidence that these signs existed throughout the time-span of this claim and it is argued that this operator did not comply with the 'entrance signs' sections of the IPC Code of Practice as it changed between -redacted date- to date.

    10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name: my name

    Signature:


    Date: 05/12/2018
    Last edited by hateUKCPM; 22-06-2019 at 2:31 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Dec 18, 9:56 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 5th Dec 18, 9:56 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Dec 18, 9:56 PM
    Yes you have covered all the bases, nice job!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Dec 18, 10:32 PM
    • 17,883 Posts
    • 21,788 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 5th Dec 18, 10:32 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Dec 18, 10:32 PM
    Issue date is 8th Novemeber 2018. AOS has been completed which gives me until 6th December 2018 to file a defence.
    Originally posted by hateUKCPM
    You have more time than you thought.

    With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, you had until 22nd November to do the Acknowledgement of Service.

    Did you do the AoS before 22nd November?

    Having done the AoS in a timely manner, have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.

    A bit longer than you thought, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 7th Dec 18, 6:19 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    • #9
    • 7th Dec 18, 6:19 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Dec 18, 6:19 PM
    Cheers Keith, got that sent off. I just wanted to get rid of it at this point. Yes I had done the AOS in time so no worries there.

    Now I just wait for that questionnaire thing.
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 21st Jan 19, 7:03 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    Thread update. Directions questionnaire filled out and hand delivered as I only live down the road lol. Easy enough so far.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st Jan 19, 7:06 PM
    • 17,883 Posts
    • 21,788 Thanks
    KeithP
    Thread update. Directions questionnaire filled out and hand delivered as I only live down the road lol. Easy enough so far.
    Originally posted by hateUKCPM
    Don't forget to send a copy to the Claimant - address on your Claim Form.
    .
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 22nd Jan 19, 10:00 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    Cheers Keith, I'm on it.
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 13th Jun 19, 7:09 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    hi guys long time no see, had a bit of a problem with the court trying to change the location of the court despite me specifying where I wanted it in the directions questionnaire....

    Anyway, I've received the witness statement from UKCPM and have a few questions before I write one myself. Am I correct in saying that I am allowed to counter the evidence in their witness statement with my witness statement or not? if so I was going to say the following:

    1) They have included a nice little picture with the area they are allowed to enforce circled in yellow. The thing is, the site layout has changed in the time I got my ticket and present day and they have included a picture of the present day site which, if i overlayed a picture of old vs new site, my parking location would be outside their current designated area. Can I argue in my witness statement something like how can you say I was illegally parked if you are telling me this is the area you cover and I was outside it?

    2) their sign is gash. Its this one: *cant post the link as im a new user *
    I was going to argue the following; where the sign says "terms of parking without permission" it seems to me like there are no terms that follow, AND I had permission from my employer at the time. That sign doesn't say that a permit is the thing that grants you permission to park there.

    3) Almost 32 months have passed between the parking ticket being issued and the letter before claim. In that time I have changed job and moved location across the country so how am I now supposed to go back and gather evidence ESPECIALLY because the site layout has changed in that time? Also as I've changed companies I no longer have access to company emails that would be invaluable to help my defence.

    If anyone could let me know if I'm on the right track here that would be great.

    Cheers
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 7:12 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Am I correct in saying that I am allowed to counter the evidence in their witness statement with my witness statement or not?
    Yes, absolutely.

    Your points #1 and #2 are worth saying, but not #3, except in passing.

    Show us your draft WS and the list of evidence you are thinking of filing.

    You can show us broken links easily. Just put an image in Dropbox or Imgur, and then where you'd normally share the URL with us, charge the http to hxxp and just type it freehand here in a reply (don't try to attach image).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 9:09 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    http://i.imgur.com/1kmtORV.jpg

    Is that the only version of evidence sign? All versions showing BPA membership of the AOS scheme? Nice. Then they have shown NO EVIDENCE of the signs in situ in 2016.

    You said the PCN was from 2016, but UKCPM joined the IPC on 01/10/2015:

    https://theipc.info/aos-members/u

    Why then, you will be asking their hapless rep AT THE HEARING (BUT NOT TIPPING THEM OFF IN YOUR WS!) have they failed to show any signage evidence at all, that existed in 2016, which CANNOT have been BPA signage, as they had left the BPA the year before!

    Don't forget. NOTHING about that in your WS or they might throw a supplementary WS at you with new signage pics, and try to get away with it in court.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 13th Jun 19, 9:20 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    ah sorry, deleted my post after you replied, heres what I said:

    excellent, thanks.

    heres the link to a photo of the sign they have submitted as evidence hxxp://i.imgur.com/1kmtORV.jpg (I didnt want to run the risk of getting banned for evading forum rules)

    I've got in contact with an old work colleague to see if I he can find the plans that were sent round letting us know of the change of layout of the site, and the date the work commenced. Unfortunately he's not around until the 18th so I've got to wait a bit for those.

    I'll start writing something up over the next few days.
    sorry that sign was a similar one I got off the internet but upon closer inspection is slightly different to my one here hxxps://imgur.com/a/rLgqSlI - this is the actual one they submitted as evidence, still has the BPA logo though! and yes, thats the only evidence of the sign they have submitted

    Why then, you will be asking their hapless rep AT THE HEARING (BUT NOT TIPPING THEM OFF IN YOUR WS!) have they failed to show any signage evidence at all, that existed in 2016, which CANNOT have been BPA signage, as they had left the BPA the year before!
    absolutely smashing news! this sounds like a winner. The judge wont mind if I keep this in the back pocket until the hearing?

    My hearing is at the start of August if you're interested.
    Last edited by hateUKCPM; 13-06-2019 at 9:28 PM. Reason: more info
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 9:39 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    https://imgur.com/a/rLgqSlI

    The judge wont mind if I keep this in the back pocket until the hearing?
    Nope, not a problem to pull apart their evidence, when it is your turn to question the rep on the evidence supplied! That's what you get the floor for. That sign is your silver bullet.

    Also print off that link to the IPC join date from the IPC website, and put it in your exhibits with your WS now, (useful to have fielded that, in case they say you are wrong on dates, when you raise the silver bullet and fire on the day!). You can say:

    ''ahem! well if you look at my exhibit number xx you will see the Claimant was not even in the BPA in 2016, so those BPA AOS signs must be obsolete archive ones, thus the Claimant has completely failed at the first hurdle of proving the contractual terms that they say existed on the material date''.

    However, simply refer to it in your WS as evidence, stating that you have researched and found that the Claimant is in the IPC and then go on about how they have failed to comply with the IPC CoP, maybe on grace periods, if they only waited 2 minutes to take a few rushed photos?

    What is the actual allegation? Not displaying a permit for 2 minutes? Parking in a section they decided is not for parking?

    What can you get to put in as an exhibit to prove this (below):
    Hamworthy Heating Limited has 100 car parking spaces allocated to them under the terms of their lease.

    These spaces are paid for by Hamworthy Heating Limited and are available for employees only.

    The defendant was employed by Hamworthy Heating Limited on the date specified and had permission from Hamworthy Heating Limited to park in any of these spaces.

    On the date specified, Hamworthy Heating Limited had not agreed to, or signed up to, any agreement with the Landlord or the Claimant to police these leased spaces.
    Have you searched the forum for UKCPM WS or Gladstones WS and found out that the entire WS you have there is a template, ripped apart on here umpteen times before, in other people's WS that you can copy?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-06-2019 at 9:42 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 13th Jun 19, 9:50 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    Its a tempate? they fooled me, it definitely sounded like they knew what they were talking about lol. I've not done a search for other witness statements yet, I guess thats the next job!

    Give me a few days and I'll update this thread with what I've managed to get written.

    thanks so much, I'm in a good mood now
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 10:51 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hilarious that people think that template WS is bespoke! Search the forum and laugh!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • hateUKCPM
    • By hateUKCPM 22nd Jun 19, 1:02 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    hateUKCPM
    Hello again everyone.

    I've gone off, done some reading and put this thing together. Any thoughts or advice on this would be most appreciated. C-M, I know you said not to add how their sign was out of date, but I thought I'd put it in at the end otherwise I'm liable to forget what to say and when, when it comes to crunch time.

    The PCM v Bull hearing I reference can be found here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=43971
    I think I've managed to grab the relevant bit from that. I saw Bargepole referenced that hearing with success as well, here: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2018/03/court-report-uk-cpm-lose-on-pofa-and.html

    Exhibit 1: Google earth of site on the date specified
    Exhibit 2: Google earth of site on the date specified (shows site change)
    Exhibit 3: email sent from colleague detailing when new parking places take effect due to building works
    Exhibit 4: Image attached to previous email showing a 'new unit' located where the vehicle was parked
    Exhibit 5: Google earth image cross referencing background data from their photos to prove where the car was located (not sure this is going to work but I thought I'd try...)
    Exhibit 6: Google earth image of site with entrances marked.
    Exhibit 7: payslip from the month the PCN was issued showing I was employed there.
    Exhibit 8: PCM v Bull Hearing transcript
    Exhibit 9: Screenshot of the IPC member database showing UKCPM join date of 01/10/2015

    Phew. Anyway, onto the Witness Statement:

    In the Northampton County Court
    Claim No. -redacted-

    Between
    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
    and
    -redacted- (Defendant)

    Witness Statement

    I, -redacted-, the Defendant in this matter, will say as follows:

    1. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

    2. The car park layout at Fleets Corner estate changed between the dates 15/04/2014, Exhibit 1, and 26/05/2017, Exhibit 2. I have been provided with email evidence, Exhibit 3, that the site works to change the layout of the site would begin on 29/07/2016. Exhibit 4 shows the new site layout with a new unit situated on the area where the vehicle in question was occupying. Exhibit 5 shows the approximate location of the vehicle by referencing prominent background features based on the photos the Claimant has provided on pages 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of their Witness Statement. The Claimant provides details of the boundary of the enforcement area in the Self-Ticketing Agreement that the Claimant has with the Freeholder of the land. This boundary is shown in yellow in the Claimant’s Witness Statement on page 11. It is clear that the vehicle was parked outside of the boundary that the Claimant claims to enforce, on the date the PCN was issued. Further, the Claimant has shown no evidence that they were in charge of the area of land the vehicle was parked on prior to the site layout change.

    3. The two entrances to the car park from the road are shown in Exhibit 6. When driving in to the estate the location of the signs are not clear, as seen on page 11 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement. The Claimant has provided no evidence of signs being present at the entrance to the site. Further, with the vehicle parked in the location as shown on page 21 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, the sign is barely noticeable from the vehicle.

    4. The sign referenced by the Claimant on page 10 of their Witness Statement states that a Permit must be displayed in the vehicles windscreen, it then goes on to say that a fee of £100 is applicable to those parking without permission. At no point does the sign suggest that a lack of displayed permit indicates a lack of permission to park. By being a full time employee at Hamworthy Heating on -redacted date-, Exhibit 7, and parking in their designated spaces, I had permission to park as required.

    5. The Claimant references Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) on page 3 of their Witness Statement. I counter this with Exhibit 8, Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull, where District Judge Glen says the following:
    17. Why is this important? It is important for this reason. In the Beavis case the scheme
    was categorised by the permission the ParkingEye gave Mr Beavis to be in the car park
    for a limited period of time. So whether you call it a contractual licence or whether
    you simply call it a contractual permission, as Lord Mance in the end did, that was the
    consideration and the consideration flowing the other way was Mr Beavis’s agreement
    to be bound by those terms.

    18. I am afraid that in my judgment that analysis just does not work in this case. It does
    not work for this reason. If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was
    saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree
    with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core
    consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that
    this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against
    parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out
    of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for
    anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass
    on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the
    form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be
    damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land
    in order to proceed in trespass.
    6. It is my position that the signage that the Claimant relies on to bring this Claim was forbidding and claiming for an alleged parking breach is therefore perverse. There was prohibition of parking except for ‘those with permission’ which indicates that there was no contractual offer capable of acceptance by the motorist, or alternatively no contractual licence which could be construed from this wording. The Claimant refers to ‘the Contract’ (i.e. the Sign) in paragraph 16 but the picture of the sign, on page 10 of their Witness Statement, shows it is forbidding rather than contractual.

    7. I have performed some research and found that the Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) as of 01/10/2015, Exhibit 9. The IPC Code of Practise states the following:
    15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so
    they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

    15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or
    permitted period of parking has expired.
    8. On page 12 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement it can be seen that the Claimant only allowed 11 minutes between initial observation and issuing of the PCN. This is insufficient time to read the signs, walk across the site, enter reception, get the attention of the site manager, request permission to park and return to the vehicle.

    9. The sign referred to by the Claimant on page 23 of their Witness Statement, taken on -redacted date-, indicates they are a ‘BPA Approved Operator’ and a ‘Member of the British Parking Association’. Exhibit 9 shows that they have been a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) as of 01/10/2015, thus the Claimant was not a member of the British Parking Association on -redacted date- when they claim the photo of the sign was taken. The signs referenced by the Claimant must be obsolete archive ones, thus the Claimant has completely failed at the first hurdle of proving the contractual terms that they say existed on the material date.

    10. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    Statement of Truth
    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

    Signature:


    Print:

    Date:
    Last edited by hateUKCPM; 22-06-2019 at 2:31 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,304Posts Today

8,192Users online

Martin's Twitter