unfortunately I lost, am ordered to pay 100 parking charge 100 fixed legal costs 50 solicitor + 50 court costs 3.94 interest The judge didn't seem to care they had provided a contract from 2015 with a company that had been dissolved that year. I'm surprised at the outcome but i haven't really ended up paying anymore than the £160 they been chasing me for and i know its cost them a lot more to put this through the courts.

amended The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The contract provided in their exhibit bundle pages 1,2,3 is an old contract dated 2015 with no proof of renewal. i have also amended this because it was June i went back I later returned to the site as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint. (Exhibit A4) how do i check the landowner because hobstone ltd was dissolved in 2015 https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07961378 but there is a hobstone homes ltd maybe a type on their part i read the clients VAT number on that contract as 003946881 which does not return any results on the HMRC site here https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-vat-number/enter-vat-details

thankyou for your comments, amended sections below 10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The contract provided in their exhibit bundle pages 1,2,3 is an old contract dated 2015 which makes no reference to the claimant having rights to sue under their own name. 11. The defendant has the reasonable belief that no planning application for signage or ANPR cameras in operation has been made to Exeter City Council. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence and thus no contract can have been formed. 15. The yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines had been present on the day I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere.

am I advised to post this to the claimant? filing date is 4pm tomorrow so presumably as long as I post tomorrow and get proof of posting, I'm covered? any issues submitting this to the court by email?

i have left off the BPA membership because as i understand it, they are IPC members and a BPA associates which does tally up with the signage

I, ***** ***** am the Defendant in this claim. I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number ******. A parking ticket was purchased. (Exhibit A1) I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay. (Exhibit A2) I returned to my car to find a PCN attached to the window. (Exhibit A3) I returned to the site several weeks later as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint. (Exhibit A4) The sign closest to where my vehicle was parked note the small black font for the penalty charge details. (Exhibit A5) PREAMBLE Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit A1, Exhibit A2 and so on. The ISSUES 9. It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. Locus Standi 10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. 11. The defendant has the reasonable belief that no planning application for signage or ANPR cameras in operation has been made to Exeter City Council. Signage 12. I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay (Exhibit A2) I had no reason to believe it was anything other than a parking bay. It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected within the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly. The £100 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticeable, and it is unclear as to when this applies. (Exhibit A5) 14. Further, 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 within the allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term ‘allocated parking bay’', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom. Road Markings 15. The yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines were present on the day I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere. De Minimis 16. There is no loss incurred by PPS Ltd, I purchased a ticket (Exhibit A1) I was not obstructing anyone, I left well before my ticket expiry. Double recovery / Abuse of process 17. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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 extra, additional costs are an attempt at double recovery. 18. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

can i use this...... No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge – One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used. The flip side of this is that if there were no legitimate interest, then the charge would be an unenforceable penalty… The following are examples of charges that are arguably therefore penalties: Parking in a space you own but forgetting to display your permit Entering an incorrect VRN into a terminal Underpaying in a car park where by paying the vehicle is fully entitled to be there Parking outside a bay when no other cars are stopped from parking

I, **** **** am the Defendant in this claim. I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number ******. A parking ticket was purchased. (Exhibit A1) I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay. (Exhibit A2) I returned to my car to find a PCN attached to the window. (Exhibit A3) I returned to the site several weeks later as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint. (Exhibit A4) The sign closest to where my vehicle was parked note the small black font for the penalty charge details. (Exhibit A5) PREAMBLE Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit A1, Exhibit A2 and so on. The ISSUES 9. It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. 10. I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay (Exhibit A2) I had no reason to believe it was anything other than a parking bay. 11. The yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines were present the day, I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere. It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected with the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly. The £100 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticeable, and it is unclear as to when this applies. (Exhibit A5) 13. Further, 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 within the allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term ‘allocated parking bay’', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom. 14. There is no loss incurred by PPS Ltd, I purchased a ticket (Exhibit A1) I was not obstructing anyone, I left well before my ticket expiry. 15. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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 extra, additional costs are an attempt at double recovery. 16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. 17. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

should there also be a planning application for CCTV?

ref the signs, their witness statement has 2 different signs with different wording (page 6 & 9) the sign on page 6 with small black font was the sign nearest to where my vehicle was parked.

so the given address is:- Premier Parking Solutions Ltd. Southernhay Southernhay Gardens Exeter EX1 1SG i'm not familiar with the website, but should i expect to see a planning application for signs here (i do not) http://publicaccess.exeter.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage

yes I have pictures of the parking space when I received the windscreen ticket and then a few weeks later when I returned to the site to take pictures of the signage planning permission for the signage?

also i notice in their WS, point 11.1 quotes "All vehicles must park within the allocated bays only, vehicles must not exceed the marked bay areas" but the sign in their WS on page 9 states "Vehicles must only park wholly within a bay." i think the sign in their WS is not the sign that was up when i parked there because the pictures i took show a similar but different sign with the wording they quote in their WS, not sure if it has any relevance but seems a bit odd

can i use some of the following -------------------------------------------------------- It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected with the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly. The £100 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticeable and it is unclear as to when this applies. Further, 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 the allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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 extra, additional costs are an attempt at double recovery. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I was hoping to get some assistance with padding it out, I'm not finding many cases that are similar to mine and I'm cautious of quoting case law that might not be relevant, any advice greatly appreciated