nssimpson, their final offer of settlement was £60 which I refused, the money doesn't matter to me it was the principle, when I said to the Judge so your saying they can change their signs on a daily basis he said yes if they want to, that was the main thing I wanted clarifying.

OK I lost my case, the judge threw out all the points I raised, he stated that having planning permission does not affect this case, not having the landowners permission does not affect it and none of the other points are valid. I even quoted the following as part of my evidence. "The Claimant is not entitled to rely on an illegal or immoral act in order to profit from it, pursuant to the doctrine ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In this case, the claiments signs are illegal and/or immoral: the installation/display of the Claimant’s signage on the Land/Site, and the Claimant’s disregard of Regulations which apply to it and of the BPA Code of Practise. The first is a criminal act and should not be sanctioned by the court. Minor infringements might be forgivable but the wholescale, multiple breaches by the Claimant, and its ignorance of the laws which apply to it, should not be forgiven, particularly when it is obliged to familiarise itself with and follow the law by paragraph A2.4 of the Code of Practise (including consumer law, contract law, and trespass). The rationale for the doctrine is set out in the early case of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 where Lord Mansfield[/URL] said: The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio"no action arises from deceit". No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own standing or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa ["from an immoral cause"], or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. The principle was reaffirmed in RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015) where, at paragraph 34 of the judgment the above passage was cited. The Court’s attention is also drawn to Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507. Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case it has been produced because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. The Court’s attention is drawn to paragraph 20 of the judgment “It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of professional services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful”. Paragraph 28 continues –“cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to perform." Also, " On pictures 4 and 9 it shows the whole of the sign where the reference to the £100 charge is of the same lettering and colour as the rest of the sign, Lord Denning ruled Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163 that " All I say is that it is so wide and so destructive of rights that the court should not hold any man bound by it unless it is drawn to his attention in the most explicit way … In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it – or something equally startling." Also the case of Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433 indicates that the Thornton approach to unusual terms applies to contract terms in general, not just exclusion clauses." But there was one good point, the Judge did not allow them to claim any additional costs that they were trying to claim because the signage states that "Additional costs/recovery charges will be incurred if payment not received within 28 days" but the signage did not say I was responsible for those costs, it just stated they will be incurred, I have to pay the original £100, £25 court costs and £75 Solicitor fee but nothing else. All in all I don't think CEL would have made much out of this case as their Solicitor was at court for 10am and we did not get into the courtroom until 11-30 and did not get out until until 12-40 so I think out of what I have to pay a lot of it will be swallowed up in their own costs.

My case is tomorrow, I will post up the result, thank you for all the help.

Thank you dx100uk, I have added those points to my statement.

I missed this bit. Eighth, Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The CoP requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. The signs at Garfield Street car park do not comply with these requirements because the car park signage failed to notify the driver what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. It is not clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay'. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:

OK, this is the defence I am going to file to CEL and the court by tomorrow, is there anything I should add or take away, hopefully someone will read this and tell if not never mind as its Christmas. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the date concerned. On 30-01-2018 I received a parking charge notice from the claimant alleging my vehicle overstayed at Portwood Court car park in Stockport on 23-01-2018, I do not know where Portwood Court is and my vehicle was parked on Garfield Court at the alleged time. Firstly at the time of the claim I could find no evidence of any planning permission on the Stockport Council planning portal for any signs on the car park at Portwood Court or Garfield street and this is where my vehicle was parked, it is my understanding that these signs in order to be legal require planning permission, there was also no planning permission for any pole mounted ANPR cameras and permission is also required for these. Within the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as ammended) it states "If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under." The signs within the car park do not fall into the above catagories and are therefore illegal as they should have planning permission and I cannot be bound by an illegal contract. Secondly please see attached picture number 1, this is the sign at the entrance to the car park, this clearly states that the car park is free and has no contractual agreement on it therefore it is just an invitation for motorists to park there. Thirdly please see attached picture number 2, this is a screenshot from Google earth, it clearly shows that the signage, used to show 3 hours free parking, not the one hour that Civil Enforcement are claiming, anyone who has previously read the terms and conditions displayed within the car park, which I had done, would be under the illusion that you can park for 3 hours as you had previously read the terms and conditions, to alter the sign from 3 hours to 1 hour would also need to be stipulated in the planning permission but there is no planning permission for the signs. Fourth, the British Parking Association Code of Practice clearly states in the Operational Requirements for England and Wales, Section 18.11 " 18.11 Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes." Where the BPA state that “ Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage” all CEL have done is change one digit on the whole of the sign, they have changed a 3 to a 1 and the rest of the sign is exactly the same. As you can see from the entrance picture number 1 which was taken when I received the original Parking Charge Notice there is nothing intimating that the terms and conditions have changed from 3 hours to 1 hour which is required by the British Parking Association Code of Practise, the signs were changed on the 15th December 2017 and no grace period was offerred which the BPA also state should be offerred when the conditions for parking has been changed. Fifth, please see attached picture number 3 showing the original PCN, this picture only shows a registration number, it does not show any image of where the location is and it is impossible from the pictures to tell where it is or even if the vehicle entered the car park, it could be a picture from any car park operated by CEL, either way it is impossible to see where the pictures are taken as there is no background to support that they are at the same location. The BPA Code of Practise Section 20.5 states “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered “ the pictures supplied are not clear and legible as to where the location was. Sixth, The signs at this location are extremely high and very blurred, picture number 4 shows how high the sign actually is and picture number 5 shows the actual height as 9 foot 9 inches, due to the lettering being weathered by the sun and very small lettering it is hard to see what the sign says unless you use a ladder, see picture number 6 which shows the lettering as 7mm high taken from a ladder at extreme close up. The BPA code of practise 18.3 states that the signs should be legible, these signs are not legible due to the height, the size of the lettering and the weathering of the letters, you can clearly see in picture number 7 how weathered the old letterring describing the conditions have become, compared to the new stuck on lettering changing the hours which is legible. Seventh, Pictures 8 and 9 show the ANPR cameras are pole mounted, for these type of cameras you need planning permission and there was no planning permission showing on the Stockport Council Planning permission portal for these pole mounted cameras. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Should I mention the fact they have not show they have proof to manage or the landowners permission or leave that bit for my day in court?

Sorry struggling with this bit, I just posted the first 58 pages and it says I can't upload any more so I have had to remove the attachment, there are 188 pages in all as they have included evidence from previous cases like the Beavis one, I'll try and sort it out. I have attached the relevant pages, I have omitted the POPLA appeal which was refused, also the BPA code of practice and the numerous cases they added, you can clearly see the ladder on the signs where they have put a sticker over the 3 hours to make it 1 hour on the 15th December. Redacted version of the Court Bundle attached. 157720267047568.pdf

CEL have sent me their evidence bundle by email probably because they are closing for Christmas, it clearly shows in pictures that they altered the signs on the 15th December 2017 and I parked there on 23rd January 2018 only 39 days after the terms of parking were altered, it also shows that they did not put any signs showing the terms have been altered they only put stickers over the 3 hours making it 1 hour, as I have stated in number 4 of my defence they should give a grace period and make it clear on the signage that the terms have changed, will this help me in my defence and should I put this information in my Witness Statement?

Is this better, also how much can they claim, they are alleging I owe over £270 due to their additional costs, are they allowed to keep adding this? IN THE COUNTY COURT OF XXXXXX Claim No. XXXXXX BETWEEN: Civil Enforcement Limited Claimant – and – Defendant YOUR NAME ___________________________________ This is my Witness Statement dated 27 December 2019 in relation to the upcoming case number XXXXXXX. ______________________________________ I am XXXX XXXX, of MY ADDRESS I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the date concerned. On 30-01-2018 I received a parking charge notice from the claimant alleging my vehicle overstayed at Portwood Court car park in Stockport on 23-01-2018, I do not know where Portwood Court is and my vehicle was parked on Garfield Court at the alleged time. Firstly at the time of the claim I could find no evidence of any planning permission on the Stockport Council planning portal for any signs on the car park at Garfield street and this is where my vehicle was parked, it is my understanding that these signs in order to be legal require planning permission, there was also no planning permission for any pole mounted ANPR cameras and permission is also required for these. Within the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as ammended) it states "If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under." The signs within the car park do not fall into the above catagories and are therefore illegal as they should have planning permission and I cannot be bound by an illegal contract. Secondly please see attached picture number 1, this is the sign at the entrance to the car park, this clearly states that the car park is free and has no contractual agreement on it therefore it is just an invitation for motorists to park there. Thirdly please see attached picture number 2, this is a screenshot from Google earth, it clearly shows that the signage, used to show 3 hours free parking, not the one hour that Civil Enforcement are claiming, anyone who has previously read the terms and conditions displayed within the car park, which I had done, would be under the illusion that you can park for 3 hours as you have read the terms and conditions. Fourthly the British Parking Association Code of Practice clearly states in the Operational Requirements for England and Wales, Section 18.11 " 18.11 Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes." As you can see from the entrance picture number 1 which was taken when I received the original Parking Charge Notice there is nothing intimating that the terms and conditions have changed from 3 hours to 1 hour as is required by the British Parking Association Code of Practise.

Is this a better reply, its taken me all afternoon to find all this. On 30-01-2018 I received a parking charge notice from the claimant alleging my vehicle overstayed at Portwood Court car park in Stockport on 23-01-2018, I do not know where Portwood Court is and my vehicle was parked on Garfield Court at the alleged time. This is my witness statement of defence against the claiment Civil Enforcement Limited. Firstly at the time of the claim I could find no evidence of any planning permission on the Stockport Council planning portal for any signs on the car park at Garfield street and this is where my vehicle was parked, it is my understanding that these signs in order to be legal require planning permission, there was also no planning permission for any pole mounted ANPR cameras and permission is also required for these. Within the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as ammended) it states "If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under." The signs within the car park do not fall into the above catagories and are therefore illegal as they should have planning permission and I cannot be bound by an illegal contract. Secondly please see attached picture number 1, this is the sign at the entrance to the car park, this clearly states that the car park is free and has no contractual agreement on it therefore it is just an invitation for motorists to park there. Thirdly please see attached picture number 2, this is a screenshot from Google earth, it clearly shows that the signage, used to show 3 hours free parking, not the one hour that Civil Enforcement are claiming, anyone who has previously read the terms and conditions displayed within the car park, which I had done, would be under the illusion that you can park for 3 hours as you have read the terms and conditions. Fourthly the British Parking Association Code of Practice clearly states in the Operational Requirements for England and Wales, Section 18.11 " 18.11 Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes." As you can see from the entrance picture number 1 which was taken when I received the original Parking Charge Notice the change from 3 hours to 1 hour was not made clear at the entrance to the car park.

Thank you ericsbrother, that will be my project for today, I have by the way received a mediation email from them offering me a full and final settlement of £60 which I have not responded to as yet.

Would this be any good as a defence, also should I measure the lettering on the signs when I get back to the UK. On (xx-xx-xx date) I received a parking charge notice from the claimant alleging my vehicle overstayed at Portwood Court car park in Stockport. Using google maps I cannot find a Portwood Court car park but have found a Garfield Court car park in Stockport at a similar location . At the entrance to this car park is a large sign stating "FREE PARKING" (see enclosed picture) with other wording which is too small to read, there are no terms just an offer of free parking. As the defendant I have since visited the car park and found that there are other signs within the car park that also have different wording, they state 1 hour free parking whereas the entrance sign only states free parking. On google maps the signs that now state 1 hour used to state 3 hours (see enclosed picture from google maps dated March 20017) I have scrutinised the Stockport Council Planning Portal but can not find any permission for the original signs to be erected or permission to vary the times as and when the claimant sees fit therefore as a defendant my opinion is that the signs are unlawful and I cannot be bound by an unlawful contract.

On the first page of the court letter it states civil enforcement as the 1st claimant and myself as the 1st defendant, there is no mention that I can see of a Solicitor.

I have received a date for the hearing at Stockport and all the information of my defence has to be submitted by the 2nd of January 2020, It states I have to submit my defence to the court and also to the opponent, in saying opponent do they mean CEL or the Solicitor representing them or both, and should I send these by recorded delivery. on to my defence as far as I can see unless anyone has any other suggestions it will be based on the sign on entering the car park which states "free parking" in bold letters and the fact I did not read anymore than that but also the fact that I had previously read the conditions which on google state 3 hours free parking whereas the signs have since been changed to show 1 hour, I have a screenshot off google maps showing 3 hours, I will also state that there does not appear to be any planning permission for the signs or to amend them at will on the Stockport portal, also I was parked on Garfield street street car park not portwood court as on the Solicitors documents. Should I also go for the fact that the signs within the car park are to high to be read as the lettering is small or just leave at the basic free parking sign. I have attached the main body of the court letter, it is a bad copy as it was sent to me by whatsapp as I'm not back in the UK until tomorrow.

OK, I was advised by the court that I would have to pay the £100 fee to ask for my defence to be re-opened which I did, today I got a letter stating that the order dated 29th October be set aside and the claim will be sent to the County Court at Stockport so at least my feeble defence is still in place. The only problem I now face is on the forms I had to complete, it asked what dates i would not be available on and I put the 10th Jan 2020 to 9th of Feb 2020 as i will be in the far east but I will also be leaving for Spain on the 2nd December to the 22nd, if the court date comes up between the latter 2 dates can I just ring them and say I'm not available or should I come back for the hearing and if I win claim my air fares?