point to the thread you elude to please

phone the council planning dept then and if they cnat find it ask for their email so you can request anyhting they have on that particular site, including who OWNS it. O&C will be agaents and so there may be no chain of authority, something to ask of HXCPM (if you havent done a CPR 31.14 already).

Have tried many times to view planning consent online but can't find it anywhere. I'm not great at this can you tell????

 

But while searching saw this!

 

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-parking-firm-fining-people-14790956

Hi DX,

Contract pics as per above:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/i5sekn8muy6evn1/AABFTpj4WYoX2G17d6vNHH9aa?dl=0

Thread to which it relates:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5703773&page=2#topofpage

About to look at it properly now....

Hi EB,

CPR request was done a few months back, obviously got nothing back.

Called council, they're utterly useless....can't be put through to speak to planning waiting for a call back. Have emailed requesting any and all planning docs relating to the site....waiting for response.

Have added in following to WS:

10. Without any exact details regarding the alleged overstay, the Defendant can only assume that 1 hour of parking was paid for and the overstay amounted to 15 minutes. Allowing for the minimum grace period of 10 minutes to read the signage, the alleged overstay equates to 5 minutes. There can be any number of reasons which cause a delay in exiting a car park, cars queuing, time to get in the car and as such is wholly unreasonable to impose such an inflated penalty on the driver in these circumstances.

11. There is a distinct lack of signage upon entry to the Car Park. The signage itself cannot be read from a seated position in the car. The Defendant returned to the car park and took photographs of the site and machine. The sign on the machine itself is completely different to the signs displayed in the car park and mention no penalty charges. Exhibit XXX

thanks!!

There is a min but no max..you need to revise 10

Its not a 5 mins O/S

done:

10. Without any exact details regarding the alleged overstay, the Defendant can only assume that 1 hour of parking was paid for and the alleged overstay amounted to 15 minutes. Allowing for the minimum grace period of 10 minutes to read the signage, it is not unreasonable to take up to 15 minutes grace period to consider the parking terms since there is no maximum limit and also considering that there can be any number of reasons which could cause a delay in exiting a car park, cars queuing, time to get in the car etc. As such it is wholly unfair to impose such an inflated penalty on the driver in these circumstances.

dont waffle, and dont assume. You state the driver paid for 1 hour and the overstay is "de minimis" considering the requirement for a minimum grace period. But this isnt your main point so dont get buried by it

Dont say it is unfair, inflated etc, you are using a subjective argument that has never existed. If a plumber tells you there is a £50 call out charge then that is fixed regardless of what he does or how long he is there.

Now as they havent responded to the request for documents you can hit them with that by saying the defendnat does not believe they ahve the necessary permissions because they have failed to produce them. That will make the judge more interested in looking at what they have supplied and when so if they bring along a redacted copy on the day they will get ripped into shreds.

Lastly, they are not PENALTY charges, use the wrong terminology and you will look stupid and the rest of your evidenc suspect.

Now, if the sigange says somehting like no parking £100 if you do the that is an unlawful penalty charge because ther is no genune offer to park and thus no contract to consider. Waht they are claiming is monety due under a contract or for a breach of contract so which is it?

If it isnt clear in either the sigange or their correspondence then you point out it has to be stated as one or the other, cant be either by default and the wording on the sigange will determine what it is so try and get them to expalin why the claim doesnt actually give a proper cause for action against you as the defendant ( same goes with keeper liability under POFA) You get more bites of the cherry than they do so use that advantage

AND WHERE ARE THESE PICTURES, we are still waiting to see them. Have you doen a plan of the car park to go with your piccies so anyoe can see why it wasnt possible to read them or even be aware of them at the time or whatever you want to stress with this.

Thanks EB

I am waiting for my tech savvy husband to get me the pictures which are no longer on my phone but on an external hard drive.....I will get them up ASAP. In the meantime you can see the car park signs here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119328

Incidentally, I drove past the car park recently and saw that they now have new signs up by the machine. Huge big white one.

Have received the WS from 'Claimant' today so it seems they will be pushing ahead.

Will upload WS from them which also includes their car park plan.

Car park pictures:

Court fee has been paid. GRRRRR!

pix.pdf

then photograph then as it is proof that they know their signage was garbage or they would have changed it.

Thanks EB

I am waiting for my tech savvy husband to get me the pictures which are no longer on my phone but on an external hard drive.....I will get them up ASAP. In the meantime you can see the car park signs here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119328

 

Incidentally, I drove past the car park recently and saw that they now have new signs up by the machine. Huge big white one.

 

Have received the WS from 'Claimant' today so it seems they will be pushing ahead.

 

Will upload WS from them which also includes their car park plan.

 

Car park pictures:

 

Court fee has been paid. GRRRRR!

green signs different content to yellow signs. On the picture to the entrance theyre are signs on the low wall that we need to be able to read as they differ to the one you have taken in close up. Where the blus sign says pay and display both sides.

Now for my money the sigange is inadequate as the bit that is supposedly the contract is much smaller print than the offer of parking and thsi has been the subject of quite a few defeats for parking co's

Also it say failing to comply will result in chareg beig applied etc, but it doesnt make it clear what part that refers to, just the paym,ent of the 50p or £1 or all of the illegible small print as well?

NOTHING about overstaying though so you cnat be charged for that. Therefore no breach of contract as there isnt such a contractual term. therefor the most they can ask for is a quid for the overstay and event hat isnt a certainty.

Stupid people

Yes EB, going back to take pictures of new signage and will take a close up of the sign you mention also.

Ok so current pictures:

Looks like car park is now being managed by UKCPM?

All signs have changed. None of the old signs remain.

Is this something I can still use in the WS if the car park is indeed now managed by a different company?

Thanks

Witness Statement from HXCPM:

claimants_ws.pdf

new signs pix .pdf

A common theme within that WS is their reference to "the defendant" as though they were the driver. No mention of POFA, being the mechanism under which they can hold the Keeper liable - only the Elliott v Loake criminal case (which is nonsense). Also, in p.24, quoting the signage in respect of additional charges - "...for which the driver will be liable..." - again, they're pursuing the Keeper. Use their own lazy wording and omissions against them and remind them that you're the Keeper, yet nowhere have they properly established the liability of the Keeper. I haven't read the full thread, so maybe they've already messed up on POFA so can't go there.

I'm sure EB will have a more succinct summary when he gets a chance to look in. It's a really weak WS though.

Thanks Shamrocker. we're drafting a more succinct WS and trying to address their points one by one. Fast losing the will to live!

Elliott V Loake needs putting to bed, as it is criminal and there is NO duty or compulsion to name a driver in a Civil case it cannot apply, so pionts 7, 8, and 9 on their WS are rubbish.

Neither can the £60 unicorn food tax be charged to the Keeper only the drive, so the Reasonable charge of £60 should be knocked off their claim.

I'm sure EB will be suitablt acerbic.

Gladstones are good at taking snippets of other cases and using them out of context or quoting them in an incomplete fashion. If they use these statement to qualify their case, then all you need to do is read up on it and challenge each point in turn. That will completely undermine their case.

Here's my own response to the Elliott v Loake case (from my WS):

"If the Claimant relies on the criminal case of Elliott v Loake 1983 in support of a flawed logic that the Keeper can be presumed to be the driver, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal by the Keeper; then they are reminded that the circumstances of the aforementioned criminal case is entirely different to this civil case. A key difference being the existence of ample evidence to assist with arriving at the ruling. The Claimant is, therefore, reminded of their obligation to suitably support their case with evidence."

They're not using POFA, so you should only need to create a clearly laid out argument that, as stated by the claimant, the contract is with the driver, but their assertion that you were the driver on the basis that you are the keeper is denied. They have provided zero evidence as to the identity of the driver. They're clutching at straws with this.

Thanks brassnexked and shamrocker. Yes read up on Elliot v Loake and saw the reasoning behind the presumption and how it doesn't apply here.

Will have to tackle each point in turn...feeling a bit bogged under after reading WS after WS!

The only one you need to keep reading now is the Claimants - don't over read things when there's really no need. Simply address their pleaded cause for action, this being the assumption that the Keeper was the driver, yet have supported that assertion only with an irrelevant criminal case. You may be wise to bring in other arguments alongside - no authority, no planning permission, amount being claimed, etc - but I can't see the Driver is the Keeper argument getting them very far.

there are planty of examples of Ellit v loake not being applicable on the parking pranksters blog. Copy them for your bundle. Basically though, it was a criminal act on a public road whre there was loads of other evidence the keeper was the driver. Gladdys know this is holed below the water line but still trot it out because they hope that yu are cowed by it and the judge has been living on the moon for the last 4 years. It also gives them somehting to show their clients when they waste their money

Thank you all!

Here is a second draft of his WS which focuses mainly on the Driver/Keeper aspect and loosely on the signage/contracts/planning aspects.

I look forward to your comments....erm actually I don't really, I'm a tiny bit scared

Need to get this to court ASAP and post to Gladrags!! :-0

WS Redacted Draft 2.pdf

EB should we include Elliot v Loake case in the WS ad an exhibit also?

It looks pretty good at a glance. A couple of observations...

p. 15 "...The Defendant returned to the car park and took photographs of the site and machine..." Replace "returned" with "recently visited", maybe?

p.18 "...The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is..." Remove "out"?

Regards to Elliott v Loake - I'd add in that strong evidence existed to suggest that the Keeper in that instance was the likely driver - but that is not the case here. I don't see why you should need to support that with an exhibit, as the Claimant has introduced it without evidencing it - but it might not do any harm.

Introducing POFA covers you on certain angles, but there's a side of me also feels that it's assisting the Claimant by providing the grounds upon which they can hold the Keeper liable. In any event, if they don't even come close to complying with POFA then I guess it can't do any harm.

See what EB says, but it looks like you have a fair grasp of the arguments you need to put forward.

Perfect. Thanks Shamrocker. Much appreciated. Will amend

Hey all.

Have spent the morning re-reading a few of the other threads and I think we're good to go with this WS (after Shamrockers suggested amends...thanks).

Conscious we need to get this in the post today so will print and send.

Thanks again for help, you guys must get fed up of all of us 'newbies' with all the questions.

Have also added in para below:

15.1 The Driver paid for one hour of parking, there is minimum of 10 minutes grace period but no maximum, allowing for time to review all of the different signs and then allowing time to exit the car park taking into account other traffic/queuing cars, 15 minutes is not wholly unreasonable.