At that point I'd stopped thinking and arguing the toss.

It stinks to high heaven. I think I'll keep pushing the LLDC to issue enforcement action on the illegal signage, but I haven't got the enthusiasm to appeal and go through it all again. Honestly, you wouldn't mind if they even played by their own rules, but if the courts only see them as guidelines and that simply by scatter gunning tiny signs all over the place they have done their duty.

Ha! Maybe. Young judge too, I thought it was going to go my way when he himself picked up on the permit holders only sign next to the car, and he questioned the woman from Gladstones on whether they were going after driver or keeper, but at the end he just summed up that he thought they had done what they needed to do, didn’t criticise me or my statement, but that he found in their favour. Can I just clarify that when I say i’ll be bitter and move on, that’s not directed at any of you who have offered your time and knowledge over the past two years. Just with the legal system that allows these ppc’s to operate on the fringes of the law. I parked in a council run pay & display while I was there, and you really notice the difference in the size of the signage they put up around the site. No hiding t’s&c’s in 5mm text there.

Sadly that did not go my way. Judge seemingly happy for PPC to flout their own CoP Guidelines because they are just that, not bothered by illegal signage, happy that signage was sufficient around the site to constitute and enforce a contract over the whole area regardless of the permit only sign and that driver has responsibility for checking signage, happy that the NTK was POFA compliant, and that keeper liability was established. Shame, not about the money - £275 in the end, this was never about the money, just the principle of these shady operators. Can’t see any point in appealing to have to try to overturn so many points. I will just be bitter and move on.

Still waiting. Good job I got a pay and display ticket til 2pm to be on the safe side.

And right on cue their rep just came to suggest having a chat “to discuss my position if I would like that?” I replied, “not really, I think my position is pretty clear”

Morning all, here nice and early, hearing is set for 10. Apparently Gladstones have decided to attend after all. Interesting. Any last minute advice?

Thanks EB. it also confirms that they shouldn't have the right to obtain keeper details doesn't it. The planning officer has said they will be contacting Gemini about it and will keep me updated. I've asked that they throw the book at them with enforcement and prosecution on the basis that they are profiting unlawfully from illegal signage. Definitely going to go after them myself for unlawfully obtaining keeper details if I win this.

The London Legacy Development Corporation planning department have just confirmed to me that there is no advertisement consent for their signage. Frustrating as it's too late to include the confirmation in my witness statement, but good to know. Any suggestions on how best to use this information?

Well, I'm taking it to the post office to go special delivery now. One to the court, one to Gladstones. 7 pages of statement, and 25 of annotated supporting photos and references all referenced in to the statement.for the following: 01: The claim form 02: Forbidding Signage 03: Horizon Parking – forbidding signage 04: ES Parking – forbidding sianage 05: PCM v Bull – Forbidding signage 06: BPA CoP Signage Requirements 07: Advertisement consent & requirement to adhere to BPA CoP to obtain Keeper Details 08: PPC - Landowner contractual breach 09: Non-POFA compliant NTK Fingers crossed I don't get penalised for getting this stuff to the court inside 14 days of the hearing. Thank you all for your help and guidance to this point. We'll see what happens.

Thoughts on adding the following please: Authority to enforce charges: 1. The Claimant included in their witness statement the PPC’s contract with the land owner. The failure of the PPC’s signage to comply with the BPA CoP puts them in breach of their own contract with the land owner: · The contract states under The Company’s Obligations: · “The Company shall at all times in connection with the provision of the services… ..Comply with and adhere to all the terms of the British Parking Associations AOS Code; · Maintain any relevant statutory or other licenses necessary for the provision of the services” 2. It has been demonstrated above that the Claimant has failed to comply with the terms of the BPA CoP, and has not sought statutory approvals for signage falling outside that which could be considered to have deemed consent. Illustrating a wanton disregard for adherence to their own contractual and Code of Practise requirements in their desire to maximise revenue from Parking Charge Notices at the site, a desire confirmed in the contract: · "The Company shall reserve the right at all times during the Term to withdraw the provision of any or all of the Services… if the Company deems that the Locations is uneconomical for any reason, including… low levels of Parking Charge Notices being issued."

I've added that FTM Dave, my second point now states: The Claimant asserts that the Defendant being the Keeper, is also the Driver. The Defendant has only been identified by the DVLA as the Keeper of the vehicle, the Claimant has not produced any evidence to identify the Driver at the time of parking and the Keeper has not identified the Driver. The Defendant does not admit to being the Driver and the burden of proof to establish the identity of the Driver lies with the Claimant. and my final point: 1. The Keeper has not identified the Driver and the Claimant has not provided any evidence as to the identity of the Driver, therefore the Claimant has no legal right to pursue the Keeper under the POFA 2012 and fails to establish Keeper Liability as the NTK is non-compliant. I've also been back and taken some more photos of the signage with a tape measure to back up my claims about some of the signage being larger than allowed under deemed consent, which also throws up a few more points about the signage being non-compliant with the BPA CoP, so I have added the following: The Signage: 1. The Claimant asserts that “The signage location, size, content and font have been audited and approved by the British Parking Association (BPA)” 2. Contrary to this the signage wholly fails to meet the requirements laid down in the BPA Code of Practice starting with the entrance sign. • The BPA CoP states: “Entrance signs must meet minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and follow Department for Transport guidance. Industry-accepted sign designs and guidance on how to use the signs are in Appendix B.” • Apendix B states the minimum size of text required for ‘Group 1’ text, in this instance ‘Pay by Phone’ (the entrance sign fails to mention permit only bays), which as this sign is located in an area entered immediately by turning off a 30mph road, should be a minimum of 60mm. Even if at a barrier entry carpark this text should be 50mm tall. • The Group 1 text on the entrance sign at the entrance to Logan Close measures approximately 35mm. (see attached photographs) • The size of this sign is 60x40cm, sized to fall just under the area requirement for deemed consent but as a result does not follow BPA Code of Practice. If it was sized to comply with the CoP it would require Advertisement Consent, this is a clear attempt to avoid this. 3. Similarly the signage which states the parking tarrifs and conditions is non- compliant with the CoP: • The BPA CoP states: “ You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450 mm.” • There are 10 signs on Logan Close displaying the parking conditions which measure just 390 x 310 mm • The text on these signs which state the parking conditions measure less than 5mm tall, clearly not readable without leaving the vehicle • There are a further 4 parking conditions signs on the pavement sides of Logan Close measuring 700 x 550 mm, possibly added to mitigate the non-compliance of the 10 signs adjacent to parking bays, however, the text on these still measures less than 10mm. • These larger signs are 0.385 square metres in size, clearly outside of the maximum size of 0.3sqm that could be considered to have deemed consent I then go on to lay out how the signage is illegal and therefore no contract can be made. Further revised and hopefully final statement (minus photos) attached Witness Statement Redacted.pdf

Thanks EB, I'll add the following in the first section " The Claim" : The Claimant asserts that the Defendant being the Keeper, is also the Driver. The Defendant has only been identified by the DVLA as the Keeper of the vehicle, the Claimant has not produced any evidence to identify the Driver at the time of parking and the Keeper has not identified the driver. The Defendant does not admit to being the Driver and the burden of proof to establish the identity of the Driver lies with the Claimant. Other than that, all good?

Revised statement attached for review if Dx or Eb would be so kind. Witness Statement Redacted.pdf

Apologies, please delete my already censored profanity! Dx, would you review my proposed additional statements in posts 118- 120 and let me know if you think all of this is good to go? thanks in advance

Just discovered this was supposed to have been sent by last Friday. No sympathy expected, just advice at to course of action... Do I get this off to the court today and hope that he Judge will still consider it? Then turn up, take a verbal beating from the Judge and hope it goes my way, if not because of being an idiot, pay the sum immediately and have the CCJ removed from the register? Or do I contact Gladstones and offer to pay up the full amount of their claim as a result of being an idiot? Will they be rubbing their hands with glee either way?

also: In the case of B4GGF26K6 – PCM(UK) -v- Mr Bull (& 2 others) 21/4/16 District Judge Glen stated in refeence to the “ No Parking at any time” sign that “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. and to add in the Summary: The signage for the bay the vehicle was parked in (“Permit Holders Only”) is a ‘forbidding sign’ and does not constitute an offer of a contract to park, so there can be no contract to be in breach of, and the Claimant cannot claim against the Defendant for trespass.

I am thinking of adding a section as follows: The Contract: 1. The Claimant claims Breach of Contract. For there to be a contract with the driver there must be an offer, consideration and acceptance . In this situation the vehicle was parked in a bay with signage stating “Permit Holders Only. All vehicles must clearly display and valid permit within the windscreen of the vehicle” There is no offer to accept other than to display a permit for the bay the vehicle was parked in, and the signage for that bay is therefore ‘forbidding signage’, not an invitation to park on certain terms. It disallows other parking and could be construed as only applying to permit holders, not others who are forbidden from parking. If this is the case, it only offers to permit holders. This notice forbids any parking at all except by permit holders and is not an offer at all. It does not make a contractual offer, so there can be no breach of contract. This therefore means this is a landowner issue for trespass, and the agreement between PPC and landowner does not allow for the Claimant to collect for trespass issues. 2. In the case of C5GF17X2 Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford 23/11/2016 where the defendant was parked in an area for permit holders only District Judge Glen dismissed the claim “because the notice is a prohibition and claimants are not entitled to pursue for trespass, they are not the landowner.” 3. In the case of C8GF4C12 ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester 29/11/2016 District Judge Iyer stated that the signage was forbidding, there was no mention of the word 'contract' on them. The word 'breach' was on the signage. As a result of this, the only person that could bring a claim was the landowner for trespass.

Gick, thank you for spotting that error, which is presumably what DX was referring to. And thanks to whoever edited out my reg, thought I'd made sure there was nothing like that left in there. Mrs O'Frog - good point! I'll stick with my current approach then I am adding in to 'The Claim' section: The Claimant is quoting Elliot vs Loake in order to assert that the Keeper can reasonably be assumed to be the Driver. This case reference has repeatedly been discredited in use in the Small Claims. In the case of Excel v M. X C8DP5C7T. Manchester County Court - 25/05/2017 the Judge in his closing remarks stated that using EvL does not bear any weight in the Small Claims Court as it was a Criminal case, and that the legal burden is on the Claimant to prove the balance of probabilities.

Hi Brassnecked, are you saying I should highlight their use of that case as being not applicable because it was a criminal case? thanks Also, should my witness statement begin with on the morning of **** the defendant inadvertantly parked in a permit only parking space early on a Sunday morning presuming it was a pay by phone space as that is what the entrance signage states, no mention of permits,, and unaware of the hours of operation being 24/7 due to the minute size of the wording on the signage not being visible from the vehicle. ? Or just stick to defending myself on the basis of the claim being illegitimate for all the reasons stated? So the case of Excel v M. X C8DP5C7T. Manchester County Court - 25/05/2017 the Judge in his closing remarks stated that using EvL does not bear any weight in the Small Claims Court as it was a Criminal case, and that the legal burden is on the Claimant to prove the balance of probabilities. AnD EvL has been discredited in numerous other cases since. I should include that in my WS?

Morning Dx, what makes you say that? The words in my point 1 "liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (ie the Sign)”, are straight from the Claimant's witness statement point 3, and in the Particulars of Claim 'parked in breach of of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') Other than this point is everything else ok? I have just noticed in their witness statement an explicit reference to being in Breach of Contract.. "in view of the defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of contract". Should I amend my point 3? Thanks

Good evening all. EricsBrother could I trouble you to review the attached witness statement please. I know I have left this rather late as I was still waiting for the local authority to confirm that the signage has no consent, but I believe I need to get this statement to the court asap now as the hearing is on the 13th Please excuse the long post and edit from view of necessary but when I try to upload as a pdf I am getting a message that : /srv/consumeractiongroup.co.uk/public/htdocs/uploads/monthly_2019_09 could not be created. Please contact us for assistance: The Claim: 1. The Claimant‘s witness statement alleges that the Defendant is “liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (ie the Sign)” 2. The Defendant has only been identified by the DVLA as the Keeper of the vehicle, the claimant has not produced any evidence to identify the Driver at the time of parking and the Keeper has not identified the driver. 3. Particulars of Claim states the “Driver of vehicle YXXXXXXA (the vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the ‘Contract’). This is therefore a Breach Of Contract claim against an unidentified person, ‘the driver’, for which the amount charged for the breach must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss suffered by the party to the contract. 4. As a Breach of Contract claim the claimant can only claim the amount they lost because of the breach, and no more. 5. As the reason for the issue of Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was “No Permit” the claimant has not suffered any financial loss for the unavailability of the permit only parking space. However, the amount claimed is £177.73, plus £25 Court Fee, plus, £50 Legal Representative costs, a total of £252.73. Clearly the amount claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss suffered by the parking company, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. The Signage: 6. The defendant refused to respond to a CPR31.14 request to provide, among other things, evidence of planning or advertisement consent for the signage which they allege forms the basis of the contract. 7. Logan Close, E20 falls under the planning jurisdiction of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). Searches of their planning portal using the terms advertisement, and/or sign, signs, or signage and ‘Logan Close’ return 357 results. Not one of these results is for the erection of signage relating to parking controls in Logan Close. 8. It can therefore be assumed, in the absence of LLDC yet confirming to me, that advertisement consent for the Private Parking Company’s (PPC) signage has not been sought or approved. 9. It is widely known that PPCs erect signage without obtaining advertisement consent on the basis that some Local Authorities will see them as having ‘Deemed Consent’ under Schedule 3, Part 2, Class 2 of the Town and country Planning Control (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 No. 783– ‘Miscellaneous advertisements relating to the premises on which they are displayed -2A. An Advertisement displayed for the purpose of identification, direction or warning, with respect to the land or building on which it is displayed.’ 10. The conditions and limitations for Class 2 states – (1) No advertisement may exceed 0.3 square metres in area. A condition which the PPC’s take as the go-ahead to clutter the public realm with a proliferation of signs generally falling just below this size, as many of the signs in Logan Close are. 11. Clearly a sign larger than 0.3 square metres requires ‘Express Consent’, and erecting signage without advertisement consent. 12. Advertisements do not become immune from consent until 10 years after installation, there is no such thing as retrospective advertisement consent, and display of an unauthorised advert is a criminal offence under s.224 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 13. Several signs in Logan Close which the defendant is relying upon to establish and enforce a contract measure 70x55cm, an area of 0.385 square metres. Clearly therefore these signs require advertisement consent which has not apparently been granted, and are therefore erected illegally, and knowingly so. 14. The importance of this is two fold. a. The Claimant claims in their own words that the “Signage on site is the contractual document”. If there was a contract between the PPC and the driver, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (the erection of the un-consented signs which the PPC relies on as having made a contractual offer). Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under it, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced under the legal doctrine of ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’, that no action may be founded on illegal or immoral conduct, which is clearly the case here. b. The British Parking Association Approved Operator Code of Practice requires their member PPC’s to operate according to the Law. In the case of the BPA the CoPs state: “2.4 When there is relevant legislation and related guidance, this will define the overall standard of conduct for all AOS members. All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses......” and: “4.3 Under the Code you must keep to all therequirements laid down by law.” All member PPC’s have an overriding duty to comply with the law in creating and enforcing its contract with a motorist (or, by extension under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, with a vehicle’s keeper), and in communicating the terms of that contract. In the judgment in Cavendish Holdings BV v. Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Limited v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 the judge drew attention to the BPA CoP. At [111] is stated: “.....while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.” Therefore, by erecting illegal signage the defendant is in breach of the BPA CoP and so not entitled to obtain registered keeper details from the DVLA, something which the Claimant relies solely on to be able assert Keeper Liability. Not only are they not entitled to do so under the BPA CoP, but by having done so they have obtained the Keepers details unlawfully. Notice to Keeper and the Protection of Freedom Act 2012: 15. The Notice to Keeper fails to be POFA 2012 compliant on several counts and therefore the Claimant does not have the legal right to enforce the charge against the Keeper, nor to force the Keeper to name the Driver who is the subject of the claim. a. The NTK does not explicitly name the creditor, only asserting that “ the driver became liable for a parking charge at Logan Close that we [the claimant] are authorised by our client to manage”. This only identifies the Claimant acting on behalf of a client and does not identify the ‘creditor’ as required under POFA 2012 and fails to create Keeper Liability b. The NTK does not state the period the car was parked, only the time of issue the PCN. c. The NTK does not repeat the information from the PCN about when the parking charge was due to be paid nor the details of any discount offered for early payment. d. The NTK fails to specify the maximum additional costs the claimant may seek to recover, merely stating that “the overdue charge will increase to £160 in the first instance of further action”. 16. The keeper has not identified the driver and the Claimant has not provided any evidence as to the identity of the driver, therefore the Claimant has no legal right to pursue the keeper. In summary: · the Claimant is claiming £253 from ‘The Driver’ for a Breach of Contract for which there was no financial loss. – An unenforceable penalty. · The signage which the Claimant asserts forms the contract is illegal as it is larger than could possibly be granted Deemed Consent and no evidence of Advertisement Consent has been produced. – Therefore the contract is null and void · The Driver has not been identified, by the Claimant nor the Keeper. · The NTK issued by the Claimant fails to comply with the strict conditions of the POFA 2012 therefore the Claimant has no legal right to pursue the Keeper · There is no legitimate claim against the defendant.

Well there we go then.. They're not gov't related (1), identifying, warning or directional, relating to a business, religious, educational, cultural etc institution, hotel, pub, etc (2), temporary (3), illuminated (4) or otherwise(5) on business premises or forecourt (6) thereof. They're not flags (7), not on hoardings (8) or highway structures (9). They're not for Neighbourhood Watch(10) or directing peopple to a residential development (11). They're not inside(12), and they've certainly not been there for ten years (13). No consent has expired(14), they're not on balloons (15) or telephone kiosks(16) So unless they have applied for planning they are there illegally, so copied from elsewhere.. It's a criminal offence to breach the legislation. Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). Regulation 30 makes it a criminal offence to display advertisements without the relevant consent.If there was a contract between the PPC and the driver, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (the erection of the un-consented signs which the PPC relies on as having made a contractual offer). Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under it, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforcedThis allows Defendants to run a defence of Ex dolomalo non oritur actio Also that Gemini are operating with disregard to the AOS CoPs and therefore not entitled to obtain keeper details from the DVLA under the DVLA's own terms. Ergo they have no right to to obtain my details either. Am I getting warmer?

Apparently not.. off to find it now. Thank you! Am I right re the NTK?

So I gather from the Parking Prankster Blog. My only concern is whether they have got wise and made sure all of their signage is less than 0.3sqm and so given deemed consent. Trip back there with a tape measure coming up. That and the POFA errors in the NTK could be key - stating that "the overdue charge will increase to £160 in the first instance of further action" implying potential further costs, where if I'm reading things right it should state the maximum costs they may seek to recover?