Jump to content

ginger1981

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ginger1981 last won the day on September 28 2016

ginger1981 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

101 Excellent

About ginger1981

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I'd be interested to know how long their alleged grace period is, as we were there for less than 4 minutes and they still issued us with PCN and he never mentioned a grace period when we were in court. I'm so disappointed for you.
  2. I'll briefly run through the key points and then talk through the defence and what the Judge said. Another case was on the wall against ES parking this morning in Wigan, but I didn't see anyone else arrive and so maybe they failed to appear. Its unclear as to whether it was a spinning fields case though or not. Mr Hargreaves was already at the court when we arrived and I'd prepared myself for him to offer to settle out of court, but he didn't . We briefly spoke when he asked if myself or my husband would be staying outside with our baby, and I said we both intended to go in with the baby. He said it would be upto the judge if that would be allowed. Once inside the court Mr Hargreaves explained his side of the case, showed pictures of the car , pointed out the location the car was stopped on his map of white and yellow dots (these are where signs are located, white and yellow together indicate a back to back sign). He'd even brought a life size copy of the sign. The judge criticised their witness statement for not having figure numbers or any way of identifying documents being referred to. Then it came to our defence. He initially read through the bullet point defence that we sent it before allocation, then went onto the main witness statement. Judges comments in red 1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration xxxxxxxx, which the claimants allege was parked at Spinningfields Estate, Manchester on 04/04/16 at 10:51. The judge said that the PCN stated that we had stopped/parked, and Mr Hargreaves had asked us to clarify the location of the car on his map, so it wasn't alleged The claim is disputed in its entirety for the following reasons: 2. The signage says "No Stopping at all" (Figure 1) and as such the signage is prohibitive in nature and not the offer of a contract. This interpretation has been confirmed by the decision of DJ Iyah at Manchester on the 29/11/16 in ES v Ms A case ref C8GF4C12 relating to the same location and signs. Therefore, there can never be a claim for monies arising from a breach of contract. This was the main point, and what won it for us, the judge said that even at the 6-8ft away that he was from the sign there is no way he could read the terms and conditions and agreed you would have to stop to look at the sign, therefore breaching the contract. 3. Any purported contract for parking would be with the landowner, not ES Parking Enforcement Limited (ESPEL). When the initial parking charge Notice (PCN) was received the defendant immediately replied and sought clarification of key points pertaining to the charge, including clarifying their contract with the landholder that demonstrated that they had authority to both issue parking charges and litigate (See Attachments 1 & 2). A CPR 18 request was made (Attachment 3) requesting further information in this regard, but no response received so it is my belief that ESPEL have no locus standi and thus cause for action on this matter. He dismissed this as they had provided a contract for their employment in their witness statement. I did say that we'd sought this since the very first contact, and only received a copy after our own witness statement was submitted. 4. There is no signage on the entrance to Gartside Road stating that it is a private road, and all the road markings and street furniture are consistent with a public highway (Figures 2 &3 ). According to Manchester City Councils Highways Service, Gartside street is an adopted highway, maintained at public expense (Attachment 4), meaning ESPEL have no authority to issue PCNs. Apparently the end section of the road is not covered by their contract and the judge felt the signs should be sufficient notice. We didn't push the public/private highway point as we were pretty sure we'd won at this point based on things the judge had said, and I never had opportunity to go over to Manchester to view the plans, and Manchester council never replied. 5. If, in fact, they did have authority, the signs are too small to be read from the drivers seat of a vehicle and their position makes them impossible to read and consider without stopping to do so (Figures 4 and 5). This makes then unenforceable and unfair, contrary to the Consumer Contracts Regulations of 2014. The largest font on the sign being for the payment number . The signage also fails to meet the standards set in the BPA code of practice and unless the Claimant can show how any method they use to determine the suitability of their signage matches or exceeds the minimum requirements of that CoP they cannot be said to be adequate notice of a contract. Some signage has been changed at this location following the initial PCN being received, proving ESPEL know the initial signage did not meet the required standard. (Figure 6) He agreed with the point about not being able to read the sign from the car. He said he couldn't comment on the consumer contracts regulations bit as I hadn't copied in the specific point I wanted to make, so it was void. He was very interested in the change of signage, and felt that the new signs were a fairer way of explaining the T&Cs from a vehicle 6. Setting down does not constitute parking. He said as the initial PCN said stopping/parking that it wasn't relevant 7. As ESPEL know that their claim has no merit and they have failed to show a cause for action against the defendant a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g he said no expenses would be awarded apart from travel expenses. He did check if there were loss of earnings, but in our situation work days were just juggled around the hearing, so no loss of earnings. It bugs me that we've actually spent around £30 on going to and from Manchester to take pictures, postage to and from solicitors and court, phone calls etc, and I can't even begin to tell you how many hours of research time, and we walked away with nothing but the moral high ground. I'd do it again though (but my husband said we should have just paid it and saved ourselves 9 months of hassle!) So for anyone fighting an ES Parking at Spinningfields up to at least June 27th 2016 (the last date at which I saw the old signs) you should be home and dry as it seems most judges agree they are prohibitive and don't form a contract. The judge took great exception to the fact that Mr Hargreaves said we were stopped for 3/4 minutes and they'd still taken us to court, he actually pointed at him and said "rip off" and called into question the amounts of money that ES Parking are charging, saying most people in this area don't earn that much per day. Hopefully this information will help someone else, and certainly I feel ES Parking should be forced to repay all people they've issued PCNs to from this site, not sure how you'd go about that though?!
  3. I did put costs in the witness statement Ericsbrother, but the judge was only willing to give travel expenses for today and we only live 3 miles from court, he wouldn't award for any previous research, petrol or postage etc. and he offered us 45p a mile petrol and then added "do you want to claim these or shall we not rock the boat?"
  4. this morning was Dday, and we won. It wasn't as straight forward as we expected, and the judge seemed very strict, I'll come back tonight and give more details and advise about what the judge said was and wasn't relevant in our witness statement, but the key point was that the sign wasn't sufficient to form a contract, as you would have to stop to consider the terms and conditions, but in doing so you would have broken them. He also pointed at Mr Hargreaves and said "Rip off" which made me smile. No costs awarded though which annoyed me, but hey ho.
  5. Nothing else in writing Oddfellow, I did seek further clarification but they haven't replied.
  6. Hi NorthwestITConsultant, Heres an image of the new sign and the email. They have implied that its public, but then when I emailed back to clarify, just to be 100% they haven't replied. I feel like they don't want to commit incase they get it in the neck from ES etc. By the sounds of it the only way to know for sure is to go to their offices and view the plans, but as I thought this would have been struck out by now I never went. Gartside st sign and email.pdf
  7. Well, there's never a dull moment in this case. The saga continues as we received from Gladdys their witness statement pack, and yet I have checked again today, and they still haven't paid the fee. I asked if this didn't mean it would automatically be struck out, and she said they'd have to raise it with the judge. I'm attaching what they sent as their witness statement (if you ask me its completely generic and they probably use it for every parking case). they have included the contract with the land owners, which we've been asking for since day 1, and a map of spinning fields with white and yellow dots, but no key to say what said dots are. I'm assuming they're the signs which they have up. They've also included 10 pictures of the car at varying degrees of close up from 10.51-10.53 on the day of the alleged parking incident. I apologise for the dodgy pictures, hope their readable, my scanner isn't working so I had to take photos. Heres the files that wouldn't attach on the last post. Sorry., heres the PDF WS.pdf
  8. Thanks Ericsbrother. I put recovery of cost as final point on witness statement (post #168 above) do I need to do anything else or will it be taken from that letter?
  9. Today I spoke to court again, and apparently the fee has still not been paid (Due 4th Jan), but they still said I needed to submit the witness statements, so I posted them this morning. would the judge just cancel the hearing, or will he rule in our favour?
  10. Okay, could point 3 say When initial pcn was received clarification of ESPELs contract with the landowner demonstrating they had authority to issue and litigate on their behalf was sought, and a ccpr 18 requested, but no response has been received. It is my belief that ESPEL have no locus standi and thus cause for action on this matter.
  11. Okay have made said adjustments 1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration xxxxxxxx, which the claimants allege was parked at Spinningfields Estate, Manchester on 04/04/16 at 10:51. The claim is disputed in its entirety for the following reasons: 2. The signage says "No Stopping at all" (Figure 1) and as such the signage is prohibitive in nature and not the offer of a contract. This interpretation has been confirmed by the decision of DJ Iyah at Manchester on the 29/11/16 in ES v Ms A case ref C8GF4C12 relating to the same location and signs. Therefore, there can never be a claim for monies arising from a breach of contract. 3. Any purported contract for parking would be with the landowner, not ES Parking Enforcement Limited (ESPEL). When the initial Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was received the defendant immediately replied and sought clarification of key points pertaining to the charge, including clarifying their contract with the landholder that demonstrated that they had authority to both issue parking charges and litigate (See Attachments 1 & 2). A CPR 18 request was made (Attachment 3) requesting further information in this regard, but no response received so it is my belief that ESPEL have no locus standi and thus cause for action on this matter. 4. There is no signage on the entrance to Gartside Road stating that it is a private road, and all the road markings and street furniture are consistent with a public highway (Figures 2 &3 ). According to Manchester City Councils Highways Service, Gartside street is an adopted highway, maintained at public expense (Attachment 4), meaning ESPEL have no authority to issue PCNs. 5. If, in fact, they did have authority, the signs are too small to be read from the drivers seat of a vehicle and their position makes them impossible to read and consider without stopping to do so (Figures 4 and 5). This makes then unenforceable and unfair, contrary to the Consumer Contracts Regulations of 2014. The largest font on the sign being for the payment number . The signage also fails to meet the standards set in the BPA code of practice and unless the Claimant can show how any method they use to determine the suitability of their signage matches or exceeds the minimum requirements of that CoP they cannot be said to be adequate notice of a contract. Some signage has been changed at this location following the initial PCN being received, proving ESPEL know the initial signage did not meet the required standard. (Figure 6) 6. Setting down does not constitute parking. 7. As ESPEL know that their claim has no merit and they have failed to show a cause for action against the defendant a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g £95 research costs £10.44 postage costs £13.12 petrol costs £3 Parking Total = £121.56 This is a statement of truth to the best of my knowledge and belief. dated signed
  12. CPR 18 because I thought it would be allocated small claims (I know that prior to it being allocated you can still use CPR 31.14) I 'think' I've just had confirmation from Manchester Highways that this street is an adopted highway maintained by public expenses, so that will also be going in there too. Would that mean ES are fraudulently claiming money in that case?
  13. I've just contacted the County court, as yesterday was the cut off for the hearing fees to be paid. As yet they have not processed any fees, but said to ring back tomorrow to check incase they just haven't made it through the system but have been received. I'm not convinced they'll even turn up at the hearing this is the witness statement ES Parking Enforcement Ltd v Mr X court ref XXXXXXXX This is the witness statement of Mr XXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXXX, the defendant in the case. 1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration XXXXXX, which the claimants allege was parked at Spinningfields Estate, Manchester on 04/04/16 at 10:51. 2. Any purported contract for parking would be with the landowner, not ES Parking Enforcement Limited (ESPEL). When the initial Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was received the defendant immediately replied and sought clarification of key points pertaining to the charge, including clarifying their contract with the landholder that demonstrated that they had authority to both issue parking charges and litigate. The Claimant ignored this letter, and instead said it had rejected an appeal which had not been started (See Attachments 1 & 2). A CPR 18 request was made (Attachment 3) requesting further information in this regard. Gladstones Solicitors, acting on behalf of ESPEL, refused to send these documents, claiming they will send them with their clients witness statement (yet to be received). 3. The charge issued was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. 4. Setting down does not constitute parking. 5. There is no signage on the entrance to Gartside Road stating that it is a private road, and all the road markings and street furniture are consistent with a public highway (Figures 1 &2 ) . 6. The signs are too small to be read from the drivers seat of a vehicle and their position makes them impossible to read and consider without stopping to do so (Figures 3 and 4). This makes then unenforceable and unfair, contrary to the Consumer Contracts Regulations of 2014. The largest font on the sign being for the payment number. The signage also fails to meet the standards set in the BPA code of practice and unless the Claimant can show how any method they use to determine the suitability of their signage matches or exceeds the minimum requirements of that CoP they cannot be said to be adequate notice of a contract. Some signage has been changed at this location following the initial PCN being received, proving ESPEL know the initial signage did not meet the required standard. (Figure 5) 7. The signage says "No Stopping at all" and as such the signage is prohibitive in nature and not the offer of a contract. This interpretation has been confirmed by the decision of DJ Iyah at Manchester on the 29/11/16 in ES v Ms A case ref C8GF4C12. Therefore, there can never be a claim for monies arising from a breach of contract. 8. As ESPEL know that their claim has no merit and they have failed to show a cause for action against the defendant a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g £95 for research,£10.44 postage costs, £13.12 petrol costs, £3 Parking Total= £121.56 This is a statement of truth to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed xxxxxxx Dated 5/1/17 what does LiP mean Ericsbrother?I've included it anyway!
×
×
  • Create New...