No problem, I consider myself pretty good at forming an argument and expanding on the points of defence, the judge also denied that grace of 5 mins should be added to the consideration period although the fact that I was not intending on buying a ticket as I was loading. Re ANPR accuracy, it was suggested that if I had a WS from the driver to say otherwise then it might have been a stronger factor but it seemed she saw no reason to disbelieve the date stamped photos provided by the claimant When I say C19, I mean Covid 19 No transcripts provided, only reference in the judges summing up

Well Caggers, After having this issue over my head for more than 2yrs, the day in court finally came today. I'm still a bit bemused but disappointed to report that judge Pryce found in favour of the Claimant!!!! We started 15 mins after the hour and it seemed she had done her homework on the case law and it didn't feel like there was going to be a positive outcome from the off. She started by saying she was OK with people using template WS's but that they should ensure the case law they referred to was accurate and the latest ruling on the matters Harry turned up in person and didn't say much. I was asked which defences I was relying on, I said all of then but expanded on parking not loading, De minimis and frustration as the top 3. In her summing up, whilst she acknowledged that I made some good points she, She cited various aspects of case law to rebuff my arguments, I'll try t list them for others to be wary of or comment Apparently C19 is not classed in law as a frustration or even a temporary frustration- Bank of NY Mellon vs ?? 1st Feb 21 Rejected that any consideration / grace periods were applicable due to the fact it was clear that he vehicle/ driver was not attempting to park Wasn't interested of the signs or ANPR were legal or had planning or if the dates stamps were accurate, same goes for validity of contract with Landowner, saying if there was no contract then the landowner would take action against any parking company - Ref Wilshaw case judgement which apparently in para 32 says you don't need an agreement ?? No considered Gov COP- Harry chipped in and said it has never become law Her view was that there WAS clear signage at the entrance around the site and that I was not a delivery vehicle nor did Jopson vs Homeguard or Ashby vs Tollhurst apply as they were specific instances of loading, the former furniture to a flat and the latter a stolen vehicle. She made a lot of references to the above cases and a Simpkiss summation Claimant dropped the additional £70 at the offset so total bill will be £100 the original amount claimed and 112 costs £212 total Not the result but it will have cost them more than me and hopefully some lessons for others out there Thanks for all your help

Yes fair enough, Just looking to put the tin lid on it and pile up the arguments and ensure it can be kicked out on multiple counts

Wonderful, thank you for the confirmation of my ripostes to the nonsense they have spouted out As I pull this to a close and review my substantial body of research around this topic, I have found another potential angle which I would like your advice on relating to the OPS contract with the landowner Further investigation on companies house revealed that there is no one of the name shown on the contract from OPS Exhibit 1, listed as a director of the company who own the land (Perriworld) and as such it is offered that there is in fact no contract in place. Companies house legislation state that any change in directors details should be advised within 14 days of said change. Ref Companies act 2006, Section 163, clause 291. There is someone listed with the same first name and potentially a maiden name on CH who may have got married to one of the other directors all who have the same surname as the person who signed the contract. But this is not refelcted on the CH records. The contract with OPS and Perriworld states above the signature blocks- "In witness of which the parties have signed this agreement the day and year first above written." Above the customer signature block it is written "Signed by the Freeholder/ Leaseholder or authorised party managing agent on behalf of the freeholder. Leaseholder (customer)" Above the OPS signature block it is written " Signed for and on behalf of OPS" Based on this and the below extract from the recent case vs OPS for the same car park (from Andyroch )where they make the following points, Is the contract valid at all???? LANDOWNER CONTRACT EXHIBIT L 49. This document dated 2016 is the landowner contract which was in effect at the time. This document has only been signed by one person (Gavin Price) who according to Companies House was not listed as a Director until March 2019 – instead of being signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – to be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent. So in order for it to be a validly executed contract. do one or both parties ned to be directors of the companies they are representing and/or have their signatures witnessed??

Thank you for that, I fully agree, Court has written to me advising that the case will still be heard next Tuesday so any last minute thoughts before then are appreciated I wrote to ask that the SWS be deemed inadmissible and the reply I got stated they were only admin staff and could not advise on legal matters? They suggested raising it on the day - I will follow up again

Lots for you all to digest, heres my off the cuff thoughts in response to their SWS- Appreciate your input advice particularly re the NTK compliance with POFA 1. Re their point 4-The Claimant is reiterating that their exhibit 2 (copies of signage) makes it clear that parking on the land is only permitted for motorists with a valid parking session and refer to terms of a contract. As I have outlined in my original witness statement, loading is not parking and it denied that any contract was entered into. To state that the signs are clear is laughable on several fronts due to the size of font and poor location of signage meaning many cannot be seen from inside a vehicle or are blocked those already parked. In a recent case in this court vs the same claimant for the same location, the WS ( Should I attach and extract as an exhibit) expands in much greater detail than I did on the poor conditions of the location. This case was dismissed by Judge Sullivan. 2. Re their point 4-The claimant suggests the dropping off the cycles is a privilege that should have been paid for ? The defendant asserts that loading/ unloading is a regular activity carried out millions of times a day across the UK on public and private land and would challenge the claimant to proof of how many of these activities attract a fee for the privilege. The contract between the landowner and OPS clearly state that loading is an accepted activity which dies not require a ticket and that those doing so should not be issued a fine. 3. Re their point 5- The claimant suggests Covid 19 impacts should not be considered as frustration of contract and therefore not considered as mitigating circumstances. Why when the vast majority of inhabitants on this Earth could provide evidence of how Covid impacted their daily lives and added time and inconvenience to previously simple tasks should OPS choose to ignore these aspects and exercise good judgement and apply the guidelines as well as consider this fact as universally accepted mitigation to our everyday lives. The specific measures in place at the shop were not known about until arriving at the door nor was the actual amount of time required to complete the action calculable. The intention was to unload, deliver, load and go, An activity which the defendant would be happy to undertake under timed conditions in these post Covid times to re enforce the point of mitigation. 4. Re their point 6- Consideration and grace are not periods of free parking as the claimant states from the BPA. The vehicle was not parked so this does not apply and it is argued that no user of the facility can be deemed to have parked until they have entered into the contract and paid the fee. This can only be accomplished by firstly locating the sign and familiarising oneself with the terms. The consideration period allows for this and if a driver deicides that they do not want to enter then contract then the grace period allows them to exit without having ‘parked’ 5. Re their point 6- The suggest the Gov COP is irrelevant due to its withdrawal after the date of the event in question. Defendant asserts that the guidance was in pace at the time of the event and as such is admissible but furthermore it only reinforces the BPA’s own guidelines 6. Re their point 7- This is simply a difference of opinion on the point of confusing or adequate signage. There is a huge body of evidence from real users of such facilities who sav the same opinion as the defendant and almost as many judges who have ruled in favour of these defendants 7. Re their point 7- To suggest the photos provided in the defendant witness statement cannot be proved to be at the time of the contravention. The defendant is happy to provide proof of the date of photos on their mobile phone camera records and it is churlish to think that the defendant would have reason to collect photos of random locations unless there had been a claim tabled against them. This is contrary to OPS who are supposedly the operators of the location who only provided photos date stamped almost 2 years before the date of this event. 8. Re their point 8- Claimant seems to have missed the point here and it is reiterated that the defendant and others who have searched has not found planning permission from Brighton and Hove council permitting either the signage or installation of cameras at this location nor has it been provided by OPS as requested in the CPR31.4 letter. In addition there is no explicit agreement in their contract with the landowner from use if ANPR system. Per point 39 of my original Witness statement, no proof of calibration or accuracy of time stamps on cameras has bene seen and furthermore the extent of magnification required to pick out the vehicles number plate from one the photos further supports the low level environment that they are operating in. 9. Re their point 9- Claimant reiterates that their NTK is compliant but has not addressed the specific reasons from my WS points 50,51 & 52. No appeal was made as this is not a binding independent process this is not a binding independent process and research demonstrated that rarely is the original decision to apply a penalty is overturned

Yes that was my feeling, unless others have any counterviews, I will concentrate on addressing the issues in the form of a SWS just in case but also as a memory jogger for the day Just had a mail from the court saying the hearing is double booked, will be advised of their proposed action to address it tomorrow

Thanks for your comments guys, so are you advocating not to respond with SWS myself? If I am taking the line that it is after the deadline and should be inadmissible then it would be hypocritical to try to send a SWS myself wouldn't it ? I would like to prepare my counters to their comments if either it is deemed admissible or they roll it out as their defence/ counter points in court I guess as well as being worried about the strength of my WS, they might be a bit upset that I had the opportunity to review and attack their first WS and incorporate responses in my WS What's the groups opinion on their point 6 as to whether I am eligible to Consideration and grace periods as I was not parked and how to counter the claim that Gov COP's should be ignored as they were withdrawn- Is it valid to say that they were in force at the time of the event and have been withdrawn for review and update I believe ?

Thanks as always particularly Fruit salads lead which I note is a recent case- Was it thrown out I wonder, I will look further It does seem to address all the points I have made In the meantime, please find the SWS attached 2023-05-22 OPS SWS.pdf

Just when I thought it was sit and wait till D day in the courts, young Harry has ben busy scouring my WS and has today sent a supplementary WS dated 19th May so last Friday which is after the 14 day period court requires all WS's as per their guidelines- Is this even admissible as evidence ?? I'll redact and scan tomorrow but heads up on his counters to the points I made in my WS 1. Says their ex 2 from WS1 (pics of signs) states land only permitted for valid parking sessions, I should have paid for the 'privilege' of parking. terms on signs were sufficient and I breached the terms 2.dismisses frustration due to C19, says I admit to using the land for 17 mins and that's unreasonable to do so without taking notice of the prominently located signs ??? says 1 in 1 out irrelevant and without that I still should have bought a ticket even if I was there less than the 10 min grace period 3.They ref BPA 13.6 as not consideration and grace not being free periods of parking, because say I wasn't parked I should not be eligible to either of these periods. Also sate Gov COP withdrawn in Jun 22 4. Says signs were adequate font size and location, say my photos were not date stamped- I can prove this on my phone if required, there's were blatantly before the event 5. Challenge my claim of illegal signage - no planning and refer to a clause in their contract with landowner where it mentions the word planning?? They need council planning permission though don't they for signage ? 6.ANPR provided by NTP 3rd party which they have no authority to edit but doesn't address the accuracy of the timings. 7. They say I allege no evidence of ANPR being used to manage the site but that it says it on the signs ?? My actual claim was that they do not have the landowners permission to install cameras or use them to manage the car park 8.The deny their NTK is not compliant with 2012 POFA Should I send a response to this, do I have time? I also tracked down the landlords address and called them to speak to the person who signed the agreement, seems its a lawyers office but the person I spoke to said they would pass on a message- I wrote outlining the situation and gave them to opportunity to speak to me about it or simply get OPS to cancel their action and avoid unnecessary court fiasco Appreciate your swift responses folks

Yes e mailed the court with WS as advised and asked for confirmation of receipt and received the following response AUTO RESPONSE – DO NOT REPLY** WE AIM TO REPLY TO CORRESPONDENCE WITHIN 30 WORKING DAYS HOWEVER AT BUSY TIMES THIS MAY BE LONGER If you are getting in touch about an upcoming hearing date or something urgent we will reply as soon as we can. IF SENDING BY EMAIL DO NOT SEND BY HARD COPY AS WELL As for sending to DCBL, I was able to send the WS to my wife to print and post it off by registered mail So lets see how this unfolds, I'm feeling pretty confident and will watch out on the off chance they see sense and drop the claim but they seem stupid enough to see it through Thanks for everyone's input- lets hope we can chalk up another win against the parasites

Had a go around and tried to weave in all points- see attached No Locus standi looks a bit weak now they have provided the contract - is the point in 55 now redundant based on point 13 of the latest contract which talks about taking photo graphs and point 18 which says OPS will provide the charge system- or does this relate to pay machines ? Couldn't create Exhibits and attach the web links but I'm not so worried about that- one is a video V poor internet so spent all day on and off trying to edit this, will probably have to send it before you have time to comment given time difference but if there are any howlers please shout Thanks again for all your guidance and advice 14-05-23 WS Rev6 forum.pdf

Input much appreciated guys I've just landed in west coast USA but will consolidate comments and update once the world stops spinning Thanks

Appreciate the feedback I have slimmed the preamble Added numbers for each para and included reference to the updated contract in the 3 sections you suggested Does the receipt of their WS render the NO locus standi section largely redundant and as such should it be removed or slimmed down?? Updated WS attached 13-05-23 WS Rev6 forum.pdf

OK Caggers, I hope you are available to review and comment this weekend - patience has paid off and OPS WS came in the post just now I've hopefully redacted my details and attach the first 24 paged of the 63 page doc The do include an updated contract where the 15 mins with engine running comment removed BUT check page 12 half way down in the box where it seems the landlord has added the note to specifically allow 15min grace period for any approved delivery vehicle that is delivering loading/ unloading to the onsite retail units!!!!!!!!!! BINGO- Well if this doesn't cover apply to my circumstances I don't know what does plus C19 mitigation- sounds like a slam dunk doesn't it ??? So how would you suggest updating modifying my WS in light of this- i think including the previous contract shows a leniency which is followed through with the intent of the above clause- Not sure whats redacted below that of course could be more damming or just someone's name I still don't see planning permission for signs or installation of cameras or proof of camera accuracy I've not included all the other exhibits but a summary of the waste of paper below 2- You've seen before - I would argue they are not prominently displayed- knee height and 10 pages of photos of various signs around the site, not all on the underground floor I parked on 3- An e mail from Jan 16 to some block called Peter who was retiring from the BPA and says the signs are compliant - no copy of the actual signs submitted 4- ANPR photos of the vehicle entering and exiting 5- Unreadable pay and display log 6-A plan of the site and location of signs- proving what?? 7- All the letters they have sent to me 8- Screenshot- so what? 2023-05-11 OPS WS.pdf