Thanks both for your attention to this

Appreciate you have lots of other people asking for help and good luck with the green card process!

Yes I do have a court date at the end of May and I understand that I need to send the WS to OPS or DCBL as their rep or both (Please advise??) and the court 14 days before the hearing- Is this correct?

So to the updated WS, (Attached)

- Reordered the arguments from strongest first in my opinion- what do you think ?

Responses to your comments on specific sections:

No Locus standi

-Tidied up the BPA references

Incorrect and confusing signage - I'm not entirely happy with this section

- Referenced the correct sections of the BPA COP 

-Point 4 of confusing signage28-3-23 WS Rev3.pdf section picks up on the inconsistencies but I've gone snow blind as to which signs say you need to pay straight away- can you help ?

-Yes their sign on Page 3 of Exhibit B says you must purchase a valid ticket or session within 10 mins of arrival, Is your argument that this should be treated as the consideration period to which the grace period of 10 mins should be added ??? How can we strengthen this argument???

-Their CPR response letter claims 'Signs state that there is a maximum grace period of 11 mins' This is not true- the words 'consideration period' do not appear on any signs. I have beefed up the last para in the De Minimis section to capture this - is this the right place for it ??

-Added your point about lack of reference to parking period in point 5

-I have removed the reference to pop pay in point 6 of the confusing signage section, I think mentioning the relocation of signs is valid but now doesn't draw attention to app provider change

No they did not send the contract in response to my CPR

Also removed reference to relocated signs on the photo Exhibits

Re your below comment, I have added this to the end of the last para on the no keeper liability section is this correct ??

As  OPS have not produced any proof who was driving as well as not even knowing whether they are pursuing the keeper or the driver that you respectfully ask that the Judge  quash the charge.

Thanks LFI 

I have added it to the end of the  'Frustration of contract' section

Taking this and FTM's earlier comments, I attach again the updated WS and Exhibits B&C showing photos from Apr 21 and Oct 22, annotated with pertinent points as I see them 

Appreciate if you could have another go around for a last review / finesse

Thank you all again in advance

28-3-23 WS Rev2.pdf Exhibit B Photos from April 2021.pdf Exhibit C Photos from October 2022.pdf

Thanks LFI, Which section are you proposing to include this extract in? Is it no locus Standi or Frustration of contract ?

How are POPLA involved with this specific case? Doesn't the fact that I didn't appeal to them and that it has been taken to court mean that they have no visibility of the circumstances and therefore are not able to intervene as described to refer it back to the landowner?

Would the landowner even be aware of OPS's actions?

Appreciate your clarification 

Great, thank you , that's clears up the invitation to treat question, Do you agree that this point sits in the 'incorrect and confusing signage section' ?

FTM Thanks for your feedback

-Changed 'principle'

-On the Loucs standi section- I have amended as you advised 

-I have photos of the signs which I will share one tidied up and thought how to present them to best reflect the changes since the event

-In loading is parking- Case number added and found the below quote which I think is relevant

"The appellant’s case could also be put in another way. The purported prohibition was upon “parking”, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable  passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time."

I will give it some time to see if you or others have further comments and then post the updated WS

Very grateful as always 

28-3-23 WS Rev1.pdf

Excellent list you have provided and I will be sure to include them in my draft WS, hopefully in the correct section. Re your point 1 , what does 'offer to treat' mean ?

Re point 6 and the ANPR timings, I have seen some articles in the press about this over the weekend and seems one guy ( Laurence Carnie, from Dartford)has been on a crusade to help those like me who receive these types of PCN's quash them once and for all, I think this is a separate section of defence all on its own so will add accordingly

Thanks again

Hello Everyone, So the saga continues and I have received a "Notice of allocation to the small claims track"- I assume you have seen these standard letters many times before so have not attached it to this post?

Hearing is at the end of May with a £27 fee to be paid at the beginning of that month by OPS if indeed they are serious 

WS should be submitted no later than 14 days before hearing so I have some time but as advised, have been pulling together threads of my WS for some time on the off chance that they would want to follow this through.

I will pull my draft together in the next week and share it for your kind input

Notice of transfer of proceedings now received stating it will be at my local court which is one thing.

How long will this madness continue,

Are we past the point of no return now?

DCBL are in Runcorn,

I know OPS are in Worthing but are either of them going go to be bothered to send a paid employee to a court hearing for less than £300, its just crazy

Is now the time to polish off my WS and circulate to you guys for comment or wait for the next step of track allocation/ judges directions?

An interesting side observation when passing the car park recently is that they have changed some of the signage related to the pay by app option and the location of the signs. They have switched from Just Park to Pop pay, Not sure this is relevant to my situation but just curious, could it be related to lower operating costs or a fall out between OPS and Just Park? In their LBC they cite the fact that I did not obtain ticket via the Just park app- would they still be able to verify this if pushed, given the relationship has seemingly ended?

They have relocated the signs from the inside wall as you drive in and the Just park one (now gone) which was far left from the entrance to both be on left as you drive in - I have to say a more prominent position,. Can this fact be used in defence even though they still contain illegible small print from someone driving past them even at slow speed. Is the relocation of signage after my event almost admission/ acceptance that signs were previously poorly located  - not that this is cornerstone of my defence but another mitigating factor?

Roger that- Appreciate the definitive answer

I'll only send a copy to DCB with no mail or phone number

Perhaps because this D1 is a new question, I haven't found any mention of whether to agree or not that the case is suitable for determination without a hearing?

it also says if No- please state why not? 

What's your view?

Good spot re the 3 copies, I missed that , SO one for the court, one for DCB and one for me, do I need to send a copy to OPS or are we past that point now?

Thanks as always for the feedback guys

Have received the 'notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track' letter

Understand the instruction to tick no for mediation

What about section D1 - suitability for determination without a hearing ??

I am assuming I tick 'no' as we want a day in court if it gets that far and to cause maximum inconvenience to the claimant

Comparing the N180 that DCB sent me in anticipation of court, I think it is a version dated, (04,14) whereas the one I have received says (06,22) 

The sections are different there's goes to A to D and the one I have goes A to E with this current D1 being a new question

Does their use of the wrong form count against them, Its another sign of incompetence I guess

Appreciate your viewpoints

Thanks for the above pointers guys, I will be sure to include in any WS which is looking more likely to be needed if the attached recent correspondence is anything to go by.

I have not seen this in other threads, Is it a standard tactic to offer direct mediation ? What's the advice from the forum? Is it worth a phone call or best to keep our powder dry?

They have included their court directions questionnaire as it says, again is this normal, why have they done this, Is it a scare tactic to try to show they are serious about going all the way??

It states that they agree to the case being referred to the small claims mediation service which seems to be a 1hr phone call, this doesn't sound like a bad thing and I guess I still prepare my WS as a script to go though and hopefully get a fair minded mediator?

Playing this out to the potential conclusion, if mediation failed and it went to court they have indicted i the form that they would like any hearing to be held at their local court. As they are in Runcorn does that mean I might potentially have to go all the way there to defend this? I'm not against it but are they really going to go to all this trouble for a claim of £272.64?? Is this the maximum amount that they can claim or if it goes to court and win, are they entitled to claim further costs??  Surely they have spent more than this on all the paper they have sent to me so far- utter madness!!!

2022-09-21 DCBL Settlement before court.pdf

Ah ha,  gotcha, They are both shown in table B1 but I didn't twig that they could be added together

Got it re failure to conform to CPR request and have included the fact in both sections you mention

Thanks again

Guidance appreciated always and in anticipation

 I have been doing my homework reading around legislation and finding examples for the sections you advised

One points for clarification if I may

-The signage in the car park states an 11 min grace period, FTM you quoted 15mins- where have you taken this from, I noted in  the currently withdrawn Gov COP it states 10 min in table B1?

Also - Is the refusal to provide all copies of all correspondence on the matter as requested in the CPR- A legitimate part of defence ? what section would you include this aspect in?

In their response to my CPR request they stated that they had previously provided the documents in their response to my snotty letter after their LOC- which is true

Does this negate raising it in a WS or are the relying on a sentence the include in the letter 

'The courts direct both parties to provide all evidence prior to hearing' to mean that if they really have to put some effort in and photocopy/ reprint some pages and their intimidating tactics don't work that they may do it if they decide to take it to court?

Thanks for your feedback LFI

In my research I noted that the government regulations have been withdrawn at this time which in itself I take as an indication of confusion and difference of opinion between state and the PPC's. OK so there's a planning consent and PCN compliance angle to consider. I totally agree that the 6 minutes overstay (11 mins grace period) could have well been used on entering, manoeuvring etc. given there are several concrete pillars at the site in question

-Through research there seemed to be a theme about not admitting who was driving at the time- The vehicle does have several insured drivers- is this relevant to this case?

-Another angle I think was suggested early on was that loading is not considered parking- Does this carry any weight? I have yet to found any cases citing this? Does the fact that their signage states no waiting or idling is permitted (albeit in small font) cancel this avenue out? but then do we get into the whole debate about whether I entered into a contract with them or not simply by being there?

-Is Covid a mitigation in that many councils and private companies modified their terms to account for the unprecedented times - this case in point happened just as we were coming out of lockdown?

-Further Covid related issue and the reason for the protracted activity was due to the fact that the bike shop (where the drop/ pick up / loading ) was taking place) had a 1 in 1 out policy in operation with hand sanitizing etc. I'm not sure this can be framed as any form of mitigation can it ?

So planning ahead for the WS, taking from past examples, am I right to assume that the sections required (basis of defence) are as follows;

NO KEEPER LIABILTY

LOCUS STANDI

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE- CPR31 request

ABUSE OF PROCESS- Unicorn tax

Re Abuse of process,  In their response to my snotty letter that indicate the signs say additional costs may be incurred but not specifically how much, furthermore they cite the appeal decision of Britannia v Semark-Julien in support of the unicorn tax not being struck out as 'abuse of process'. Reading up on that case it looks like the judge didn't find in either favour and the famous Parking eye v Beavis. which they all cite costs must be in the parking charge itself- Am I right in my understanding of this point?

Thanks HB and yes for sure, I am pulling threads as I go but getting a bit lost as to the the sequence of events, Appreciate your patience and support

An update of events for completeness

Sent E mail to DCBL stating not to use e mail address and have since received a letter from them repeating the same questions from the e mail as I advised in post #96

Previous advice was not to respond on the question re sections of the 2007 Town and planning act so no action regarding that.

I also completed and submitted the defence to the claim on the MCOL portal prior to the deadline and have received an acknowledgement letter from the court. it indicated that the defence had been issued to the claimant and that they had to contact the court within 28 days if they wished to proceed

A week later I received a 'without prejudice to save costs' letter from DCBL offering to settle at £190. I have 7 days to accept or they will continue the normal court process. This seems to be standard practice looking at other threads and I assume the advice is to ignore?

So it looks like unless they drop it at this stage, They will take it to court and I will need to prepare a witness statement. I have found several threads detailing airport slip road stopping and pure gym where signage was changed. In these cases the WS contained quite a bit of specific mitigation such as confusing signs or that the vehicle had broke down.

I have yet to find specific past examples which are closer to my circumstances. Do you believe that they lack of permission for signs not entering into a contact and that loading is not parking are strong enough? I will keep researching

e mail to state do not use e mail sent

Received a letter repeating the same questions I advised in post #96

Previous advice was not to respond on the question re sections of the 2007 Town and planning act so no action regarding that.

I also completed and submitted the defence to the claim on the MCOL portal prior to the deadline-

What are the next possible steps and what are the timescales?

I have read around the subject and have a generic view of a Witness Statement  but do I need to regularly check the MCOL portal for advice that it has ben taken to the next stage?

Appreciate feedback

Ah got it- thanks for clarifying.

There were no attachments to the e mail, In the text referred to all requested information for point 3 of the CPR letter having been supplied hard copy with their original letter of claim which was true.

I am not really on social media so limited avenues to find out my details but somehow they have.

OK witness statements, got it and yes I've been reading around the issue and prepped for the MCOL response which I've got the OK for from you guys- thanks

You mentioned cutting off e mail  - what do you mean by this and how should I effect it, HB suggested I should write to them,

is that the advice without acknowledging the e mail received - seems strange - what reason would I give for assuming they might have it ?

Thanks dx so delete and ignore e mail - got it 

Your right I have bene hasty and missed references when uploading stuff - have not always been near a scanner so using my phone sometimes, but none of that included an e mail address

How do I cut off email ( do you mean block the sender or domain) and what does WS stand for?

When you say scan everything, you mean going forward or are you suggesting that I rescan the collection of NTK's etc that they sent with the response to letter of claim letter?

Thanks for your swift reply HB

The response may refer to and be a valid answer to the request for copies of paperwork in point 3 of the CPR 31 letter to them.

Yes copies of the original NTD, NTK etc. were provided in the LOC response. 

They have not responded to point 1 asking for their contract from OPS and the landowner to make claims on their behalf.

Also  regarding point 3 of my CPR31 letter, they are asking for clarification of the specific section in the 2007 act I refer to.

Firstly I have not explicitly disputed proof 'yet' BUT surely they are familiar or can read the act themselves to determine that they need planning permission for singing.

Is there a technicality here that it only applies to signs of a certain size or if displayed on public property?

Seems someone has taken an interest in this case, could they be tracking this thread and is it a change of tact for private parking companies to respond to these types of requests?

How often do cases that get to this stage go all the way to court?

is it a bully boy approach to scare me and hope I will settle?

I don't think there is any channel for this is there, even if I wanted to?

As a minimum they are on stony ground re the unicorn tax adder so I trust I am right in saying that it is they who are on the backfoot here?

Dear All, Seems the lawyers have got hold of my e mail address somehow, possibly via the MCOL site - so watch out future users

I have received the below communication- How should I respond if at all and I assume it should be via post if I do 

"We write in response to your previous correspondence.

We acknowledge your request for documents however, please be advised the documents have previously been posted to you with our response to your Letter of Claim Response. The courts direct both parties to provide all evidence prior to a hearing.

You dispute the proof of planning permission under the Town and County Planning Act 2007, please direct us to the sections with which you refer to for us to be able to respond accordingly"

Thanks for the confirmation FTM

I've been pre populations some of the screens on the MCOL site

Quick question- do I add my phone number and e mail on the details page or leave them off and rely on postal correspondence only ?