PPS/Gladstones/BW Windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform, - Not Parked In Allocated Bay - Premier Inn, Southernhay Exeter

[keljon]

good spot thank you, i will sort the numbering 

[keljon]

added the following

The ISSUES

 

1.     I parked in what I believed to be an allocated parking bay (Exhibit A2), I had no reason to believe it was anything other than a parking space.

 

2.      the yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines were present the day, I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere.

 

3.     There is no loss incurred by PPS Ltd, I purchased a ticket (Exhibit A1) I was not obstructing anyone, I left well before my ticket expiry.

[brassnecked]

A decent start, now let the others like DX FTMDave and Lookedinforinfo to have a look and suggest other angles to boilerplate it.

[dx100uk]

post hidden don't put up docx file all your pers details are in file/properties/info

[keljon]

apologies, can repost as pdf if needed

 

[dx100uk]

no need use plain text so we can edit please

that seriously needs fluffing out

[keljon]

In the County Court at

******

 

Claim No. ******

Between

Premier Parking Solutions Limited (PPS Ltd) (Claimant) and

Mr **** ***** (Defendant)

 

Witness statement of Mr *** ****, Address: *** ***, *****, *****

 

 

1.    I, **** **** am the Defendant in this claim. 

 

2.    I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number *****.

 

3.    A parking ticket was purchased. Exhibit A1

 

4.    I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay Exhibit A2

 

5.    I returned to my car to find a PCN attached to the window.  Exhibit A3

 

6.    I returned to the site several weeks later as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint Exhibit A4

 

 

PREAMBLE

 

7.     This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated on 14^th *** 2021.

 

8.    Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit A1, Exhibit A2 and so on.

 

The ISSUES

 

9.     I parked in what I believed to be an allocated parking bay (Exhibit A2), I had no reason to believe it was anything other than a parking space.

 

10.   the yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines were present the day, I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere.

 

11.  There is no loss incurred by PPS Ltd, I purchased a ticket (Exhibit A1) I was not obstructing anyone, I left well before my ticket expiry.

 

  

 Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

 

 

Signature: 

 

 

Date: 

 

 

exhibits - Copy.pdf Witness Statement - Draft - Rev01 - Copy.pdf

[dx100uk]

drop 7 its not a skelly its a ws.

 

fluff the rest out.

 

what about case examples ? and look at other ws examples here already.

[keljon]

I was hoping to get some assistance with padding it out, I'm not finding many cases that are similar to mine and I'm cautious of quoting case law that might not be relevant, any advice greatly appreciated

 

 

[keljon]

can i use some of the following

--------------------------------------------------------

It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

 

It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected with the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly. The £100 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticeable and it is unclear as to when this applies.

 

Further, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within the allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

 

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

 

The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The extra, additional costs are an attempt at double recovery.

In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

[keljon]

also i notice in their WS, point 11.1 quotes "All vehicles must park within the allocated bays only, vehicles must not exceed the marked bay areas"

but the sign in their WS on page 9 states "Vehicles must only park wholly within a bay."

 

i think the sign in their WS is not the sign that was up when i parked there because the pictures i took show a similar but different sign with the wording they quote in their WS, not sure if it has any relevance but seems a bit odd

[FTMDave]

Yes, you can use a lot of what you've found - well done!

 

You just need to order them into relevant sections.  One on locus standi.  One on the signage.  One on de minimis.  One on the Unicorn Food Tax.  Etc.

 

I haven't got time to read through the whole thread now, but promise to do so this evening when I knock off work.  Can you confirm however that you have photos of both before and after they painted in their lines?

[dx100uk]

What about planning perm? Checked that?

[keljon]

yes I have pictures of the parking space when I received the windscreen ticket and then a few weeks later when I returned to the site to take pictures of the signage

planning permission for the signage?

[keljon]

so the given address is:-

Premier Parking Solutions Ltd.
Southernhay
Southernhay Gardens
Exeter
EX1 1SG

 

i'm not familiar with the website, but should i expect to see a planning application for signs here (i do not)

http://publicaccess.exeter.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage

 

[keljon]

ref the signs, their witness statement has 2 different signs with different wording (page 6 & 9)

the sign on page 6 with small black font was the sign nearest to where my vehicle was parked.

 

[keljon]

should there also be a planning application for CCTV?

[dx100uk]

It might also be worthy to ridicule some of the case law they mention like bevis etc 

But i think you've got it sown up you paid, displayed, they latter painted lines proves your point.

 

Dx

[keljon]

1. I, **** **** am the Defendant in this claim. 

 

2. I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number ******.

 

3. A parking ticket was purchased. (Exhibit A1)

 

4. I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay. (Exhibit A2)

 

5. I returned to my car to find a PCN attached to the window. (Exhibit A3)

 

6. I returned to the site several weeks later as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint. (Exhibit A4)

 

7. The sign closest to where my vehicle was parked note the small black font for the penalty charge details. (Exhibit A5)

 

 

PREAMBLE

 

8. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit A1, Exhibit A2 and so on.

 

The ISSUES

 

9.    It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

 

10. I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay (Exhibit A2) I had no reason to believe it was anything other than a parking bay.

 

11. The yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines were present the day, I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere.

 

12. It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected with the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly. The £100 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticeable, and it is unclear as to when this applies. (Exhibit A5)

 

13. Further, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within the allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term ‘allocated parking bay’', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

 

14. There is no loss incurred by PPS Ltd, I purchased a ticket (Exhibit A1) I was not obstructing anyone, I left well before my ticket expiry.

 

15. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The extra, additional costs are an attempt at double recovery.

 

16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

 

17. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

 

[keljon]

can i use this......

 

No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge – One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used. The flip side of this is that if there were no legitimate interest, then the charge would be an unenforceable penalty…

The following are examples of charges that are arguably therefore penalties:

• Parking in a space you own but forgetting to display your permit
• Entering an incorrect VRN into a terminal
• Underpaying in a car park where by paying the vehicle is fully entitled to be there
• Parking outside a bay when no other cars are stopped from parking

[FTMDave]

OK, I've finally had time to read through the whole thread.

 

The points you've found are excellent.  I would suggest dividing your WS into sections with sub-headings, and then putting the appropriate points under each section.  For example -

 

Locus standi - they are not the landowner (can't see anything in their contract allowing them to sue rather than the landowner), lack of planning permission.

Signage - pretending to be BPA members (in contradiction of their WS point 5), other points you've made above.

Road markings - painting the yellow lines months later.

De minimis - you paid for your parking and obstructed no-one.

Double recovery/abuse of process - the £60 Unicorn Food Tax they have made up.

[keljon]

1. I, ***** ***** am the Defendant in this claim. 

 

2. I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number ******.

 

3. A parking ticket was purchased. (Exhibit A1)

 

4. I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay. (Exhibit A2)

 

5. I returned to my car to find a PCN attached to the window. (Exhibit A3)

 

6. I returned to the site several weeks later as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint. (Exhibit A4)

 

7. The sign closest to where my vehicle was parked note the small black font for the penalty charge details. (Exhibit A5)

 

PREAMBLE

 

8. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit A1, Exhibit A2 and so on.

 

The ISSUES

 

9.    It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

 

Locus Standi

 

10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

 

11. The defendant has the reasonable belief that no planning application for signage or ANPR cameras in operation has been made to Exeter City Council.

 

Signage

 

12. I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay (Exhibit A2) I had no reason to believe it was anything other than a parking bay.

 

13. It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected within the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly. The £100 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticeable, and it is unclear as to when this applies. (Exhibit A5)

 

14. Further, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within the allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term ‘allocated parking bay’', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

 

 

Road Markings

 

15. The yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines were present on the day I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere.

 

De Minimis

 

16. There is no loss incurred by PPS Ltd, I purchased a ticket (Exhibit A1) I was not obstructing anyone, I left well before my ticket expiry.

 

Double recovery / Abuse of process

 

17. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The extra, additional costs are an attempt at double recovery.

 

 

18. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

 

[keljon]

i have left off the BPA membership because as i understand it, they are IPC members and a BPA associates which does tally up with the signage

 

[keljon]

am I advised to post this to the claimant? filing date is 4pm tomorrow so presumably as long as I post tomorrow and get proof of posting, I'm covered?

any issues submitting this to the court by email?

 

 

[FTMDave]

You have put in a load of research - well done!

 

It reads very well to me.  However, hang on till nearer the deadline before filing it, in case some of the regulars suggest some last tweaking.

 

In 10 I would add that the only evidence they have provided is an old contract from 2015 which does not seem to give them the right to sue under their own name (I've read it quickly and can find no such clause).

 

In 11, after "Exeter City Council" add "Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence and thus no contract can have been formed".

 

In 15 it should be "if those yellow lines had been present".

 

No problem in e-mailing it to the court.  Around when you do that, send the fleecers their copy by first class post and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.