Parking Eye claimform - ANPR PCN Lido car park, Cliftonville, Kent BB on Display

[yourturntopay]

My daughter’s friend had the B.B. - does she need to get a statement from them saying they were used or does this not make any difference?

 

There was plenty of street parking available and had my daughter known parking was chargeable she would never have entered the carpark and parked on the street above the venue.

 

She now refuses to go to the venue because of these charges and her friends have all boycotted the venue too as another of them have been sent a parking invoices but this has not proceeded to a court claim yet. Maybe they are testing the water with my daughters claim first?

[dx100uk]

1000's of claim for the car park I bet .

all default judgements

not relevant.

[yourturntopay]

Do I use the defence in post 48

 

Then mention issues with signage etc in the witness startment?

 

Thank you for all your help xx

[dx100uk]

add about signs too.

 

you cant bring up stuff in your WS that you have not mentioned in your defence or the claimants WS.

 

should be good enough.

 

just make sure you've read each eric post here first incase we've missed anything

[dx100uk]

you did send CPR 31:14?

 

add failure to reply to that too.

[yourturntopay]

Yes, their letter was the response to the CPR letter I sent them.

 

I’ll try and put something together in the morning and post it up x

[ericsbrother]

You say no contract was offered, can you be nmore specific?

If the signage there was so poor it was easily missed do you were unaware there was an offer of a contract then say that.

 

The no contract offered refers to signs that say somethinmg like "no parking" which is a prohibition rather than an offer of a contract.

 

You must read more about this.

The parking pranksters blog has plenty of references to defended claims and then commentary on the whys and wherefores,

 

Do your homeqwork and you will get help,

if you dont help yourself whatever we say will have no real effect because you wont understand the arguments you are putting forward on the day and may well get trampled by the opposition lawyer. Even if your defence is limited then understanding and being able to justify it goes a long way.

 

Please may I check this is the correct defence use?

They have not responded to the CPR letter.

 

No contract offered at the time so no monies can possibly be due

 

The claimant has failed to show any authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public or to make civil claims in their own name. It is the defendants belief that the claimant has no locus standing.

 

you say about your husband's and your own health,

well your daughter has dropped you in this so she should be puttinga bit of work into this to make amends.

 

For bullet points you can adapt the normal 2 line defence thus

 

1. PE has failed to respond to a request for documents they intend to rely on by way of a CPR31.14 request. The defendant therefore does not believe that there is a contract with the landowner in place that assigns the right for them to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name. The defendant thus does not believe they have locus standi in this matter.

 

2. The land has a complex layout and multiple owners and occupiers and the signage there is so poorly laid out it is impossible to tell what land is being managed by Parking Eye and what is being offered as a contract to the driver. It is denied that there was a proper offer and acceptance of any contract. The signage itslf is not illuminated and varies in contant from sign to sign so is thus confusing and contradictory

 

3. The defendant does not belive that PE have the necessary permissions for their signage and equipment to be installed under the 2007 Town and Country Planning Act. As this means the sigange and cameras are there unlawfully no contract can be offered or accepted as it would be a criminal compact.

 

The problem with this is that it limits your arguments slightly but as all of the argument will be about point 2 then that wont really be a disadvantage.

 

On point 3 it is rare for councils to enforce the law but it is on the statute book so relevant.

PE will argue that the signge has deemed consent as it is informational.

 

The examples given by the govt for informational are things like bus stops, railway station name signs and fire exit signs.

 

These are adverts plain and simple so look up the law and also past cases where PE have actually lost on this point.

You can use that later on.

[yourturntopay]

Thank you so much for your help. My daughter has her own issues at present and isn’t able to do this for herself (I will pm to explain as it’s a very difficult and personal matter) so I’m taking it on as the only other option was to pay and I’m not prepared to do this.

 

I have read some of the parking pranksters website but I haven’t had time to digest it all but I will do this. Thank you for the prompt to do so, it’s very much appreciated.

 

The defence in your above post is the one I use for MCOL.

Do I copy and paste and then submit as it is or do I have to format into a witness statement style document?

 

Thank you for your help, I really do appreciate it xx

 

I believe I have to enter my defence by 4pm today (claim issued on 18 Oct, AOS on 30 Oct, so today is lat day to submit defence?)

 

Please may I check that this is the defence I use?

I’m on a lunch break at work and have till 1.15pm to submit my defence as I won’t be able to get online till 6pm tonight.

 

I am unsure about point 2 “varies in content from sign to sign so is thus confusing and contradictory” as I’m not sure this is correct, I will get more photos over the weekend to double check.. Should I remove this line?

 

1. PE has failed to respond to a request for documents they intend to rely on by way of a CPR31.14 request. The defendant therefore does not believe that there is a contract with the landowner in place that assigns the right for them to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name. The defendant thus does not believe they have locus standi in this matter.

 

2. The land has a complex layout and multiple owners and occupiers and the signage there is so poorly laid out it is impossible to tell what land is being managed by Parking Eye and what is being offered as a contract to the driver. It is denied that there was a proper offer and acceptance of any contract. The signage itself is not illuminated and varies in content from sign to sign so is thus confusing and contradictory

 

3. The defendant does not belive that PE have the necessary permissions for their signage and equipment to be installed under the 2007 Town and Country Planning Act. As this means the sigange and cameras are there unlawfully no contract can be offered or accepted as it would be a criminal compact.

[dx100uk]

file it as is 1,2.3 as above

copy it to MCOL website

 

you are a litigant in person [LiP]

so it wont hurt it might be late at all.

[yourturntopay]

Done - thank you so much for the help xx

[ericsbrother]

ask yourself why when you have a defence point you would then decide to ignore it and argue that the claimant doesnt need to have decent signs a car park with many different levels and bays.

 

You were advised to get more photographs with this point in mind

We will also recommend that you make a plan of the site noting where the signs are, an aerial photo from Google earth will be a start.

 

This isnt needed yet but will be for when you exchange documents later on.

 

Read up more on procedure and read a bunch of other threads to get an idea of how these things tend to unfold

[yourturntopay]

Thank you for your help EB.

 

The only part of the defence I didn’t use was

“and varies in content from sign to sign so is thus confusing and contradictory”

 

Because all the wording on the signs are the same (albeit there’s only 2 of them and they are unlit and the second sign is well hidden!)

 

I was concerned that stating the wording was different on each sign was a statement I knew to be untrue and could be held against me if it gets to an actual hearing.

 

I am incredibly sorry if I’ve done something I shouldn’t have. Is there anyway I can correct my mistake and does it harm the defence?

 

I have got all the photos that were requested (including one of the ticket machine which has no sign and only states the amount needed to pay)

 

on the photos I’ve marked where the car was park etc.

They are on post 25, I haven’t posted the ticket machine up but can if that helps.

 

GIs there extra photos I need?

 

I am reading up on past cases and procedures and starting to get to grips with everything,

 

thank you for all your help and advice and please let me know if there is anything I need to do.

 

I am very grateful for your advice and expertise.

 

Thank you xx

[ericsbrother]

the meter doesnt offer a contract and the signs are absent at the entrance.

How is this abundantly clear to you?

 

The contract is only formed when you put the money in the meter so what terms have you accepted?

the none at all according to the entrance (no signs) and none at all according to the meter instructions or some sign that you didnt see.

 

You can be confused by the lack of a coherent offer as much as by signs that say different things.

However, this doesnt change what you have said it adds to it

but you will still need to draw a plan of the site with all of

the signs marked with their sizes, font size and colour etc

as well as noting the location of the meter

and any other furniture such as the cameras,

egress points

bay markings

and disabled bay markings

and signs.

 

If you measure the bays that is also helpful,

there are minimum standards for on road parking bays

so you can then compare and make a popint if what is best practice.

 

All of this helps show the parking co is not diligent and mistakes in one place means that their entire version of things is likely to be built on shaky foundations.

[yourturntopay]

Thank you for your advice EB - I think I understand what you are saying and what I need to do.

 

From what I’ve read so far, the case will now be transferred to my local court and an allocations questionairre will be sent to both parties.

 

PE are mostly likely to ask for a paper hearing, which we refuse and ask for a oral hearing.

It’s then a case of who blinks first and we will need to witness statements etc done when we know a hearing date is set.

 

I already have a rough plan of the carpark drawn out and where the signs are located (or hidden maybe a better adjective to use!)

Their car park seems to be split in 2 and it is confusing to know if the area my daughter was part of the car park is are no parking bays marked out in the area, no visable signs, no directions to the parking meter etc.

The only camera is the one above the ticket machine.

 

Is there anything I need to do whilst we wait for the next stage of events?

 

Thank you for the help x

[ericsbrother]

PE wont ask for a paper hearing,

they use their own staff to litigate and then use a local solicitor.

 

It is members of the IPC who are persuaded by Gladstones,

who are the IPC in another frock,

who ask for a paper hearing because they dont write proper POC's

and prefer to use evidence that isnt actually applicable/false as they know that these will be torn apart in an oral hearing.

 

So back to my point about confusing signage.

 

You now reiterate the split of the car park and how it is confusing

- the exact point I suggested for your defence and you threw it away.

 

You are going to find it difficult to reintroduce that now and may well get challenged over it when you do and then lose out on a very major point to be scored.

 

You have made their job much easier for them.

[yourturntopay]

How have I thrown this away,

as I have stated that the car park layout is complex

and the that signage is very poorly laid out

and therefore impossible to tell what is managed by PE

and what is being offered to the driver in the form of a contract.

I also mentioned that the signs are not illuminated.

 

Does this not give scope to cover the defence that charges can not be applied as the driver was unaware a charge for parking existed due to the poor layout,

no lighting within the carpark

and all signage within said car park are unlit/not illuminated

and not visable in the dark .

The land is improperly marked and there is no indication of parking bays or any form of parking markings on the land.

 

The driver was unable to identify the carpark was subject to charges as there was no visable signs or markings that identified this at the time of day the driver was charged.

[ericsbrother]

I was referring to that point, not your entire defence.

 

We try to make the defence response to claim as vague as possible so what is said covers as much as possible

 

hence the usual "no contract entered into" covers a multitude of points from not using POFA to create a liability to the colour of the words on the sign.

 

Now PE are pretty good at making their signage clear on most of their newer signs so you do have to be a little more specific.

 

The idea of this is to make them think about whether they really wish to put more effort and money into continuing or not by providing enough detail for them to consider.

 

What you cant do is introduce new points that are not covered in your skeleton argument.

 

The points you expand upon are partailly covered by other points and PE will be producing images from their sign catalogue rather than from the site itself so be set to compare what they have with what you have.

 

Most judges give a large amount of leeway so make sure that you get all of this detail in your witness statement so it cant be said you are trying to ambush them.

 

The irony is the parking co;s are notorious for trying to introduce new evidence at the last moment, usually as they realise theur claim is going to be trashed by a decent defence.

 

Display or otherwise of the BB uis irrelevant as private land (unless there is specific signage that applies at both the entrance and the applicable spaces or the land is in Scotland and part of the local council scheme) is not part of the BB scheme and their ANPR capture only records entry and exit so an argument about the equalities act provisions is for another place.

Edited November 22, 2017 by honeybee13
Paras

[yourturntopay]

Thank you for your response EB. I think I understand what you are saying. Apart from reading as much as I can about defending claims from parking eye there isn’t much I can do until I get the witness statement from PE?

 

Once this has been sent then it’s a case of addressing each point on their WS.

 

From what I understand the PE are going argue their signage is very clearly laid out, the correct size and fully compliant with parking regulations etc so therefore they believe they are justified to peruse a charge for parking.

 

My defence will be that no matter how compliant the signs are in daylight they are not visable in the dark and therefore are not compliant and the driver was unaware of any contract being offered. Will this be a good enough reason to get the claim dismissed/for PE to be unsuccessful in their claim?

 

I’ve taken a lot of photos of the car park which clearly shows there is no lighting within the carpark and that none of the signs have any form of illumination. I’m intrigued to see what they will do to overcome this issue and what evidence they produce in regards to this.

 

Based upon your experience how are PE are going to address/overcome this issue and is there anything I need to do regarding this?

 

Thank you for your all help and advice x

[ericsbrother]

you will need to submit your own WS and if she can attend, your daughter as well.

 

You have grasped the points we are trying to make and so as long as you can put it in a coherent WS and refer in that to your pictures, maps, othwer compelling or persuasive cases ( Parking pranksters blog is a goldmine for that- copy the relevant ones as well as quoting them) you stand a very good chance of showing that PE's claim is baseless.

 

From what you have written here I think you will present things very well and that also helps judges form opinions on the veracity of the statement when there is a differnce of evidence submitted.

 

If and when it does get to a hearing date let us know so we can nudge you to make sure you have everything you need, including the kitchen sink.

 

PE will more than likely use a third party to present fo them and that leaves themselves open to challenge on their rights of audience, whether their WS is a true account ( if written by a law firm paralegal as many are they can't talk about it as they have no first hand knowledge) and so on

Edited November 22, 2017 by honeybee13
Paras

[yourturntopay]

I have some questions and would be extremely grateful if anybody could some advice please?

 

PE have sent a reply to defence.

There has been no communication from the court,

should we have heard anything from the court

 

should I contact them to see what is happening?

(I’ve attached a photo money claim online that shows the status of the claim)

 

The majority of the defence is about the 2 cases they have won.

 

They do respond to the matter of the unlit signs (page 7 of defence) and state mention the signs are adequately lit by the lamp posts in the carpark.

 

I am guessing they have just used info they have on file and haven’t really doubled checked their facts as there are no lampposts in the car park.

 

The photos they have provided show there are no lampposts!

 

They also state that there are 9 signs within the car park but their photo only shows 3. In the area the car was parked their photos show no signs at all in the area and it is on a lower level to the where the entrance and ticket machine is.

 

My photos are a lot clearer than theirs and clearly show there are no lampposts in the car park.

 

The only lighting is via security floodlights about the entrance of the 2 buildings and the signs are nowhere near the signs, this offering no illumination on the signs.

 

Do I now build a defence around these points and send it to the court or should I wait until instructed to do so?

 

All and any advice is deeply appreciated and gratefully received. X

[DragonFly1967]

Your personal details, including your full name and address, are clearly visible on that ParkingLie document. You might want to delete that and hide them before re-uploading.

 

Click here >> https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/profile.php?do=editattachments to delete the attachment.

[yourturntopay]

Thank you for letting me, I thought I’d got them all, hopefully ive done a better job this time

 

I’ve also attached a colour copy of the car park signage layout plan map as I realised you couldn’t see all the sign indicators on the black and white copy.

 

There are 9 signs indicated so I was wrong saying 3 in my earlier post. However there is still no lampposts or adequate lighting fas claimed by PE.

 

The car park is on a lower level than the road and faces the sea so any road lighting would have no impact upon the carpark and where the signs are are very difficult to see the dark and if you did get out the car and actually found them in the dark you wouldn’t be able to read them anyhow.

 

Am I right in thinking that it’s PE{s responsibility to ensure the signs are adequately visable in the dark, so the suggestion of using headlights to light up the signs is unreasonable?

reply to defence.pdf

[DragonFly1967]

Just meandering thoughts for a future witness statement or perhaps questions to ask on the day.

 

It certainly wouldn't hurt to go here >> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3920042,1.3912725,3a,60y,9.63h,81.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJQwJZ39Zrqsrl3LD3HAIdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Print 3 copies of that, and then move to the left, print 3 copies of that etc, until you have a collage of the car park as visible from the road. The Google images (from the road) were taken in July 2017. ParkingLie claim that there are "Lampposts in the car park", so you'll be able to ask the ParkingLie advocate to point them out to both you and the judge. It'll be interesting to see them try

 

There is nothing on the signs (that ParkingLie have produced in their evidence) to suggest that BB holders are not exempt from charges. In fact, there's nothing regarding BB's on their signs at all. If BB parking in council run car parks in the area is free (it usually is) without evidence to the contrary on their own signs, it's probably not unreasonable to believe that this was also the case in this car park as it doesn't say any different.

[ericsbrother]

PE have a responsibility to make their signage visible if they want it to form a contract.

 

Saying things like you must take a torch with you so your lawyer can read the offer and then advise you whether to accept or not is risible and many a claim has been chucked out for lack of illumination on the signage.

 

Have you enquired with the local council to see if PE have planning consent for their signs and cameras?

 

The consent for cameras is different to that for signs so there is a much greater chance they wont have bothered to sort this out properly.

 

Look up the ownership of the land because if you look at companies house register for Stour Side Investments something stinks as the only director owns a minority of the shares and no-one else appears to have any significant interest in the company.

This may not help you regarding authority but it may do.

 

Also if you look at the contract they have included on p10 of their evidence it isn't a contract at all but just a confirmation of the authority.

 

For all anyone else knows the contract was only for 6 months and expired yonks ago.

 

Funny how thye have done that,

PE have a lot of previous on this,

some would call it lying

but it is certainly intended to tell a story that might not be true and is done on purpose.

 

also they want to quote CPR 16 and turn that into something it doesnt say.

 

If you deny that a contract exists it does not mean you have admitted everything else they claim and they know it

 

Their main sign isnt a contract but an "invitation to treat so in essence you are not bound by the terms offered in the contract proper

 

This sign doesn say no parking unless you agree to the tiny writing n some sign iles away does it? The offer is to park.

 

the other signs mentioning tariffs dont have terms that are liegible with an electron microscope, let along at a distance in the dark.

 

So it appears as though you pay £x to park for a given length of time and £100 if you park on a yellow line. That is all,

 

nothing about paying them £100 for not paying to park Well

 

, if these terms are not made clear then no breach has occurred and combined with the invitation to treat signage at the entrance should leave them with nothing to ask for.

 

If there was a b clause in writing the same size as the tariff of charges saying failure to feed the machine will result in a flat fee charge of £100 fair enough but their aint no such clause.

 

Another point that has never been used

- if all of this is so transparent at nearly midnight why do they use infra red cameras instead of daylight sensitive ones?

 

Obvious answer is because they would never see your number plates but worth throwing it back at them when they say lighting is good enough

 

dont forget,

their WS will be signed by some paralegal so you should ask to cross examine them on the day.

 

If the person attending isnt the same person their their WS is no such thing as they dont have a witness. Another pint often missed by both sides.

[dx100uk]

I've sorted the attachments and put them back up as one file too

 

interesting

there no such thing as a reply to a defence.

they made that term up ....

 

they've sent that to scare you...urm..

 

wonder why...FIND IT they are LYING!!