Euro/gladstones PCN claimform - Chamberlain Buildings ***Claim Dismissed***

[Rincon]

Nice one.

unable to confirm 10 minute rule for all, only council and where a ticket needs to be purchased??

[dx100uk]

its part of both IAS and BPA guidelines..stuff all to do with the council...….

[Rincon]

Well put! 

[shamrocker]

The IPC seem to have removed the actual time element for the grace period - albeit, the 10 minutes has only applied to leaving the site for a fair while now (not for accepting terms upon arrival). It's generally been a case of "must allow sufficient/reasonable time for the driver to read and accept terms" upon arrival - i.e. open to interpretation.

 

https://theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf

 

Have they actually stated an observation time on the ticket and/or NOK? Sorry, I've not read through all posts.

Edited May 27, 2019 by shamrocker

[dx100uk]

don't forget this event happened last October?

was that still inplace then?

[Rincon]

NTK-issue date 12/09/2018

contravention date 06/09/2018

contravention time 12.51

period of parking 12.40.44

to 12.46.08.

date stamped on 8 CPR request images showing 'defendent ' getting back into car and the walk back to it and other random people.

 

So read terms for 4 minutes and decided not to accept them??

[shamrocker]

23 hours ago, dx100uk said:

don't forget this event happened last October?

was that still inplace then?

The 10 minutes grace period to leave the site after the period of parking had ended was definitely on there last October, but they'll probably say it wasn't. How do you prove otherwise?

 

This issue involves a grace period to accept the terms though, rather than leave the site after completing the period of parking.

 

One thing of note, is that signage states "no grace period applies", which is a breach of their COP. Probably worth arguing that this makes any contract with the driver invalid - or at least that they cannot even follow their own rules.

Edited May 28, 2019 by shamrocker

[Rincon]

The proof regarding the 'grace period', there are a couple of images where they have included an on site notice with my daughter having walked past and you can see that that it says as such.

im still more bothered about the NTK stating captured by manual means when it's obvious, it's NPR cameras some aerial.

i appreciate the support but the time I've spent on this, makes me realise why people just roll over to these plotters!! I shan't incidentally.

[shamrocker]

The grace period won't and shouldn't be your one and only argument (not suggesting you're saying it is), but you'd need to build an argument around it and use their own COP terms against them. They can't just stroll along when they see a breach of parking terms and issue a ticket on the spot, as many seem to do. Yours is slightly different as there is an observation period being stated - but that doesn't mean they are in the clear.

 

There are numerous reasons stated further back which are much stronger than the grace period - specifically stating that no grace period applies being one, as it likely makes the contract invalid. Just start compiling a list of the main points and you can then expand upon them when you come to writing the WS. They'll most likely not rely on POFA either, so that can be your insurance policy.

Edited May 29, 2019 by shamrocker

[Rincon]

Thanks shamrocker. I'm up to speed with this and there are many points already collated against these scumbags. Signage at the site entrance being the main one. Invitation to treat for a start.

 

[ericsbrother]

10 minute rule is set by BPA code of practice and thus IPC members have to follow suit UNLESS they can show that they have a better system.

 

Stop reading things into this that arent there, it is universal so doesnt matter what the alleged breach is.

This came about as the result of a court case so  no argument against it will stand up in court.

 

The parking co's problem is that they arent saying the breach was a particular thing so they cant later say that you also did this and did that so you still owe us money when it becomes apparent that they are onto a loser with their cause for action written in their claim.

 

they could have said at the time that you breached 3 conditions so owe £100 for each breach but they didnt.

 

Address what they are saying and have all of the other points documented in case but dont offer them a reason for trying to stretch this out to include other points.

 

You have them by the nadgers over the filming of passengers or passers by and their own evidence on timing kills the substance of their claim, they cnat say an event caused you to be liable at a particular time whe you werent even there.

 

If a council issued you a parking ticket for parking on a single yellow line at 12.05 when the limited time started at 12.00 but you had left at 11.46 you would have to apy and the argument that we thought you were going to stop longer so it would have been a breach woldnt wash so this claim is equally flawed.

[Rincon]

Ok-point taken. The alleged offence was parking outside of a marked bay, just for clarity.

 

[ericsbrother]

I know but the 10 minute grace period still applies cos you have to park up and read the signge to know this so they cant say that it is only for overstaying, leaving site, having round wheels  or whatever, it is universal.

 

I am saying dont allow yourself to get into a slippery slope argument or even acknowledge an alternative point of view on this,

they have said you breached a specific condition and you didnt because of the grace rule ( and all of the other arguments)

 

You dont allow them to add other arguments that may cover other things you arent accused of.

[Rincon]

As previous: point taken, they must be nuts to consider proceeding with this but these things have to be endured. I still like knowledge all the same.

[Rincon]

So 6 weeks after my last post-have received -Notification of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (HEARING)

Much encouragement to use the mediation service.(again)

 

Request for copies of documents to be used at hearing be sent to the other party and the court.

 

Requires  a witness statement and sets out how this should be compiled.

Where do I request that I may speak as a lay person on behalf of the defendant?

The hearing is 5 weeks away, so time to get it clear in my mind by then.

 

[ericsbrother]

you should look up the rules for having a lay rep and get the defendant to send in a letter with the court bundle to state that they will be using one.

 

It isnt compulsory but will make life a damned sight easier and avoid upsetting the judge. Quote the relevant regs, they are easily found.

 

Note that this is different to a Mckenzie friend.

 

No need to tell the other side of the intent t use a lay rep, not thier business.

 

As for the Witness Statement, this has to be sent to court and copy to claimant a fortnight before the hearing unless instructed otherwise. If they failt to get theirs in defendants hands on time then a complaint to court by email, fax or whatever.

 

When you get their bundle post it up so we can pick throught it and allow you to write a rebuttal if there is time

[AndyOrch]

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27/pd_part27#3.1

[Rincon]

In the Particulars of Claim. From GLADSTONES  they have included copies of 2 notices that don't exist and other random images we need to refer to these in the WS but they are not numbered?

should I write to Gladdies?

[dx100uk]

we've never seen the particulars of this claim from the claimform you got.

but I seriously doubt it included any documents or photos on the claimform..

[Rincon]

As suggested I made and received a CPR 31.14 request. And they supplied a photo of a notice which does not exist on site. I've checked twice.

 

           PRIVATE LAND

Pre-authorised vehicles and permit holders only

See signs on site for full terms and conditions.

 

 

I might just include a copy. In one of the WS.

 

Yes you are correct . Nothing on claim form but they expand on the POC

[dx100uk]

the poc is on the claimform!

 

I will assume you mean their witness statement or CPR return?

 

which we have not seen yet!

[ericsbrother]

so the sign they have invented actually damages their claim more than the real ones. It says that you cant park and that you need to refer to terms that are not available so breaching S62 of the consumer Rights Act and that means you may reject the entire contract.

[Rincon]

Dx100uk. No I don't mean their WS . The claim form just outlined their claim. The particulars of claim that they supplied at my request had the none visible sign I referred to and all sorts of contradictory images which I can challenge via our WS assuming we get to court.

[dx100uk]

they cant supply additional/change the particulars of claim without court permission.

 

what request did you supply to get this..you mean your CPR 31:14 - and their reply to it.

that's not a POC

 

im seriously doubting your capabilities here and you are going to be a lay rep for them...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rincon]

Not sure why you feel the need to be insulting. However I'm not offended and yes you are correct in paragraph 2 above.

we are on the same side my friend...