KBT/Armtrac/BW Windscreen PCN Claimform - blown away ticket- Lusty Glaze car park, Newquay - Advice Please

[lookinforinfo]

 

The NTD which was placed on your car is not compliant with PoFA. It is supposed to show the period of parking when the alleged breach occurred. Instead it shows your arrival and leaving times only and as that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot, parking then leaving the parking spot and driving out of the car park which is not parking, the parking period is wrongly timed and therefore does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms 2012. Nor does it say that  Armtrac is the creditor.

 

When you appealed you must have revealed that you were the driver as they don't appear to have sent you a Notice to keeper. They cannot therefore pursue you as the keeper-only the driver, which they think is you, is liable. 

 

When you appealed, if you said for example that I purchased the ticket instead of the driver purchased the ticket, that would be proof enough  that you were the driver. And once you have admitted that, there is no need for an NTK.

 

Signage

You should mention that the entrance sign does not offer a contract only an invitation to treat since it does not exhibit all the T&CS-they are inside the car park.

Their signage does not comply with PoFA. There is a minimum ten minute consideration period yet their notices require payment to be made within ten minutes which is against the Act especially as it can take several minutes to make the phone call not only when the phone is engaged. That renders the whole sign and their T&CS  unenforceable. And even worse is the Just Park pay machine which demands that payment is required on arrival.

 

The new Act reinforces the original PoFA regarding planning permission for signs and cameras under the Town and Country  [Advertisements] Regulations.

14.1

" g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs   "

[FTMDave]

And here I was calling your a Night Owl LFI

 

39 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

When you appealed, if you said for example that I purchased the ticket instead of the driver purchased the ticket, that would be proof enough  that you were the driver. And once you have admitted that, there is no need for an NTK.

IIRC this is exactly what the OP did, so I was wrong, the POFA argument goes in the bin.

[lookinforinfo]

 

That is why our advice is not to appeal.

 

I am trying to get to bed at a decent hour Dave  but after midnight my daughter and I have races to see who can win at Wordle, and Quordle.  Sometimes we also do Hexordle and Octordle  just for the hell of it.

 

 

[Willow2020]

Hi all, sorry for the delayed reply.

 

At the beginning of all this I stupidly contacted them direct to say I had a valid ticket and explained I bought the ticket thinking common sense would prevail and I was dealing with decent people..... So they have in an email that 'I bought the ticket' but at no point have I said I was the driver.

 

Thank you for letting me know that sending the documents by email is ok as it gives me a little more time to add to the WS, regarding sending this to the fleecers does this also have to be sent before 4pm on the 6th ? Should I send it by post or email which they have anyway.

 

[FTMDave]

Given the urgency and the fact the fleecers have your e-mail address anyway I would simply e-mail the court on Friday as near to 4pm as possible and copy to the fleecers.

 

Obviously put the claim number in the subject field, and the names of the parties.

 

The judge seems to be playing some game here with such a strict deadline months before the hearing date, and it might work out very badly for the fleecers.

 

Long term we need to stop KBT having access to your e-mail address, but we can cross that bridge after 6 May.

[Willow2020]

Regarding the PCN it states the observed time and then 19 minutes later the time of issuing the pcn that 's all, can I use the points that this isn't compliant, it does say Armtrac Security on the front but does this ticket specifically have to state creditor on it? I just want to make sure I don't trip up on myself if this is used.

 

Also they have now changed / updated their signage from when I went 6 months ago to take pictures of the car park having no marked bays, in 2020 they didn't have a Just Park machine I don't think (picture attached) . I have attached a copy of their signage from Jan 2020.

Lusty Glaze signage.pdf Lusty Glaze Pay Machine.pdf

 

meant to read ' their signage has changed / updated from the original in 2020, I went 6 months ago to take pictures of the car park...'

 

There witness statement has just landed, please find attached. Any help is very much appreciated

KBT Witness statement.pdf

[FTMDave]

Not respecting POFA doesn't mean the fleecers' claim isn't valid, what it does mean is that, not knowing who was driving the vehicle, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

 

But you told them you purchased a ticket which, according to two Caggers on your thread who are POFA experts (unlike me!) means you have admitted to being the driver.  So all the stuff about POFA needs to be forgotten about.

 

Also cut out the paragraph I suggested "I would have liked to expand on some legal points but I have reduced this Witness Statement to respect the Court's 5-page limit and deadline" as the fleecers too have, incredibly, respected the judge's order.

 

What you have prepared is superb and already good enough to put up an excellent case in court.  It's likely that the judge will rule on whether displaying the ticket was "de minimis".  Obviously if your WS can be tweaked after reading the fleecers' WS, even better.  I have a full day at work now until 20:45 UK time but promise to look in straight away afterwards.

 

A very, very quick scroll through the fleecers' bilge leads me to think a quick paragraph in your DOUBLE RECOVERY section is in order - It is irrelevant (Claimant's point 10) what the IAS - a biased, breakaway parking association - considers reasonable.  Point 9 of the government's Code of Practice (Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019) is crystal clear "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued".

 

If you end up going over the five pages there are bits which can easily be pruned from your various sections.

 

After boasting about the IAS, in their "contract" with the landowner it's stated the fleecers must follow the BPA code of practice!  So the contract is clearly out of date.

 

More later.

[FTMDave]

Very quickly as I have two minutes.  Your points 6 & 7 need to be changed completely.  Delete what you'd prepared as they have finally produced a contract.  Instead point out that the contract is ancient, dating back to 2012.  There is no proof it is still valid.  indeed its point 1 one states that Armtrac are members of the BPA yet their own WS point 10 states they are members of the IPC.  The contract point 3 c gives Armtrac the right to sue for trespass, yet their claim is not for trespass.

 

More later.

[Willow2020]

Hi FTMDave, can't thank you all enough for the help and spending your own time on this.

 

I have attached a new draft of the ws taking into account some new points, let me know what you think / what to add when you get chance, I appreciate you are busy with your own work.

WS.pdf

[Willow2020]

Just realised the numbering isn't correct, sent as pdf before checking, this will be amended.

[lookinforinfo]

I am reading their rubbish WS but have noticed that you have not posted up their signage. There are often problems with the signage that can blow the case out of the water before the Judge even gets to the  fluttering ticket.. In fact can you please upload all they sent-I take it planning permission was not included?

 

 

[Willow2020]

I've attached the other things they have sent, the multiple pictures of the signage are dated 2015 and they have also added a skeleton argument?

KBT Signage.pdf

 

Sorry had problems uploading this one

KBT Skeleton Argument.pdf

[FTMDave]

Let's deal with their WS first.

 

There's not a lot there, they do what the PPCs always do, go on & on & on & on & on about you breaking one of their rules, of course without any discussion about if the rule made any sense or had any basis in law in the real world.  You've already dealt with most of their repetitive bilge.

 

I know you have already attacked their signage but on top what they have sent is a glorious own goal.  You can refer to their photo of the signage which shows the T&Cs in tiny font compared to the car park charges, and on top of the that the part about displaying a ticket is in even smaller font on a red background which makes it nigh-on impossible to read.

 

Onto your WS in a minute ...

[FTMDave]

Not of vital importance, but I would put your NO LOCUS STANDI title above para 6.  I think it's more logical that way.

 

Through changes this afternoon you haven't got a para 7.  So let's make this 7!  7.  The contract in point 3 c authorises the Defendant to take legal action only for trespass, yet their claim is not for trespass.

 

In para 12, again not vitally important, but I would remove "KBT Cornwall Ltd are claiming £258.54".  They are allowed to claim some of these costs, we have to highlight what they have no right to claim.

 

I think it might be useful here to include the government's CoP as an exhibit, as it is new, and the judge may not be aware of it.  I don't think you need to include the whole thing, maybe the title, weblink and part 9.

 

Para 14 needs to go completely.  They are allowed to claim this £50.  To state otherwise is an own goal.

 

Change the start of para 16.  16.  In para 11 of their Witness Statement the Claimant is being somewhat disingenuous when they mention one persuasive argument that went in a parking company's favour, while ignoring the many persuasive cases which did not.  In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby ...

 

Between your current (4) and (5) stick in: 

 

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE

 

5.  The Claimant's own photos of their signage shows the Terms and Conditions in tiny font compared to the car park charges, and futhermore the condition about displaying the ticket is in even smaller font on a red background which makes it nigh-on impossible to read.

 

Make those changes, then please come back with a new version and we can see if you're still within the five pages or if something needs to be pruned.

[lookinforinfo]

I would make the following observations to their WS in no particular order.

 

At point 22 DCB Legal finally admit that the driver did purchase a ticket.  The placing of the receipt on the windscreen is the proof that the ticket has been paid for. Any reasonable company would drop the case after receiving proof of payment. Especially as on the day it was an extremely windy day and the car would have rocked quite violently as a result and KBT should have provided sticky receipts. On top of that under the new Private Parking Code of Practice that came into force in 2019 recommended that operators should look inside the car for fallen tickets before issuing a PCN. Obviously that was not done in this case and nor was it the only time that KBT failed with regards to the new Act.

 

The entrance sign is what determines whether motorists are being offered a contract. The one at Lusty Glaze does not. It only provides an offer to treat. The bulk of the signs have too small a font size and the photographs shown on the WS are virtually unreadable. Nor do any photographs actually show where the car was parked.

 

In the contract no. 3c at the final section it allows those who are not exhibiting their receipt on the windscreen are Authorised to be taken to Court and be sued for trespass. You paid your money so you were not a trespasser and therefore  KBT do not have the permission to take you to Court.   Very important. You could probably make this your first point.

 

At point 12 they complain about motorists using the web. 

When the parking companies lie in their Witness Statements-  one Judge said about Parking Eye that "their WS was tantamount to perjury":  they  lie in court eg  they do not need pp for their signs and cameras or  pp can be obtained retrospectively and they  lie about additional charges which have been described by a Government minister as "a rip off" then motorists have to go somewhere to counteract the rapacity and greed of many parking companies. So bad has their behaviour  become that the Government brought out the new Act to curb the excesses of the" rogue companies".

 

Point 13. 

Far from the Defendant having escalated the matter disproportionally  s a bit rich from a company that is unlawfully 

overcharging the Defendant by almost double the legal amount. 

 

In Schedule 4 s7[2] 

(c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice;

 it is quite clear that Parliament regarded the amount on the Sign as the maximum amount to be charged. The new Act that came out in 2019  s9

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

It beggars belief that DCB Legal have not advised their client to remove such spurious extra charges and they must surely be aware of the new Act. They must know that the decision by HHJ Saffman was an outlier spoken by a Judge who does not often get involved in PoFA cases whereas the majority of District Judges who are regularly dealing with these unlawful claims throw them out. 

 

In the light of PoFA and the new Act it would appear that KBT are one of the companies depicted as one of the rogues the Government  are rightly targeting.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Quick alteration. The Private parking Act came partly into force in February 2022.

 

Also their Supplementary WS should be challenged as they are trying to get round the Judge's request.

In any event it is a load of b..........s.

 

They are trying hard to justify the extra costs over £100. I have already pointed out in my previous post  what the will of Parliament is. No more than £100. Also bad to use an unreported case as we cannot refute what was said

 

HHJ Saffman is wrong. He has admitted that many of his District Judges did not agree with him and his judgement was not obiter. Like Simkiss, they had not seen the confirmation from the new Act that reinforces what PoFA has always said.

 

The extra charges are not allowed-they are against the Law. The IPC Code of Conduct breaks the Law.

 

Why can they break the law by not having planning permission but they expect you to pay when you didn't break the Law and actually paid for your ticket.

 

Ask the Judge to dismiss their case as having no merit. Plus their signs break the law by allowing debt recovery charges

 

Sorry to give you extra work but it will pay dividends. If you word it right, Armtrac might withdraw before the case is heard.

[Willow2020]

Wow, thank you again for the help with this, been working on it all morning and managed to get down to the 5 pages. If you get chance please have a look and then I can get this emailed over to the court before the deadline.

WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

In para (6) change the sentence "In the contract no. 3c at the final section it allows those who are not exhibiting their receipt on the windscreen are authorised to be taken to Court and be sued for trespass" to "In the contract no. 3c at the final section it allows those who are not exhibiting their receipt on the windscreen to be sued for trespass, yet this claim is not for trespass".

 

Read your last page word for word.  You'll see at a certain point it goes wonky and there are extra paragraphs inserted into para (12).

 

Point 9 of the government's CoP would have been useful but I understand you've limited for space.

 

Well done on challenging the fleecers' attempts to get round the 5-page limit limit.

[Willow2020]

Thanks FTMDave,  I have made the changes you have suggested, in my exhibits I have attached CoP, weblink and point 9 for it to be referred to, couldn't get it on due to the 5 pages.

 

Shall I get this emailed over now?

Ive not attached it as I have added my details, etc. so its ready to be emailed over, conscious of the time limit

[Willow2020]

All sent! Many thanks for the help and advice, it has been greatly appreciated. I will keep you informed of the progress!

[lookinforinfo]

That was an excellent WS-congratulations.  KBT would be best advised not to waste their money on your case. Sadly greed and stupidity are common bedfellows for the parking crooks.

[FTMDave]

Any update?  You mentioned the hearing was in August.

[Willow2020]

Hi FTMDave, 

 

The court cancelled the hearing the day before due to Judicial availability, so the date is now change to December.

 

Caused quite a few issues for myself and cost but have to wait for a few months now to get this resolved.

[FTMDave]

Sorry to hear about the further delay.

 

However, I've just reread your thread from the start and the WS you have prepared to battle these charlatans is superb.

[dx100uk]

what happened here?