Bank Park ANPR PCN Claimform - Blue Car Park 2 Merry Hill Brierley DY5 1QX - *** Claim Dismissed ***

[lookinforinfo]

Can the team confirm that a contract with parking companies need to include their right to take motorists who allegedly owe money to Court. This contract stops after they have the right to use Debt Collectors so from that I take it that they cannot take people to Court . On my previous post I said that the contract confirmed that  Bank park had to observe all laws relating to the running of this car park so the exceprt from their contract is shown below.

claimant supplementary WS redacted 2 pdf (1).pdf

Edited March 30, 2021 by lookinforinfo
Additional info

[Andy711351]

''Lookingforinfo:  Regarding the lack of Council permission two things spring to mind.

1] the IPC insist that all their members comply with all applicable laws for parking and it is that adherence to the IPC Code that enables them to access DVLA records.

3.1 Outside of this Code  [the IPC code], it is members responsibility to ensure they adhere to all relevant legal provision''

 

Thankyou Looking for info:

 

I therefore understand that as there is no proof provided that they have permission for the council ( i have done my won search on Dudley Council website), and have received a rather unhelpful email reply from Planning duty officer at Dudley council - see my post #98), Bank have not adhered to their code of practice ....etc and hence their acces to the DVLA records is invalid as they havent adhered to the code. Am I correct thats what you mean?

 

 

Post #99 Gick refers to deemed consent etc not being applicable to this case as this is an ADVERTISEMENT and hence consent is needed. Only thing I want to point out is that if the signage is less than 0.3 square meter ( ie 0.55 mx 0.55 m), then consent is not needed . This is from the  booklet published by the Communities and Local Government called Outdoor advertisements an signs: a guide for advertisers. 

 

so even if consent is needed from the the authotites, given that the signaes are in fact less than 55cm x 55cm, do Bank really need to have still sought permission for such signages?

 

 

And while they state in the contract that Bank are responsible for running the car park issuing NTKs , Reminders and Debt Collection under 'Administration" nowhere does it allow them to take out Court proceedings. And the fact that the Land owner allows 30 minute grace time would further suggest that want their carpark run in a more lenient  fashion than most land owners

 

Can the team confirm that a contract with parking companies need to include their right to take motorists who allegedly owe money to Court. This contract stops after they have the right to use Debt Collectors so from that I take it that they cannot take people to Court . 

 

BTW, in the communications from Bank Park - Bank Park themselves, not debt collectors or solicitors - is there anything written about the letter coming from their legal department or saying the case will be/has been passed to a legal department?

 

I have seen what lookiforinfo is eluding to in the contract supplied in the Claimant supplement WS , so strictly speaking who should have taken me to the court. FTM Dave, are you also asking the question for the same purpose?

[Andy711351]

The court date is next Thursday 8th April.

 

I called the court yesterday and spoke to one of the very helpful ladies handling the court. She said , if you want, you can send an email with any relevant points, given that you feel the claimant has filed/served their supplement WS well beyond the deadline of the 1st feb 2021. 

 

She said email the court and we will pas sit to the judge

 

 

So, can someone please advise me further. Shall I email the court a supplement Defence Statement, or just an email and keep  it brief.

 

Also, given we are a week away, I have raised a few questions in my post #98, so can someone please advise if they are able to do so.

 

I really do want to send and email to the court with a few points. if they choose to ignore it, then be it, but at least I wont have much to lose. 

 

Thankyou all

[Andy711351]

Essentially, I do want to submit a supplementary defence WS. if they are allowed to submit a supplementary WS well beyond the deadline of 1st Feb ( they serve /filed the supplement on the 17th Feb 2021) why can it i file/serve a  supplement  defence by tomorrow

 

Somehow, by either an email or a proper Supplementary  Defence, I do want to get something to the court before the court date of 8th of April 2021

[FTMDave]

On 29/03/2021 at 14:27, Andy711351 said:

So  i suppose the signages seems to be the most important point. As you know what is available to the judge would be the exhibits and the electronic copies of the signages . How will i be able to actually; proof that thy are small enough in real life. The judge , as pointed, will see the electronic versions as in the exhibits supplied by the claimant, or even a printed copy. How, can I , as the defendant, on the day , actually proof that the signages in real life ( I have revisited the site) are in fact so small ?

 

This will probably be a virtual hearing, with the judge looking at the signs on their computer.  You should have ample opportunity to state your case.  Simply tell the judge the truth, that in their WS they have blown up the signs, and ask the judge to reduce the pictures to normal size and look at the difference between the large font and the miniscule writing where they have hidden away the £90/£100 charge.

 

14 hours ago, Andy711351 said:

FTM Dave, are you also asking the question for the same purpose?

 

No, it was just an vague idea, because all of the PPCs come out with the same lazy reasoning to justify the £60 Unicorn Food Tax, which is to say they don't normally deal with legal matters ... but then some of them are stupid enough to send letters from their "Legal Department!!  I was just wondering if they could be tripped up on this.

[Andy711351]

Hi Dave

 

Nice to hear from you

I called the court today to confirm whether they are now aware that I have asked to be present in hearing

 

It was at 9 am

 

she wasn't the mist friendly

 

She said everything theirs and email we have to to and fro to the judge.

 

I said Ive only sent you a single email two weeks ago asking to be present in person and because i hadnt heard back, i just wanted to make sure you are aware

 

She went on an d on and on about how short staff they were, how there was only 2 of them and her colleague had called sick and how they had 22 delay in dealing with emails etc....

 

I really wanted to say I want to email objecting to the claimants sending in the supp WS late and i just felt 

 

I am really thinking of feeling/serving a supp defendant WS and if the claimant then askes the judge to dismiss it because it is too late, then I can sue the same reasoning as to why their supp WS should be dismissed in view of breaching the deadline. Do you think its worth submitting a supp defence Ws? Seems that courts/judges are bit lenient with deadlines, so why not me having a second bite at the cherry? Or is it a terrible idea?

 

 

[FTMDave]

I think you're focussing too much on this supplementary WS. 

 

Had they managed to sneak in vital new evidence way after the WS deadline you'd be right to worried, but what they've sent is neither here nor there.

 

When the case starts, simply request that the judge disallows their supplementary WS.  They had ample time to prepare their WS, this was sent way after the WS deadline, and you don't' see why they should get a second bite at the cherry.  If their representative waffles on about "clerical errors" then use that to your advantage, point out that in plain English that means their original was a roboclaim which no-one had bothered to proof read, which is their own fault and shows complete disrespect to the court.

 

But the major point I'm trying to make is that, even if the judge disagrees with you, even if the judge allows the supplementary WS, it doesn't mean much, because what they've written is just daft waffle!

 

When you get the chance to speak, tell the judge you saw the four-hour limit but nothing about any payment being due as that is hidden in the tiniest of writing, and ask the judge to reduce the size from the ridiculously blown-up version the solicitors have sent, and to note the enormous difference between the font sizes on the sign.  Then point out that you did respect the rush-hour limit, you moved the car within this time to shop elsewhere and you can prove it with receipts, and this is a case of double dipping. 

[lookinforinfo]

Carrying on from Dave's comments it also shows that their ANPR is not fit for the purpose. They do not have any records of cars moving within the whole area just when the vehicles arrive and leave. So if you put them to strict proof when they say your car was parked in that one place all  the time, they cannot. And given the number of different car parks and some of them with differing parking regulations it should be necessary that they know when cars move between car parks. 

 

Also I am pretty sure that there should be a clause that allows Bank to take motorists to Court. If there is no mention of it, then they cannot.  Since no one else has come up with a definitive answer, I would mention that they cannot and stick to it.

 

Most other contracts I have seen do include whether the parking company can sue in court under their own name. The fact that it is missing here when the contract has stated debt collection is permitted by Bank, speaks volumes.

[dx100uk]

have a look at any of the VCS contracts that should tell you what should be in them to commence court in their own name.

 

[Andy711351]

Hello all

 

Thanks Dave,lookin, dx100 for all the feedback

 

What I will do now is just try and write on a paper what i will say in court so i sound cohesive and done panic.

 

I think you have all made excellent points and I sincerely thank you very much.

 

Please let me know if , once I have prepared the draft of my so called 'speech' to say in front of the judge, whether its worth posting here for comments or not

 

DX100 VCS contracts ?? VCS, not sure what that stands for. Can you please elaborate and where do i get a copy or example of such a contract from .

 

Thanks

 

[Andy711351]

Last point please 

 

if you look at the detailed contract whats that date at the footnote of all the pages 

 

In the Supp WS attached, exhibit 6 is included with the contract etc between them and the intu leasholders etc...There is a date at the footnote of all the pages of exhibit saying in small print 'Authorisation Date 09032016.    Is that relevant ??. that footnote has a date of 2016 but the first page of the contract reads commencement date 11th March 2019 expiry date 10th march 2020. whats that date of 2016 at the footnote and is it relevant?

[lookinforinfo]

Andy the authorisation code is actually 0903016. The signage next to the pay machine says it is for the Market car park. Is that another name for where you parked or a totally different car park?

I had a look at a VCS contract with an airport and it stated 

3.11 The Company shall use all reasonable endeavours to demand and collect in its own name the Parkifl& Enforcement Charges, Parking Fees and Invoices from Users followifl& the Issue of a Parklng Charge Notice, Parldng Fee or Invoice which may extend to debt recovery and/or court action. The alent agrees to give the Company all reasonable assistance (Including eKecutlng all relevant documents If necessary) In relation to such court action. [I have never seen so many typographical errors but that"s VCS.}

So there they do mention that VCS are permitted to go as far as court action. I think then it is quite fair to say that VCS do not have permission to take you to Court. 

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by lookinforinfo

[dx100uk]

you mean by comparing a VCS contract to this bank parking contract, bank have NOT included the and/or court action bit so do NOT have permission to take you to court (unless they are the landowner themselves ofcourse  ...are they?)

 

[Andy711351]

Lookin..

 

Thanks for the reply

 

'Andy the authorisation code is actually 0903016. The signage next to the pay machine says it is for the Market car park. Is that another name for where you parked or a totally different car park?'

 

My answer:

 

In the inital WS the claimant had included a signage from Market car park. That was a mistake by them. They had mistakenly included a signage from another site totally remote from the car park i went to. I pointed that out in my defence WS. In reply, in their Supplement WS, they acknowledged they had included the market one by mistake, and therefore  asked the judge to ignore it as it was a 'clerical error'. hence that signage is not relevant

 

[lookinforinfo]

One thing to bear in mind is that despite the amendment, it does mean that the original WS that the director had certified his statement as being true was not in fact true. Furthermore he made another mistake with the second sign saying it was the Market Place. It's all very well castigating you for using the internet to build your case, yet he has copied two signs that were wrong. At least you got yours right. And it calls into question how many other things de he get wrong in his WS.

 

Looking at his original WS

 

section 6} he said that they were correctly following the COP but they do not have Council Permission Town & country [Advertisements} regulations 2007.

 

In 7] he acknowledges that they have to comply with the COP, but the company isn't doing it. In fact it is a criminal offence not to have that permission

 

10] he said the signs were displayed prominently which is hardly correct when you see the small sign depicted on page 20. Obviously why they increased the font sizes on their WS to cover that fact that they are not prominent at all. Another untruth. And he couldn't even get the signs right.

 

11] not all the signs stipulate there is a 4hour stay and it is not on the Welcome sign so it appears that where there is a four hour sign, that it applies to that car park only

 

12] He stated that the driver accepted the Contract. There was no contract. The first sign says Welcome to the Car park. Terms and conditions are around the car park for details. There are several car parks with varying conditions to them. It is an offer to treat not an offer of a contract.

 

18[ the driver does not dispute being the keeper or the driver. The keeper definitely does dispute being the driver. Another untruth. VCS are put to strict proof where the keeper claimed to be the driver.

 

That's all for now as I have an early start in the morning.

 

What I am trying to do is to discredit the WS in the eyes of the Judge so will make your case stronger. I will continue the rest tomorrow.

 

13] there is apparently a charge for breaching the T&Cs but the charge amount is the smallest fonts on the sign! How is a driver supposed to see that on entering.

[Andy711351]

looking for info

 

Thankyou so much for all the effort you are doing

 

I genuinely feel bad/guilty that you are doing all this but equally so grateful

 

I thankyou for all the attention to all the details.

 

I thank everyone who is contributing to the case as I prepare  for the hearing on Thursday

 

I hope yo have a good day tomorrow, and please please I dont want you to exert yourself  too much for my case  because you have been fantastic and I really appreciate it whatever the outcome

 

Thankyou again 

 

Goodnight

[brassnecked]

The difference in signs will help show their WS ius pants

[Andy711351]

received this from the court by email

 

' 1. The hearing listed on 8 April 2021 shall take place as an attended hearing. Only the claimant's representative and the defendant may attend the hearing.'

 

 

So I take it that I can go in person. Does this also mean that the hearing has totally been converted to an attended one? or can the claimant still be via telephone link

 

 

Can i take my ipad into the court to show the judge the images on my ipad of the signs?

[FTMDave]

That's brilliant news.

 

It's what you wanted.  Plus it's definitely not what they will have wanted, they will have expected an on-line hearing.  No way will Bank Park travel to the hearing as they're too stupid to deal with a court case on their own, and no way will they get their solicitors to go all that way.  They will have to scrat around to get a solicitor from your local area, who will know absolutely nothing about the case, to attend.

 

That's if they don't give in, either by discontinuance or by not turning up.

 

The hearing is referred to as an "attended hearing" so yes, they will have to turn up - or lose.

 

It's up to the judge what is allowed in their court, but if you point out that in their WS they have blown up the signs and you would like to show the font as you read it in the car park, I should think your iPad will be allowed.  

[brassnecked]

Yes that is a good thing, especially for the reasons  FTMDave has indicated.

[Andy711351]

Thankyou . Im glad its a hearing on person then

 

Please dont laugh but I did in fact visit the car park on the 16th January of this year just to familiarise myself with the layout of signs because the alleged contravention occurred in June 2019 and I just wanted to check the signs out in person.

 

i took some photos of the entrance etc...

 

i wondered how to post them here and get your views. The judge may allow me to show them on my ipad but thought to see what you guys thought. nothing to lose, right?

 

 

So whats the best way to upload a few pictures. i taken them with my iphone

 

Thanks

[lookinforinfo]

No need to feel guilty we are here to give you the best chance of beating the crooks. So to continue

21] it's a bit ironic of claiming the defendant is using the internet when they themselves are using roboclaims which leads to the kind of mistakes they have made on their WS. And the dangers involved with their WS is that they have averred what they said was true.

22] the claimant is right for once, the case is simple. The entrance sign does NOT state there is a 4 hour time limit. and not all of the car parks within the complex mention a four hour limit. While the defendant did use one of the four hour car parks they did not stay for four hours and bank are put to strict proof that the defendant's car stayed there all the time alleged or moved around the car parks within the complex,.

 

The Contract

1 , 2]There was no contract. The entrance sign was an invitation to treat and no mention of a four hour stay so their WS is wrong again. Bank have failed to keep track of the Defendant's car and has no idea the car parks that the Defendant visited.

 

Penalty Amount Claimed.

111] their charge is not a penalty? Despite their protestations they are demanding £160. The extra £60 has been condemned in many Court as an abuse of process or a double charge and both Bank and their legal people are well aware of that. The next bit is taken for peppipoo which their defendant read out in court

" 1. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge against a registered keeper who was not driving, was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).
2. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
3. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the signs did not specify a sum for this 'debt collection' vague add-on, is void for uncertainty, in breach of the POFA para 9 (due to not 'specifying' the parking charges payable)...

...AND in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the grey list of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

I quickly added that the Court has a duty to consider the test of fairness for consumer notices and terms (Part 2 para 71) whether or not a party has raised it before. Cue a sharp intake of breath from the barrister and DJ Grand said with interest 'yes, but you are raising it anyway' and reached for his thick book of statute law while the barrister said that he did not have a copy of the CRA 2015 'grey list'.  "

 

V] the ATA is not law. In any event the OFT ruled in their Debt Collection Guide 

Charging for Debt Collection 

e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt

£60 on top of £100 is certainly disproportionate.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060716004337/http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/50F06527-9FC5-4610-B385-999D6E2A8950/0/oft664.pdf

while the OFT are now defunct the Financial Ombudsman has agreed that they should abide by their guidance.

 

You should familiarise yourself with the relevant references and take them to Court with you. Stress how often their WS is wrong which is why the author does not want to appear in Court.

Also if you can take photos of the car parks signage that you stayed in with approximate times that you stayed in each as well as chaecking that the signs that they are showing on their WS are the signs that actually appear in the car parks and are in the places that they state. They should be but usually aren't as they use roboclaims and use any signs that they happen to have handy rather than the signs that exist in the car parks you parked in, If you can show that they are wrong there too it should mean that the Judge will ignore their WS and look more favourably on your arguments.

[Andy711351]

Thanks Lookingforinfo for such a thorough and detailed analysis

 

I am amking noted of all the points. only thing im not sure of and dont want to get muddled up is the references. Not being a legal person, I dont want to start quoting things Im not really familiar with in terms of previous cases in case the Judge or their solicitor is more clued up than me. 

 

the bit from National Consumer Service that you quoted, is that something a previous defendant against Bank park used in the court? 

 

Thanks again

 

[Andy711351]

Ive got some phots in Jpeg. Ive used paint to convert to tiff/gif but still to large to load here.

 

Whats the best way please ?

need your views on the pics please

 

 

[Andy711351]

photos 

photos.pdf