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

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry to have come to your thread rather late. But a couple of observations. The Defence statement that you sent them way back was in fact in everything but name a WS. And a pretty comprehensive one. But of course not having seen their WS first some things have changed. 

 

One of the things that was picked out on the first submission and rejected by DCBL was their signage being to small. But this is confirmed by them in their bundle by sneakily increasing the font size in their photos so that it appears much larger than on their signs. If the signs were the correct size why would they enhance them?  Signage is a very important part of the contract and if the signage is not clear then the contract fails.

 

Also on none of their signs, apart from the one by the payment meter does it stipulate that not paying or not paying sufficient leads to a charge at all. As you appear to have moved from car park to car park with different rules then you can stipulate which ones you want to apply to you. I have ust realised that as you parked in several

different places within the car park then Schedule 4 section 9 [3] applies

(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).

what they should have done is broken your parking times into the sections wherin you stayed. As they have not done so they cannot state with any accuracy where your parking complied with their rules and where it didn't. They can't even say if you were parked all the time within their stipualted rules.

 

In other words if their ANPR cannot pick out movement of cars within all their car parks, then the ANPR is not fit for its purpose.

 

[lookinforinfo]

The entrance sign is confusing me. The one they show at the entrance says Merry Hill and states it is £100  per default [albeit in impossibly small writing]yet your PCN says £90 and so does their director. So my question is what amount does the entrance sign actually state?  Their entrance signage is not capable of offering a contract with drivers as the charges are far too small to be read when arriving. I have already pointed out that the signage has been deliberately increased in their paperwork to conceal the actuality of their smallness in the carparks.

 

Looking at ther amended WS in point 7 he states the £100 was a " typographical error". Really? The signs are supposed to be the actual signs that are in place there. They are not to be cobbled together from pictures in their offices somewhere. It is supposed to be within Kelley's knowledge as it was not acknowledged that it wasn't, so it should have been the actual notice. Could this be perjury?

 

And point 8 is amazing. " It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Defendant has walked to the other shops situated at a different car park whilst leaving their Vehicle at the Blue Car Park. 9 " Really? You mean that their much vaunted ANPR system only showed the arrival and departure of vehicles but had no idea where each motor was within the  carpark complex. You have stated that you moved around there because of the distances involved. It is for them to provide strict proof that you didn't move around since it is them that is saying that you stayed in the one place all the time.

 

Point  9 wouldn't apply to you as the keeper since only the driver is liable but I think you have revealed you were the driver?

 

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 provisions

Moving to the contract they have with the land owner 

They also state that all parking laws have to be observed.

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. 

 

 

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[lookinforinfo]

Judge lottery or not, you won. Well done for having worked at understanding the points to stress. You need to have a number of strings to your bow sometimes , to win. It only takes one of the points that the Judge recognises to be in your favour and dismisses the case. But it is hard when they leave it to the last point or two before accepting that there is no case. Great news.