OPS 2*PCN Claimform - Chichester College, West Sussex ***Claim Discontinued***

[FTMDave]

If you e-mail your WS do it very late tonight or tomorrow morning as a Cagger called lookinforinfo generally pops in late in the evening and is extremely knowledgable about WSs and how to rubbish the fleecers' claims.

 

Some first thoughts.

 

(19)  (20)  (23 i)  They make great play that they followed POFA.  At the start of their contract with the college they state they will follow POFA.  As this was a windscreen ticket, the PCNs should have arrived 29-56 days after the incidents.  Unfortunately they seem to have respected this for once.

 

(29)  As well as the points upthread, ridicule this and point out that OPS are serial litigants who sue hundreds of people a year and are indeed experienced with cases at appeal level (quote case F0HM9E9Zb at Lewes county court which they famously appealed).

 

Their own photos show a tiny number of signs in font an electron microscope would have problems reading, so attack them on this.

[dx100uk]

call the court tomorrow state in will be done by 7 days

[lookinforinfo]

I have looked at their WS  which as FTMDave has said contains a fair bit of tripe.

 

Going through the WS for clarity I will use their numbering as reference where there is a dispute with what they say. 

 

6] OPS does NOT comply with BPA Code of Practice despite claiming that it does.

 

BPA Code of Practice

4.1  Any organisation or person applying for BPA or AOS membership must: • sign a declaration agreeing to keep to the Code and its principles •

 

4.3  4 Under the Code you must keep to all the requirements laid down by law. 

However on of the requirements of running a car park under PoFA is that under the Town and Country [advertisements] Regulations  2007 is that planning permission is needed for the signage and ANPR cameras in the car park.

 

OPS have not applied which is a criminal offence, breaches their agreement with the DVLA and BPA which calls into question their ability to access DVLA data. This i s confirmed by  Lord Neuberger as he said in  Parking Eye v Beavis  at the Supreme Court [2015] UKSC 67-"And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA.

 

7] the paralegal also confirms the situation. It follows on that as the signs do not have planning permission they should not be there.

 

9] as far as I know Chichester College is not the land owner . OPS are put to stict to proof of the landowner and provide a link to them allowing the College to sign on their  behalf.

 

13] the defendant did not accept the contract since none was offered.  The sign at the entrance to the car park on page 17 does not offer a contract - it is an invitation to treat only. And the one on page 18 is too small to comply with the BPA CoP

 

 And it does at the top of the sign  "That parking is permitted for and further down it states   "That valid season ticket/ permit purchased from Chichester College . There was no mention that the Permit had to be shown on that line just that the permit had to be valid which the Defendant relied on. 

 

The Defendant did have a permit that was valid when both PCNs were issued. Furthermore the Government has brought out an act designed to eliminate unfair parking tickets-

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-private-car-parking-firms-will-eliminate-unfair-fines and one of the unfair PCNS is one where "they have a valid ticket, permit or Blue Badge but failed to display it correctly".

 

20] the Claimant has no right to assume that the keeper is the driver. PoFA "invites" the keeper to provide the Claimant with the name of address of the driver so in under no compunction to provide the driver's details.

 

The Claimant also said that they were pursuing the keeper as the driver and are put to strict proof that the Defendant was the driver on both occasions. The Claimant cannot pick and mix whether they are pursuing the Defendant as the drive or the keeper. They must choose one and they have chosen the driver.

 

21] appealing against a PCN can be fraught with difficulties.  First OPS rarely cancel tickets [this is where you show the Times article

 

 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-parking-baron-wholl-never-let-you-off-a-ticket-czxjb5lch  and many people have doubts about the independence of the adjudicators and their narrow remit at POPLA so there is little trust in their appeals procedure.

 

23] here the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the Keeper! Talk about getting two bites of the cherry. I wonder who they will pursue in their point 24.

 

The land owner did not sign the contract and when completing a deed or contract the norm is that that both signees are directors of their respective company's and their title added. This has not been done and the Chichester College signee is a manager which does not comply with the Companies Act 2006  44 ] Execution of documents-

 

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

 

So the contract has not been validly executed as well as not being signed by the Land owner.

111] Parking Eye V Beavis were not dealing with an invalid contract

1v] there were no terms at the entrance merely therefore it was an invitaion to treat

v] the Defendant cannot be in breach when there is no contract and the signage is there illegally.

 

24] their is  no contract, the Defendant had a permit for both occasions ad the Claimant is in breach of its CoP and The Town and Country Regulations so it is clear that they have no case. 

 

The Amount Claimed

 

The Claimant goes into a long rigmarole about why they charged what they did when the truth of the matter is that under PoFA 7  [2 []c]

 

(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;  in this case £80.

 

I suspect that this was to try and justify their next charge which has no basis in Law and is an attempt at double recovery.  Some Judges have even described as an abuse of Process as your company knows from your case in Brighton which you were lucky to get away with. That extra £60 or £70 is often added when Debt Collectors are involved using the NO WIN NO Fee contract. Then when they fail to collect the amount, on going to Court, the parking company still includes the Debt Collectors fee.

 

Not only that but this is what the OFT said about charging for debt collection. It said it was unfair when the charge was disproportionate to the main debt. The main debt was £80. OPS have almost doubled that. Totally unfair.

 

I cannot find the bit about the Judge talking about extra charges in Parking Eye v Somerfield but you could include that.

 

Also in Parking Eye V Beavis the Judges there were of the view that anything much over £85 would be regarded as a penalty. 

[lookinforinfo]

 

I have found another case I was looking for. It  was in the High Court of Justice 

 

The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield

 a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

 

 ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis.

 

On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment.

 

Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

 

As this was a High Court decision it should have been known by OPS and I believe it should be binding on them and not to go looking for ways to increase their income unlawfully. At the very least the extra amounts charged are a penalty as indeed are going to Court when the motorist has already paid for their permit, even if the permit is not shown.

 

Sorry mms I have given you a long night to complete your WS.

[parking_fine_mms]

Thanks a lot for your help lookinforinfo! 

 

Final question for today if I may. 

 

how detailed should my WS be? 

 

Im guessing it should be concise but sufficiently detailed to be persuasive.

 

What I'm not sure is whether i should quote in detail of previous cases like what you have done ?

Or is it sufficient if I just reference with the case subjects e.g. ParkingEye v Somerfield ? Thanks.

[dx100uk]

you most certainly quote the full passages/parts you are referring too, and ofcourse the full case details date court etc.

[lookinforinfo]

My idea when tearing a WS apart is that the parking company will decide not to attend the hearing. or if they do, the Judge will have little choice but to throw it out. So make it easier for the Judge by putting in the quotes and who made them. Quotes by Judges in the Supreme Court carry more weight than decisions in lower Courts.

Their WS was quite short compared to many of them but you need to make it as long as you need to get all your points across. 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by lookinforinfo

[FTMDave]

Any info. from the court re the WS deadline?

[parking_fine_mms]

I called this morning and they said it knows about timing issues because of the backlog and judges know that too. The lady wasn't specific on an exact day though. Just said 'clarify at the top of the document with my situation'...

[dx100uk]

7 days will be acceptable that will form the top line in your WS.

 

 

so get a WS done..

[parking_fine_mms]

just wanted to double check if i can upload and send my WS to the court online (couldn't find any means including MCOL)or does it have to be via post? thanks.

[FTMDave]

You can simply e-mail your local court.

[parking_fine_mms]

Hi all, quick update as I received two emails today.

First email is the court's virtual meeting details.

Second one is from DCB Legal which says ' Our client has instructed us to discontinue Court proceedings and close our file. Therefore, please find enclosed the Claimant's N279 Notice of Discontinuance for your records.'

 

Just wanted to ask here and double check if there is anything that I need to do now and what usually happens next. (I'm guessing I don't need to turn up to the court hearing but wanted to check here.)

 

Many thanks as per usual. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by parking_fine_mms

[FTMDave]

Great news!

 

Well done on your victory! 

 

In the end OPS wet themselves.  They must be gnashing their teeth at having to give in over two invoices.

 

All you have to do is remember to ring the court in a couple of days to make sure they really have discontinued.  It's unlikely they're lying, but you never know ...

[honeybee13]

Brilliant news, well done everyone.

 

HB

[parking_fine_mms]

Not sure how to thank you all properly but just a final post on how much I appreciate all your help throughout the few months. Thanks a lot

[lookinforinfo]

That is great news. It is a shame that the Court couldn't have ripped their case to pieces but it does save you from the worry of dealing with the Court. 

I suppose they did include the Notice of Discontinuance?

[parking_fine_mms]

Yes, DCB legal sent me a copy of the Notice of Discontinuance and said they submitted one to the court. 

[dx100uk]

3 hours ago, parking_fine_mms said:

Not sure how to thank you all properly but just a final post on how much I appreciate all your help throughout the few months. Thanks a lot

please donate however small to keep us here

 

 

 

the whole of CAG is voluntary and free to users...we have costs...