OPS ANPR PCN Claimform - 17mins stay - VANTAGE POINT, BRIGHTON, BN1 4GW,

[lookinforinfo]

They are hoping you will bottle it. They could still discontinue but it is as well to prepare.

[BMX bandit]

Getting close to me needing to send off my WS, I assume via e mail is OK to the court and post to the Claimant ???-

 

Question I have is

 

- Do I send it to OPS who are listed as the claimant on the small track hearing letter or DCB legal who are listed as the address for service on the previous small claims questionnaire OR both ??

 

Appreciate your feedback 

[dx100uk]

Sols.

 

Dx

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry BMX I cannot have you badmouthing dingbats. They are miles better than OPS.

[BMX bandit]

Fair comment LFI !! I stand corrected

OK so, I have brought it all together and attach the final draft WS for your collective review

I haven't included the exhibits as you have all seen those before and they are the same as previously posted in this thread

Need to send off Sat AM latest so appreciate any final tweaks or input to strengthen what appears to already be an open and shut case

if they thought that I would back out with their continued intimidation them they can think again, Bring it on and I look forward to my day in court!

 

Thanks in advance

11-5-23 WS Forum draft.pdf

[FTMDave]

Just to avoid having to look back over the thread.

 

When is the hearing date?  EDIT  Sorry, just seen - end of May.

 

Have the fleecers sent you their WS?

Edited May 11, 2023 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[lookinforinfo]

No they haven't and BMX has to have his WS in tomorrow.

So could he hold his one up for a day or two or just say on his WS to the Court that he  hasn't received their WS.

Edited May 11, 2023 by lookinforinfo

[FTMDave]

Well, as the courts are closed on Saturday & Sunday, if the WS isn't sent tomorrow then it might as well be sent on Sunday or even during the day on Monday before 4pm.

 

I would suggest we all have a look at the final version on Sunday and it can be sent then, including a part hammering the fleecers for not sending theirs.

 

 

[robert_harper_2000]

Following

 

[BMX bandit]

OK Caggers, I hope you are available to review and comment this weekend - patience has paid off and OPS WS came in the post just now

I've hopefully redacted my details and attach the first 24 paged of the 63 page doc

The do include an updated contract where the 15 mins with engine running comment removed BUT check page 12 half way down in the box where it seems the landlord has added the note to specifically allow 15min grace period for any approved delivery vehicle that is delivering loading/ unloading to the onsite retail units!!!!!!!!!! BINGO- Well if this doesn't cover apply to my circumstances I don't know what does plus C19 mitigation- sounds like a slam dunk doesn't it ???

 

So how would you suggest updating modifying my WS in light of this- i think including the previous contract shows a leniency which is followed through with the intent of the above clause- Not sure whats redacted below that of course could be more damming or just someone's name

 

I still don't see planning permission for signs or installation of cameras or proof of camera accuracy

 

I've not included all the other exhibits but a summary of the waste of paper below 

 

2- You've seen before - I would argue they are not prominently displayed- knee height and 10 pages of photos of various signs around the site, not all on the underground floor I parked on 

3- An e mail from Jan 16 to some block called Peter who was retiring from the BPA and says the signs are compliant - no copy of the actual signs submitted

4- ANPR photos of the vehicle entering and exiting

5- Unreadable pay and display log

6-A plan of the site and location of signs- proving what??

7- All the letters they have sent to me 

8- Screenshot- so what?

2023-05-11 OPS WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

OK, I've just had a read through the fleecers' cut & paste bilge.

 

As you say, the 15-minute delivering/loading/unloading is gold dust, and should be included in your LOADING IS NOT PARKING SECTION  To refuse to extend that to 17 minutes during a worldwide pandemic is totally unreasonable.

 

You can make the same point in different ways in the DE MINIMIS and FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT sections.

 

However, I think the vast majority of your PREAMBLE section is total waffle which has no bearings on the case in question and would just annoy the judge.  You need to make quick, succinct arguments, and come over better than the fleecers with their pages & pages of tripe.  Less is more.

 

It would help us a lot to help you if you would number the paragraphs - you will need to do this in the final WS anyway - so we can immediately quote a paragraph to chuck or to alter. 

 

 

 

 

[BMX bandit]

Appreciate the feedback

I have slimmed the preamble

Added numbers for each para and included reference to the updated contract in the 3 sections you suggested

Does the receipt of their WS render the NO locus standi section largely redundant and as such should it be removed or slimmed down??

 

Updated  WS attached

 

13-05-23 WS Rev6 forum.pdf

Edited May 12, 2023 by BMX bandit

[FTMDave]

That is a cracking WS.  However, the nature of the beast is that i will now moan about the 0.001% that needs to be tweaked instead of applauding the 99.999% that is fine.

 

Well done on cutting down the preamble.

 

However, it's not enough to include weblinks, for (8) print out the article and include it as an exhibit.

 

(9) has to go completely.  the fleecers appealed that judgement and unfortunately won.

 

In (18) change slightly to "To not consider a 2-minute leniency in this term under conditions of a global pandemic"

 

Do you have any evidence that you were loading/unloading and not parking, such as receipts from the bike shop?

 

Just to make things clear for the judge, change the start of (24) slightly to "Even if the court were to conclude that the vehicle was parked, there are two elements to this aspect in this case"

 

(28) usual point,, you need to print the thing out ,and mark it as an exhibit, not just give a weblink.

 

In (30) "dismissed" rather than "quashed".

 

(32), you know the score.  Same in (49).

 

(53)  "dismiss the claim" instead of "quash the charge".

 

NO LOCUS STANDI needs to be changed after taking into consideration the contract they sent, as you point out.

 

Phew!

[lookinforinfo]

I will throw in my thoughts-disjointed ma.y they be and in no particular order this time.

First H. Green at the bottom of the statement was either written by a three year old or he printed his name. Which means that he hasn't  signed that he was telling the truth. Put him to strict proof that it was his signature on the document.

 

OPS still don't get PoFA  if they thought OPS V Wilshaw was a correct interpretation of the Act. It was on Appeal and the Judge got it wrong. It IS necessary to prove OPS do have a valid contract with the  landowners. Schedule 4 S2 [1] relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is

[a]the owner or occupier of the land;

or(b)

authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;

 

Don't forget Jopson v Homeguard and the lack of signage at the entrance means it is only an offer to treat.

 

I found a case going back 200 hundred years where silence does not mean that you accept the contract.

www.lawteacher.net/cases/felthouse-v-bindley.php  read the case  and you will see it adds another string to your bow  since that case indicates that staying in the car park does not mean that you have accepted the terms.

 

And of course you were not parked since the car was still occupied with the engine running . 

 

if you were not the driver  then you are not liable as the keeper since the PCN is not compliant . No parking period mentioned since the ANPR times include times when you were  driving to and from the parking spot so you were actually stationary for less that the time they are claiming.. Also they missed out another part of the required section in PoFA Schedule S( [f][2] "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;"  The piece in brackets is missing from their PCN.  

if the Judge accepts that the PCN is non compliant and you were not driving that is another reason to quash the ticket. Even if you were the driver they have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt since you were not liable as the keeper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

•  

[FTMDave]

Not very important, but looking at the fleecers' WS, maybe you could have a laugh at them with a single short paragraph just before your invitation at the end to chuck out the claim.

 

58.  In their Witness Statement the Claimant refers to their appeals process (para 25) and again (para 35) where it is referred to as "robust".  This is frankly risible.  It is so "robust" that Parliament passed the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 and then in February 2022 set up a Code of Practice to try to establish a single appeals body for the industry, which the likes of the Claimant are opposing.  Instead of the kangaroo court the Claimant uses whereby their peers judge them, the defendant would rather rely on the law in England & Wales.

 

You could also add a quick paragraph at the end of the Unicorn Food Tax section.

 

51.  In their Witness Statement the Claimant refers to a "nominal contribution" - actually 60% of their original claim - and then enters laughable territory where they claim that litigation is not their normal work, whereas in reality the Claimant is a serial litigant.

 

These additional bits are of miniscule importance, I just suggest them to take the wee wee and to show the judge you've bothered to read and take in what is written in the fleecers' bilge.

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry for being so late with this-it's been a long day. Although you have to remove your OPS V  Wilshaw since it was appealed and  OPS won amazingly I have put in a bit to show that this Judge should be aware of the necessity of having a contract between OPS and the land owner, not  OPS and the motorist.

In the Wilshaw case they didn't produce a proper contract the first time which is why they have produced the land registry confirmation of who the landowner is. 

There are another 30  odd pages I believe you said some of which will be their signage. We may be able to critique those though you probably might be tight on time if you have to make more additions and alterations.

 

I have just remembered that their PCN included a £70 extra " nominal charge". I believe that in itself may render the PCN non compliant if not actually  unlawful since there is no mention of extra charges in the Act. Indeed the Act states quite clearly that the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signage. And they did not stipulate a figure on the signage anyway.

 

[FTMDave]

LFI is right.  If you decide to include the paragraph I suggested above, it should be 70%, not 60%, my bad.

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry one more thing. Harry is asking that even though he cannot be ar*ed to turn up and even if another advocate doesn't turn up, he still wants the legal fee to be paid ??????   I didn't know it was charity night at the Court.

[BMX bandit]

Input much appreciated guys

I've just landed in west coast USA but will consolidate comments and update once the world stops spinning

Thanks 

[BMX bandit]

Had a go around and tried to weave in all points- see attached

No Locus standi looks a bit weak now they have provided the contract - is the point in 55 now redundant based on point 13 of the latest contract which talks about taking photo graphs and point 18 which says OPS will provide the charge system- or does this relate to pay machines ?

 

Couldn't create Exhibits and attach the web links but I'm not so worried about that- one is a video

 

V poor internet so spent all day on and off trying to edit this, will probably have to send it before you have time to comment given time difference but if there are any howlers please shout

 

Thanks again for all your guidance and advice

14-05-23 WS Rev6 forum.pdf

[FTMDave]

I've just read through the lot - no howlers at all!

[FTMDave]

So e-mail to the court, obviously requesting return receipt, in the subject title write "Witness Statement - Claim no.XXXXX - One Parking Solution Ltd v XXXXX".

 

We normally say to snail mail the fleecers their copy, but that might be a bit difficult from the West coast of the USA!  So just CC the charlatans.

 

Yes, LOCUS STANDI is now weak but that's why it's at the end of the WS.  Don't worry, the judge will have made a decision long before that point.

 

 

 

 

[BMX bandit]

Yes e mailed the court with WS as advised and asked for confirmation of receipt and received the following response

AUTO RESPONSE – DO NOT REPLY**

WE AIM TO REPLY TO CORRESPONDENCE WITHIN 30 WORKING DAYS HOWEVER AT BUSY TIMES THIS MAY BE LONGER

 

If you are getting in touch about an upcoming hearing date or something urgent we will reply as soon as we can.

 

IF SENDING BY EMAIL DO NOT SEND BY HARD COPY AS WELL

 

As for sending to DCBL, I was able to send the WS to my wife to print and post it off by registered mail

 

So lets see how this unfolds, I'm feeling pretty confident and will watch out on the off chance they see sense and drop the claim but they seem stupid enough to see it through

 

Thanks for everyone's input- lets hope we can chalk up another win against the parasites

[BMX bandit]

Just when I thought it was sit and wait till D day in the courts, young Harry has ben busy scouring my WS and has today sent a supplementary WS dated 19th May so last Friday which is after the 14 day period court requires all WS's as per their guidelines- Is this even admissible as evidence ??

I'll redact and scan tomorrow but heads up on his counters to the points I made in my WS

1. Says their ex 2 from WS1 (pics of signs) states land only permitted for valid parking sessions, I should have paid for the 'privilege' of parking. terms on signs were sufficient and I breached the terms

2.dismisses frustration due to C19, says I admit to using the land for 17 mins and that's unreasonable to do so without taking notice of the prominently located signs ??? says 1 in 1 out irrelevant and without that I still should have bought a ticket even if I was there less than the 10 min grace period

3.They ref BPA 13.6 as not consideration and grace not being free periods of parking, because  say I wasn't parked I should not be eligible to either of these periods. Also sate Gov COP withdrawn in Jun 22

4. Says signs were adequate font size and location, say my photos were not date stamped- I can prove this on my phone if required, there's were blatantly before the event

5. Challenge my claim of illegal signage - no planning and refer to a clause in their contract with landowner where it mentions the word planning?? They need council planning permission though don't they for signage ?

6.ANPR provided by NTP 3rd party which they have no authority to edit but doesn't address the accuracy of the timings.

7. They say I allege no evidence of ANPR being used to manage the site but that it says it on the signs ?? My actual claim was that they do not have the landowners permission to install cameras or use them to manage the car park

8.The deny their NTK is not compliant with 2012 POFA

Should I send a response to this, do I have time?

I also tracked down the landlords address and called them to speak to the person who signed the agreement, seems its a lawyers office but the person I spoke to said they would pass on a message- I wrote outlining the situation and gave them to opportunity to speak to me about it or simply get OPS to cancel their action and avoid unnecessary court fiasco 

Appreciate your swift responses folks

[FTMDave]

I wouldn't worry too much.  We've generally seen nowt much of importance in SWs.

The judge might throw it in the bin as the 14-day period has not been respected - or they might allow it.  Obviously if they allow it they will allow a response from you. 

Please upload it tomorrow.