NCP/BW PCN PAPLOC now claimform - New Gatwick Drop Off Zone - I thought I had paid for both visits? ***Claim Dismissed***

[brassnecked]

Looks good, not a lot to change in there.

[FTMDave]

I was without Internet access for a lot of the time this weekend, but here goes. Fortunately your draft WS and the BPA's CoP are downloadable!

 

Your WS is magnificent – but if it can be improved even further, why not?

 

Above your current (10) write the title NO KEEPER LIABILITY.

 

I think before the DOUBLE RECOVERY section your should add a section FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT. State that your case is that you did not enter into a contract with the Claimant, but if the court were to disagree you would state that any such contract was frustrated. Emphasise that it was the Claimant's equipment that didn't work, that family members witnessed this (add their short WSs as exhibits), that you bent over backwards to try to pay by calling their helpline, that not only were you not helped but you know the Claimant couldn't be bothered to keep a record of the call as there is not mention of it in the SAR you requested (add exhibit), that you “should” have received a second PCN which in itself shows that the software was knackered, and that you ask yourself whether the parking company are quite happy to have systems with “issues” which they refuse to sort out over the phone as this gives them an excuse to issue PCNs, and that such predatory tactics are forbidden by clause 9.5 of the BPA's CoP,

 

Yes, I know you have referred to a lot of this in your introduction but it's one of your aces and needs its own section IMO.

 

Between your current (8.3) and (9) you might as well put a new section ILLEGAL SIGNAGE and hammer home the point that lack of planning permission is a criminal offence and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.

 

I think you are dangerously close to outing the driver in (4.2) so I would change “I attempted a payment of £5 for the vehicle XXXXX, for which I am the registered keeper, using the online portal” to “I attempted a payment of £5 for the vehicle XXXXX, for which I am the registered keeper, on behalf of the driver and their party, using the online portal”.

 

More later.

[brassnecked]

With FTMDaves tweaks added it should be good to go.

[MoaningCrusader]

Thanks to you all for your comments. I will be getting this all tweaked fully tomorrow.

 

Just a quick question to FTMDave, would it not be better to group together sections on the legality of entering someone into a contract, as the circumstances are not fair in airport DOZs as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, then a bit about the signage and it's illegal status and then finally put the argument forward for Frustration of Contract? That would then be followed by the NO KEEPER LIABILITY section in to the final DOUBLE RECOVERY bit.

 

How does that sound? If you think that's a good idea. I'll get that sorted and tweeked tomorrow.

[FTMDave]

The thing to remember is you're writing for the judge.

 

The judge will be "looking" for a reason to chuck the thing out, so the clearer the arguments are, the better.

 

I think putting all the bits about the legality of entering someone into a contract need to be split up - although of course one following the other - otherwise the judge will just get lost.

 

Sequence of Events

 

Locus Standi

Illegal Signage

No Keeper Liability

(All the reasons together why there was never any contract.  On "No Keeper Liability" you should win hands down)

 

Frustration of Contract

(But if the court disagrees, and says a contract was entered into, well it was frustrated.  To me it makes more sense to go in this order)

 

Double Recovery

(You won't win on this basis, so the least important section and therefore at the end, but the section still shows the fleecers for what they are and if by some horror you lost would get the extra £60 deducted)

 

Still, see what the others have to say today.

[MoaningCrusader]

Yep. I hear FTMD. Makes total sense.

 

I'm afraid, my section numbering went out of sync in the draft I posted up. So, the keeper liability section is currently starting from 12. Should I put this top of the Locus Standi with arguments around PoFA and fishing for liability, before moving into the issues with contract between Gatwick & NCP, then illegal signage and then the questionable legality of the contract between keeper & NCP and then finally the issues around the frustration of contract?

 

Currently, the first section of the Locus Standi (sections 6-9) deals with the contract between NCP & Gatwick and the lack of evidence of it, and then it currently goes on to deal with the contract they claim that I entered into (sections 10 & 11) and which I argue is not legal, as it's not a fair contract as per the Consumer Rights Act. I think these need breaking up with titles. How do you think I should title these two arguments? I would then add in a section on the illegal signage either after or in-between the arguments?

 

[FTMDave]

It's all getting a little confusing (not helped by me replying between work commitments and watching bits of World Cup games ). 

 

Can you please post up the current draft?  It doesn't matter if the numbering is wrong.  Then we can comment on what we have in front of us. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[MoaningCrusader]

Haha. Yes, I was thinking that as I wrote that last post FTMD.

 

I will work on a 2nd draft today, considering all your points and we can work from that.

[FTMDave]

I've finally found the time to go through the fleecers' trade association's CoP.  You can use these paragraphs against them -

 

9.5 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure
drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will
be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of non-
compliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel.

 

22.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your
car parks in good working order. You need to make sure
the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and
cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use
to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our
compliance team or our agents.
 

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

[brassnecked]

that C.O.P could well be useful going forward where there are payment issues.

[MoaningCrusader]

Hi Guys.

 

Thank you FTMDave for taking time to have a look at CoP in more detail.

 

I had found the sections you have quoted. However, I was concerned that they are only referring to APNR systems and not payment systems. Technically their APNR systems were working perfectly, it was their payment systems that failed to process payment. 

 

Do you think this will be a problem.

 

I am also sorry, its been my turn to be ridiculously busy,. I will continue to be so until 22nd December. I am on the road continuously with work. Once I have gotten to the end of this run. It's a priority for to polish up the WS and hopefully include your research above.

 

Thanks again for all this!!

[FTMDave]

I doubt the court would be so pernickety as to distinguish between ANPR and other equipment that wasn't working properly.

[dx100uk]

IMHO this is a very important issue and needs to be highlighted suitably to the judge.......

 

it's all very well an ANPR computer controlled camera system having a hick ups, as any PC controlled system does in time.

 

a faulty Payment system is a totally Diff kettle of fish as it involves a payment...CASH.

 

thus a monetary issue, - a county court issue.

 

an anpr failure leading to a loss to them never can result result in a court claim..

 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Thanks guys. I just finished a massive run of work yesterday and will be finally sitting down to polish up the WS with all your suggestions before the new year.

 

I hope you all have a lovely festive time this Xmas!

[FTMDave]

This post is well off topic, but here goes.

 

In the seven years I've been on the site, as a matter of routine regulars point out to motorists that they could have a claim for distress as the PPC didn't respond to a SAR request or breached their GDPR.  Just as regularly no-one goes down this road, totally understandably, as everyone is just happy to have got rid of the invoice they were being harassed for, and wants an easy life.

 

Er, until you - troublemaker - comes along.

 

Since then someone else has seen your thread and sued like you over SAR, and been paid in full.

 

We have another motorist going for both SAR and GDPR.

 

And a third for for GDPR.

 

I obviously meant "troublemaker" as a compliment   Your actions have led to other Caggers seeing your thread, and having the confidence to do the same.  Well done!

 

To get back on topic - any news from the court re a hearing date yet?

[MoaningCrusader]

FTMDave, this is great news to hear. And I do take 'troublemaker' as a compliment. So no worries there. It is a disgrace that these PPCs treat us like criminals and ignore their own legal obligations in the handling of our private details.

 

In regards to my court date, there has been no news. But I have been tweeking away slowly at my WS. I have also found a copy of a contract between Gatwick Airport and East Sussex County Council that appears to clearly state that all highways are under the jurisdiction of the local council! All will be shared with the updated WS.

 

 

[brassnecked]

If that Contract is still in force, that blows thgem right out of the water, as they then only have jurisdiction over car parks.

[MoaningCrusader]

Hi brassnecked, The contract was renewed on 24th May 2022... See the current agreement linked below....

 

See section B of the RECITALS section (I have also linked the 1980 Highways Act for your cross reference as the agreement quotes this as defining the local council and county council's jurisdiction)

 

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/company/policies/section106.pdf

 

 

Highways Act 1980

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

---

An Act to consolidate the Highways Acts 1959 to 1971 and related enactments, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission.

 

Be good to hear your feedback. Maybe I have read it wrong? But I think it's pretty clear.

[FTMDave]

Great work.  They really haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

This a public road, not a car park, so not relevant land under POFA, so no keeper liability.  End of story.

 

Even if by some horror the judge were to reject that argument, they sent their nonsense out too late for POFA so again no keeper liability.

 

Plus all the other reasons their case is pants.

[brassnecked]

Exactly as FTMDave indicates public highway.

[Nicky Boy]

Hey Moaning,

 

You've certainly had to go digging for that one!

I'm quite adept at finding hidden stuff on websites, but that is hidden quite deep...

Or was it a fortunate Google search?

[MoaningCrusader]

What are people's thoughts on Obligation 5.3 on pg17 of the document.

 

It basically states that Gatwick Airport have an obligation to discourage the use of private car travel to the airport. Could this be present as permission for them to implement Drop Zone charges?

[MoaningCrusader]

Nicky Boy... It was a bit of both. I was searching for the agreement between Gatwick Airport and NCP online and stumbled upon this while searching using the Gatwick Airport site search engine.

 

I was also searching through all local authority websites for any planning permissions for the signage etc. I discovered neither Crawley nor Sussex County Councils had any record of any planning at Gatwick airport. I found that I had been barking up the wrong trees, as I found out that in fact Reigate & Banstead Councils seem to handle all planning for Gatwick. 

 

Good news... No mention of Drop Off Zone planning permissions for signage.

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

 

20 minutes ago, MoaningCrusader said:

What are people's thoughts on Obligation 5.3 on pg17 of the document.

I would say that the actual wording makes it clear that strategies should be implemented to "promote" modes of transport other than the private car... Rather than "discourage the use of private cars" as you've read it?

[MoaningCrusader]

So... My Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) has just arrived in the post today (dated 2nd March! How long does it take them to post a document?)

 

Anyway... I guess we are game on soon. I will be definitely presenting to you guys a more complete WS this week.

 

Do any of you have any idea rough ball park timeframe now long until the hearing date?

 

The reason I ask, is that I am leaving for a 10day holiday on Fri 31st March. What happens if the hearing date falls when I am going to be away? 

 

Can you ask for the date to reallocated for this reason?

 

Do you need me to post up a scan of the document? Or are these fairly generic to all small claims cases?