parking eye ANPR PCN PAPLOC NOW claimform - 14 mins overstay - Riverside Retail Park chelmsford essex

[Junkie2222]

Just a quick update.

Case rescheduled for Sept.

The lemons have posted me the new WS2. I've done a bit of reading on the cases listed. 

I can't find anything, anywhere about PE Vs Kandola.

I emailed the court used for the case ( Preston I think ) they have no data. They hold audio transcripts for 6 years and that time period has lapsed. I have kept the email chain. Also, no verdict on file.

Is there a polite way of asking for the case transcipts from PE? More for the fact, I doubt they have them and they aren't obtainable from the court.

With some frantic, off the wall googling, I found the page they're quoting. Which appears to be a witness statement sent to another person. I changed the numbers to track back through the pages of that witness statement and didn't really find anything helpful.

I did see some signs, that didn't look like car park signs, more residential some of look to them. ( guessing to be honest )

Just no real way of seeing if it's relevant to be used against me.

Got some handy pointers on the contract side from here, so thanks.

Will draft a WS2, post it up closer to the date, then post to them, annoying close to deadline.

I'll do it with plenty of time this go around! Apologies for that.

 

Just an update for anyone following.

 

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

I've just reread their WS2.  It's all rubbish.  I wouldn't even bother challenging it.  You have your postage receipt so you can show Sammy up as a liar in court.

 

Unless you really want to show her up in writing before.

[Junkie2222]

I think I will reply. It'll put the postage proof in an official document.

Also, there are various points I'd like to argue.

 

Just for fun now!

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I think you have to make the point clear that the tanker blocking your path would not have incurred if PE complied with the requirements of PoFA and only timed cars for the actual time parked in the parking spot rather than include  the entrance and leaving times. They are obviously not the same as the Parking Period. Whilst the new Government Code of Practice only clarifies what the Parking Period  in the original PoFA actually is, over time it has been corrupted by PE and others to include the extra time involved in driving around the car park thus enabling the rogues to rip off motorists when in reality the motorist had complied with PoFA. It is the rogues who are breaching the Act  by falsely using the wrong yardstick for deciding the Parking Period.

 

I note that they didn't answer your  point about planning permission.They haven't got it therefore their signs are illegal. It follows on that the signs should not be there at all regardless of whatever their purported contract may say. What it also means is that their contract is void since they are using illegal signs to enforce their contract. If their contract is void then it cannot be enforced. The Act that requires planning permission for signs and anpr cameras is Town and Country [advertising] Regulations.

It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.

So no consent then the contract is void.

[FTMDave]

So is the hearing coming up in September?

[Junkie2222]

Yes Dave,

I have this weekend penned in to write a second WS. Brief but a couple of points I'd like to raise. Especially the fact that can't read a post mark! 

Also, why I wasn't sent a valid contract if they had it.

The cases mentioned don't have any great impact on my situation. One relates to a solicitor claiming legal fees. The second is a patent case which incurred expenses from a third party. Which this mob hasn't incurred. 

I've got another debt collection letter yesterday from a ticket in 2020. I parked in a car park they look after. Different firm but I'll upload later in a new thread. Just rather send a letter and hopefully avoid all this grief. 

 

Sorry for the late reply, was on a course all weekend. Hope this finds you well. 

[Junkie2222]

Witness statement 2 dws.pdf

 

Second witness statement. I havent added the details of the offical stuff or the numbering yet.

Just a rough draft but took longer than expected!

Would you mind having a read and I'll get it formatted and numbered properly for sending out on weds. 

Thanks all

[FTMDave]

You have done your homework in demolishing their Section 8!!!

I'll have a good read back through your thread and comment properly a bit later today.

[FTMDave]

What you've written is, as usual for you, damn brilliant

The first thing is that the judge doesn't have to accept these second WSs, although logically it would be unfair to accept Sammy's but reject yours.  I think at the start you should write something like -

Subject to approval by the Court, I have no objection to the Claimant being allowed to file a second Witness Statement after the Court's deadline, but I ask that this, my second Witness Statement, be similarly allowed.

After your paragraph SW WS2 Section 4 you need to stick the boot in and show Sammy up as a liar.  Something like -

Ms Woodhouse has stated something which can clearly and unambiguously be shown to be untrue, despite signing a Statement of Truth.  If she has done so deliberately, I would argue that her entire Witness Statement cannot be reliable.  It is however more likely that she has been negligent and simply regurgitated what she has been told without doing any checking, but similarly one wonders what else she has not checked as being correct in her Witness Statement.  One also wonders why she is not appearing in court where I could ask her questions, and her company is instead sending an advocate.

Your paragraph that starts SW WS2 section 5 and 6 goes too far down the road of admitting an overstay.  I would change the first lines to -

For the sake of argument let's ignore the fact that the Government Code of Practice allows a 5-minute consideration period and a 10-minute grace period, and the International Parking Community CoP allows a "sufficient" consideration period and a 10-minute grace period, and therefore under those CoPs I did not overstay, and accept that the Claimant's trade association CoP allows only a 10-minute grace period, and therefore I overstayed by 3 minutes.  SW WS2 section 5 and 6 raises the points that Mr Beavis overstayed. Mr Beavis overstayed by a far greater period than myself. With a grace period allowed in Mr Beavis’ case, he would have still overstayed by more than half an hour. So a judgement

I'm tempted to ridicule the appeals procedure, but I don't suppose it's that important.

Right at the start there is an "it" that shouldn't be there and it's "de minimis" not "de mininus" and it really should be "Ms Woodhouse" rather than "Samantha".

[FTMDave]

The importance of deadlines has just struck me - what date is the hearing?

[Junkie2222]

Court date is the 28th of Sept. Which I'm just going to double check now. 

Yes. 28th. I'll get everything brushed up by tomorrow and tuesday night and get it sent out by Wednesday. Then have an hour or 2 next weekend to organise the actual physical paperwork in prep.

I did want to give a couple of digs at them but thought I'd try to sound level headed. All the moaning about how ' the Internet helped him ' yet they send a bog standard, wad of utter turd to people. Maybe they should try the Internet, it might make them seem more professional!

Recorded Mail is my friend again!

thanks again mate and we can probably look forward to a third WS from them! 

[FTMDave]

Sending on Wednesday for the 28th is fine.  I suddenly went into a panic as recently fellow Site Team member  Andyorch wrote on a different thread -

BTW SWS can be served as late as 3 days pre hearing (assuming both parties are in agreement ) which then does not require the courts permission.

[Junkie2222]

All sorted last night. Posted today to the court and PE legal dept.

Included your edits Dave. Corrected a few bits. Typos and for clarity.

Numbered the paragraphs, added the sections at the top and bottom for identity and statement of truth etc. Signed and dated the bottom.

Short list of exhibits.

I'll try to upload over the weekend, for anyone followings benefit. Although, it's very close to what's above anyway.

See where we go from here, 28th September. AM hearing.

I'll update if anything else shows up or after the case. Thanks for the help all, couldn't have done it without you all.

 

[technician483]

Hi Junkie2222,

Sorry to interrupt your thread and well done on your battle so far.

I've been sent a letter before action for overstaying 16 minutes in the same car park as you.  I'm hoping to write to the land owners to ask them to help but can't find a name or address to write to.  There is a phone number listed but no one ever answers it.  Do you have a name and address for the land owners?

 

[dx100uk]

best to keep too and update your own thread @technician483 and ask things there

you can find the landowner by using the land registry site.

dx

[lookinforinfo]

I couldn't read their original contract. However as they had a change of ownership back in 2018 where the M&G Real Estate took control. So even if as PE have said that M&G have agreed with the details of the original contract it does mean that  anew contract will have had to be signed by M&G.

So that is the contract that is in force and that is the one they should produce in Court. If they don't produce it you should claim that the contract they have showed is over 12 years old plus a change of owner five years ago so that contract is not valid and you would like to see the most recent contract.

[Junkie2222]

The first witness statement went into details about the out of date contract, the sale of the property etc. They've come up with a novation since but yes, no actual contract. I have flagged this and pointed out, I still haven't had a contract. Also, how they have breached it with no planning permission. 

The new firm M and G real estate look to be here ..... ( formerly Prudential I think ) 

10 Fenchurch Ave, London EC3M 5AG.

be handy if you do get a copy before the 28th. That has kind of slipped through the cracks for me. shouldve done so myself really, however, its their contract and I did ask for it. 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I think it better if you don't get the M&G contract. Then PE would be hard pushed to get a win using an out of date contract where a new company is now in possession of the land.

And if PE are reluctant to produce the M&G contract it could indicate that there were changes made otherwise there should be no problem producing them.

[honeybee13]

In case it's relevant, M&G are the investment arm of Pru who bought them a while back.

HB

[Junkie2222]

Case transferred to a video Conference call instead.

Is this good, bad or same?

Had no further post, as yet.

 

[dx100uk]

saves on travel

i notice on @technician483 thread M&G have instructed PE to cancel the PCN nd they have

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

Carrying on from Dave's comments after your words "I wasn’t in a space during this time" therefore not parked so respectfully, should not be included in the parking period.

Ref the Kandola case."So without a full transcript it is difficult to argue this point". I would therefore  ask that as PE do have a history of misreporting in WSs  re  "ParkingEye v Mr X. Crewe. 8/9/2017."DJ Rogers" 

DJ Rogers claimed that their WS was "tantamount to Perjury". and carried on to say "she has ample access to all of ParkingEye's records and in the course of her employment she has tendered a document to the court which contains evidence that cannot be true. I therefore cannot rely on her evidence and I am dismissing her statement and therefore every document that she produces in that statement." 

You will need to point out that it was a different lady who produced the WS in 2017  to the current lady though in this case too we have a situation where one of the facts at least, cannot be true either.

Under Schedule 4 section1 [1]  the definition of relevant contract is "

• “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)

  I know it is  a lot of adding extra wording but should help your case against PE.

  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;

  Under sch  4 S4 [1][2] 

  4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

  (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

  (a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

  Under Sch 4 S5 [1]

  Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

  5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

  (a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; 

  as PE have failed to produce a valid contract they have failed to meet the requirements of Section 4 and their claim must fail

 

[lookinforinfo]

I wonder if instead of showing them your proof of posting you put them to strict proof that they received your WS on the  date they claimed since you expected it would have been received earlier -still not mentioning your proof or the date they sent it.

What they come up with could be interesting. They shouldn't be able to prove they received it 6 days prior-or could they? If they can't prove they received it on their date why did they state that? Then you produce your certificate of posting.

what do the Site team think?

[Junkie2222]

Case was today.

Took approx 1 hour and 20 mins. I lost unfortunately. Full amount including the £50 legal.

The whole case was heard on the original defence. Which gave a bit of ammo but nothing specific.

The judge said she believed my tanker bit but couldn't really include it as no evidence. I explained its not the sort of photo you take.

She said the contract part was not included in the defence ( which I didn't have to hand! )

As it was already established for the same car park ( Beavis case ) also the signage.

Witness statements weren't really used as it centred around the defence I entered and which I didn't ammend before this hearing. ( which didn't go in my favour )

The overstay was not deemed di minimis as the period is the / was calculated on the grace period and not the entirety of the stay.

Judge acknowledged the AT LEAST part of CoP.

It took way longer than anyone expected, I was commended on a good fight by all but still had to pay. Judge said it was well defended and refused LPC costs, stating that it'd be a very high bar to get it.

Sort of feel I wasted my time and stress but it engaged my brain. Thanks for all help and advice everyone.

 

[dx100uk]

sounds a bit judge lottery to me?

 

dx