Premier/BW ANPR PCN claimform - Overstay - Lldl & PureGym 20 Castle Bridge Rd Notts NG7 IGX - Help with WS ***Claim Dismissed****

[FTMDave]

Around post 94 (it might be a couple of posts above or below, sometimes the post count goes wonky)  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/441307-vcs-spycar-pcn-claimform-no-stopping-jla-liverpool-airport/page/4/#comments  there is a cracking WS. 

 

There is another around post 81 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/446738-hx-parkinggladstones-ccj-exceeded-1hrs-free-mcdonalds-alma-leisure-park-chesterfield-ccj-issued-thanks-to-useless-parking-fines-ltd-continued/page/4/#comments

 

Now your case may be very different and therefore the legal arguments different - but these WSs are a good example of how to set out your case.

 

Who is suing you anyway?  It's not BW Legal, they are just dodgy solicitors who represent the PPCs.  Who is the claimant?

[FTMDave]

OK, Premier Parking.  So your arguments need to be, more or less -

 

NO LOCUS STANDI - Premier Park aren't the landowner, you don't believe they have the right to bring the claim.

KEEPER LIABILITY - Premier Park are suing the keeper of the vehicle, not the driver.  Have they established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act?

PLANNING PERMISSION - you don't believe they have PP either for their signs nor to reduce the free parking time from three hours to two hours.

DUAL RECOVERY - you can lift from the two WSs I indicated all the bits about the PPC inventing extra sums, as they all do this.

 

Have you looked up Planning Permission?

 

When you filed your defence did you send the fleecers a CPR request?

 

I've cross posted with dx.  dx is spot on.  Please fill in the sticky and upload the paperwork.

 

 

[FTMDave]

The Letter of Claim is there but what about the original PCN?  We need to see if they sent it out in time to create keeper liability.

[FTMDave]

Good work.

 

But damn.

[FTMDave]

Most of the other points in post 7 stand though, as well as everything you mentioned about their signage being carp.

[FTMDave]

On first reading that is superb work.  Well done.

 

Not let's go through it with a fine tooth comb ...

[FTMDave]

After the comb ...

 

Is 2.12 relevant?  You say you don't have photos of the signs.  I remember drafting this for a different car park.

 

3.2.d has to go.  Prohibition isn't relevant to this case.

 

Section 4 looks good, but - make sure your PCN really does have these deficiencies.

 

In your section 5 repeat the stuff in 3.1.a and 3.2.c.  Yes, it's repetitive, but it hammers home that they are not the landowner and have refused to prove they have the authority to bring the claim.

[FTMDave]

Go to  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#signs-and-surface-markings  and scroll down to 3.4.

 

How about using parts of the government's CoP to beef up your INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE section?

 

You could point out that you recognise that the government's CoP hadn't been published in 2019, however it shows reasonable & best practice, which is for the companies to underline when a new parking system is in play so regular users do not get caught out.

 

You could also point out that such predatory practices are not allowed in the British Parking Association's Code of Practice, which Premier Parking has signed up to.

 

BTW, the fleecers haven't sent you their WS yet, right?

 

BTW 2, it will turn up by snail mail, you haven't given them an e-mail address, right?

[FTMDave]

Well spotted.

 

We probably need to discuss the government's CoP on the site, as the legal situation changes by the the minute.

 

However, my view is this.  The government started to regulate the industry in 2019 and then the CoP was published in February.

 

In every single WS by the various fleecers, we've seen nothing about the CoP or any recognition whatsoever about government regulation.  They simply refuse to recognise this change.

 

Very, very recently it's been withdrawn as it's being challenged over (a) the amount of parking charges and (b) the Unicorn Food Tax.  However, I'm unsure who is involved in the legal challenge.

 

Therefore I think it is extremely unlikely that they will jump out in your case and say "the CoP said this in February but now in July it's under legal challenge!"  Especially as at your hearing - if it goes that far - you won't have anyone from Premier Parking, you'll have some hapless local solicitor living near your local court who won't have a clue about the case.

 

If the worst came to the worst you would recognise in court that the legal situation had changed since you wrote your WS - but I can't see that happening.

 

Let's see what the other regulars think.

[FTMDave]

Brilliantly spotted LFI.

[FTMDave]

Just thinking.

 

Even if, by some freak, the fleecers were to bring up the government Code of Practice, which so far they never have ...

 

... the legal challenge regards the level of the parking invoices and whether they can add debt collection charges.  Signage is not part of the legal challenge.

[FTMDave]

What you've prepared is great, but sometimes the excellent points you make are not in the part where you are making the relevant legal argument.

 

3.4 & 3.5 need to become 2.12 & 2.13.

 

The rest seems to be fine but I'm knackered after work and looking after my COVID-positive son.  Please move those two paragraphs around and we can have another go tomorrow.

 

[FTMDave]

My son's well on the road to recovery.  Thanks.

 

Great work with the WS.

 

In 2.12 & 2.13 your refer to the government "Code of Conduct", it should be "Code of Practice", not that it makes much difference.

 

Your might as well beef up 3.3.  Leave what you've written but add an extra sentence at the end "In addition the Claimant has unilaterally changed the period of free parking from three hours to two hours without having the change authorised by the local council".

 

Cut out 5.2 b.  But beef up the LOCUS STANDI section with a conclusion 5.3.  "5.3  The Claimant has not provided this document.  The Claimant is not the landowner, merely someone who, supposedly, organises parking.  i do not believe that the Claimant has the right to bring this claim under their own name".

[FTMDave]

Best not to give any e-mail address to the fleecers.  We've seen examples of them e-mailing statements with lies one minute to the court deadline when you have no chance to reply.  Force them to use snail mail.

[FTMDave]

When is the deadline for filing?

 

Have the fleecers sent you a WS?

[FTMDave]

The paragraph immediately before ILLEGAL SIGNAGE needs to be changed.  The Act is actually from 2019, it's the CoP that was published in February.  I also don't think you should be highlighting that the CoP is temporarily suspended.  Let the fleecers bring that up, if they have the intelligence which I doubt.

 

Apart from that your WS is superb and ready to go.

 

The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 led to the publication of the government's Code of Practice in February of this year with the recommendation that those changes that can be brought in straight away, should be. And the others which will take time such as new style PCNs that look and sound totally different from the Council Penalty Charge Notices will become Law later. It is obvious that the Government wants to make changes and to clarify the existing PoFA2012 and it is only right that parking companies should be amending their practices to reflect the new Law.

[FTMDave]

I would e-mail the court their copy on the 15th, and post the fleecers theirs 1st class the same day.

 

Yes, it will mean the fleecers will get theirs a day late but as a Litigant-in-Person you are allowed leeway and as the fleecers have sent nothing they can hardly complain.

 

This also gives you the change to either ridicule the fleecers' WS should it arrive, or point out to the Court that the fleecers are defying court orders should it not arrive.

[FTMDave]

There is loads to plough through, but for a start - new points 2.14 & 2.15.

 

2.14  The Claimant's Witness Statement author states (para 10) "Signage - I am instructed these were in situ on the day of the contravention".  She may well have been so instructed, but the signs were not there. 

 

2.15  However, had they been there as she maintains, they would in any case have been extremely confusing.  Some of the signs she has produced state "Lidl and PureGym.  Customer Parking Only.  Max stay 2 hrs" whereas others state "Lidl and PureGym.  Customer Parking Only.  Max stay 3 hrs".  A motorist wouldn't have understood how long they could park.  It is agreed by both parties that the Defendant did not stay longer than three hours.  Consumer law states that if an offer is confusing then the interpretation most in the consumer's favour should be chosen.  The Claimant's representative states that there were signs present allowing three hours' free parking. 

 

You need to look up the point of law I mention at the end, I've heard it but haven't found the actual law.

[FTMDave]

New 3.4.

 

3.4  The Claimant's Witness Statement author does not deny the above, she merely states (para 39) that no enforcement action has yet been taken.  In simple English - "they haven't been caught yet guv".

[FTMDave]

Did you use the MSE site?

 

Did you ignore a Letter of Claim as she says?

[FTMDave]

Thanks.

 

This is important - when Premier Park or BW Legal sent a Letter of Claim, did you answer them?  She says you didn't.  Also -

 

New 3.5.

 

3.5  The Claimant's Witness Statement author mentions the British Parking Association's Code of Practice (para 5 & para 9 & para 44).  By signing the CoP the Claimant guarantees to have obtained all legal permissions.  Yet they have not done so.

 

Add to the end of your current point 4

 

In para 13 and para 45.1 the Claimant once again attempts to mix up "driver" and "keeper" although they must be well aware that they are two completely separate legal entities.

 

[FTMDave]

OK, thanks for clarifying.  Apologies for sending comments in dribs & drabs but I'm writing in breaks from work.  I think I've gone through everything.  See what the other regulars say now.  However, new 5.4 & 5.5 -

 

5.4  Nowhere in the contract supplied by the Claimant are they given authority to bring claims under their own name.  In fact the exact opposite is stated in point 21 "legal action to recover any unpaid parking charges on behalf of the Operator and/or the Managing Agent".  This claim is not on behalf of the Operator or the Managing Agent.  The Claimant seeks to put the cash in their own pocket.

 

5.5  The contract also allows free parking up to three hours.  Both parties agree that the Defendant did not stay longer than three hours.

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

Great work.  Well done.

 

I notice now in their "Skeleton Argument" (what that?) that, for the first time, solicitors representing a PPC have mentioned the suspension of the government's CoP.  I think we need to counter this.  New 2.14 below (so current 2.14 & 2.15 become 2.15 & 2.16) -

 

2.14  The Claimant's legal representatives in their "Skeleton Argument" point 22 mention "recent successful challenges" in June against the government Code of Practice.  If these challenges had not been made I am sure the Claimant's representatives would have acted as if the CoP didn't exist.  As far as I know the challenges have not been "successful" but are ongoing.  However, the Claimant's representative is right to state that the two challenges refer to "the reduction of the parking charge amounts and debt recovery costs".  The government CoP guidelines as to signage are not under legal challenge.

[FTMDave]

Hang on a minute.  LFI was quite rightly putting the boot into the PPC's disgraceful conduct but I don't know if he intended everything to go into the WS.

 

A lot of what you've written repeats points already made.  I think it would be better cut down and will, if I can, try to pop in at lunch time.

 

"Supplemental Witness Statement" has a specific meaning, it's a second WS sent to the court with new information.

Edited July 15, 2022 by FTMDave
Pressed "Send" by mistake

[FTMDave]

You haven't used the offending phrase "Supplemental Witness Statement" so the title can stay.  However, i would massively cut it down -

 

Supplemental Information

7.1  In the Claimant's Witness Statement author's para 23 she complains about cutting and pasting from  the internet, as if a Litigant-in-Person is unworthy of an audience with the judge to plead their case.  I wonder how she gained her knowledge other than by reading on the subject.  If I hadn't leant about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 I would have believed that the Claimant could mix up "driver" and "keeper"; I wouldn't have known that the PCN is non-compliant in two ways;  had I not researched the government Code of Practice set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 I wouldn't have known that motorists are entitled to ten minutes consideration time at the beginning of parking to read the Terms & Conditions and a further five minutes at the end of the parking period; I also would not have known about the debt recovery costs which are unlawful under both these pieces of legislation.  Without access to the internet many motorists actually pay those added amounts.  And I am the one being accused of unreasonable behaviour!