Premier/Gladstone CCTV PCN Claimform - parked on DYL - euro car parts gatwick 80 crawley RH109pl *** Claim Dismissed***

[honeybee13]

  

On 11/03/2023 at 13:01, boxer1978 said:

I have the same question - if NOT leaving the car is considered NOT parking? 

I didnt know that the county judges look at POFA compliance as well. Thought it was just POPLA 

Thanks - I will start my own 

Hello, welcome to CAG.

We're happy to answer any questions 

Best, HB

[boxer1978]

I have the same question - if NOT leaving the car is considered NOT parking? 

I didnt know that the county judges look at POFA compliance as well. Thought it was just POPLA 

Thanks - I will start my own 

[boxer1978]

org thread

My friend waited on double yellow lines at Euro car parts crawley RH109pl for picking some car parts at the store.

He was no more than 15 mins.

There were no signs visible except for a double yellow line.

 

5 days later he received a PCN  from Prem1er p4rk ltd .

 

He has since spoken to the council and the police to see if he broke any byelaws as road is not a public road.

I thought that if it was a council / Govt maintained road , the PCN should have been from the council.

 

Original PCN does not state time he entered and exited the road or how long he was parked there but he thinks it wsnt more than 10-15 min.

He has been back a few times to check out signage and taken pictures.

 

He now has 3 debt recovery letters from debt recovery plus  and a LBC letter from Gl4dst0nes.

All were ignored until the MCOL Claim was received.

 

MCOL Issue Date is 15 Feb 2023

I advised him to do AOS which I believe was done on 24th Feb 2023

 

Can you please help with the defence

Details of the PCN and claim are attached

Can you please help ? 

@lookinforinfo - I was wondering if that other PCN proceeded to the court stage.

 

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

Yes we can help. Hopefully someone will post up the questions we need answers to, or I will when I get home. 

 

Is there a reason why you're posting the names of the parking co, etc. in code?

 

HB

 

 

[dx100uk]

the defence he needs is further down in the sticky you filled out

 

has he sent the parking cpr 31.14? to their sols yet?

 

no such thing as DYL's on private land 

merely tarmac graffiti not privately enforceable

neither is the pcn correct as its via CCTV and a windscreen ticket should have been issued 

 

we cant see if anything is enforceable as you've removed all times and dates from all the letters!!

 

please upload as pdf and dont use a file hosting site!

 

[boxer1978]

 

No CPR 31.14 sent. Just a SAR request to the DPO of OPC. 

Can you point me to when / how we can send the CPR 31.14 please 

 

Thanks DX

The incident was on 6th Aug 2021 and the NTK issued date was 5 days later. No windscreen ticket or anything and the camera that captured the car wasnt even ANPR just a CCTV.

 

Will upload the PDF

 

I wrote that in code because I didnt want the chancers to find out the exact defence argument my friend will use in court.

Thats why the dates are also removed. 

 

The main argument is their interpretation of a DYL. DYL means something when on public roads. On a privately  maintained road , its not the same thing. 

 

No contract is formed just by painting a line. The signs didnt make it clear that he was entering into a contract. Just stated "No parking" 

 

Its like I put up a small CCTV on my front door and paint a line + put up a sign "No parking" and wait for any car that stops there for 10 min. 

Then I send the car keeper an invoice for breach of contract.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

you dont need to play secret squirrel!

 

the defence will be the GENERIC bland one later in the sticky you filled out with the court info your did SCROLL FURTHER DOWN!

 

who is OPC? why send an SAR?

 

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors now.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim

type your name ONLY

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

………….
 

 

 

 

 

[boxer1978]

Thanks DX, 

I will send the CPR 31.14 out to the Solicitors

[FTMDave]

So what happened in your other thread?  Have the fleecers given up for the moment?

 

As for your mate, it was a bad idea to ignore a Letter of Claim.  The PPCs take that as a sign that the motorist might ignore a claimform too and they will get an easy default win.

[lookinforinfo]

The reason we ask not to remove the dates and times is that if they do not comply with PoFA then only the driver is liable for the charge as their mistakes means they cannot transfer the debt to the keeper.

 

As it happens this PCN is not compliant anyway.  They are meant to specify the period of parking  which they haven't done other than to include photos of the car being parked there which may be around 8 minutes if I have read the poorly portrayed photos. However it is likely given these are cctv pictures that the parking time was probably longer. 

 

The second fail is that the PCN should include an option for the keeper to pay the charge rather than the driver. As this is missing these small details are enough to render the PCN non compliant.

Although that takes your friend as the keeper out of the equation were they driving that would still leave them liable.

 

However it sounds as if there has been no contact either by hone or mail with Premier it does make things difficult for them. Anyone who has a valid vehicle insurance policy can drive your friend's car and they may also have their spouse or children named on their policy should they have any.

 

The parking **** always say that they are continuing pursuit on the grounds that the keeper was the driver. Court do not accept this and there has to be proof that the likelihood is that they are one and the same person.

 

So be sure to let your friend know that they must not help Premier by saying things like "I parked the car there..." rather than saying "the driver parked there..." 

 

In addition to blocking out the dates and times on the PCN you also blanked out the location that Premier say they have the authority to "protect".

 

Could you please include the place since it might not match up with the site stated on the contract when they send it.

 

Also could you please get some pictures of the entrance to the site showing the Premier sign as well as any other signs inside the parking area. I am hoping that there are signs stating "No Parking" referring to the  parking on the yellow lines.

 

This makes it a prohibitive sign and thus incapable of forming a contract with motorists.

 

[boxer1978]

Thanks very much people. 

Uploading the pdf with times showing.

Wall signs uploaded from the other thread on the same 

WallSign.pdf Docs1.pdf

[dx100uk]

thread tidied

[boxer1978]

Thanks DX. 

 

Details as per the sticky thread

 

MCOL Northampton claim

Name of the Claimant: Premier Park Ltd

 

Claimants Solicitors: Gladstones

 

Date of issue – 15th Feb 2023

 

Date for AOS -  24^th Feb 2023

 

Date to submit Defence – 17 March 2023

 

What is the claim for-

 

1.The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at Gatwick 80 Crawley CCTV – Gatwick rd Crawley West Sussex RH10 9PL on 06/08/2021, thus incurring the parking charge (The PCN).

 

2.The PCN was not paid within 28 days of the issue.

 

3. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle.

 

4.Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

 

The claimant claims £100 for the PCN, £ 70 Contractual costs pursuant to the contract and the PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £xx pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 10.25% per annum, continuing £0.05 per day

 

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

 

Amount Claimed 195.23

court fees  35

legal rep fees 50

Total Amount 280.23

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

note corrected defence filing date.

 

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

The photographs unfortunately were no help at all.

 

First there is no sign showing at the entrance to the parking area.

The wording on the notice helps to decide whether the sign is capable of making drivers aware that they are entering an area that has terms and conditions attached one inside the area. or it is only an offer to treat.

 

Second the signs on the walls are incapable of being read.

I cannot even see if it is a sign erected by Premier.

 

Signs can be very important since cases are won and lost on what is said on the signage:

what isn't said on the signage;

the signs are too high to be read or noticed;

there are not enough signs to be able to convince a Judge that motorists would be aware of the signs [especially here where h highsided vehicles could obscure some signs]

and the font size can be too small where it advises what the charges may be.

 

This is not a totally exhaustive list but gives you and idea of why they need to be read by us.

 

Also are these the only two signs around Europarts and are there any signs that are different from the ones you showed.

 

In truth the two you showed could say something different for all I know. 

 

This is also important since at times differing signs can contradict each other and the motorist has the advantage of being able to select which sign is more in their favour than the other.

[dx100uk]

page 3 of the pdf clearly states a manual pcn will be issued OR one by post

and clearly says CCTV.

 

NOT ALLOWED. claims dead

 

dx

 

[boxer1978]

Adding the google maps images of the location. The red rectangle is where the parking event took place in page 1.

 

The only images of restrictions at entry is the same as the page 3 of the original Wall Sign PDF.

 

Its also confusing because it seems that they are referring to the Marshalls Toyota car park to the left. 

 

The Euro Car Parts shop is straight on the road and that road doesnt at all look like a managed car park.  

 

BTW the post code mentioned in the PCN is wrong as well.

 

RH10 9PL as per Google is the next side street that my friend says he has never entered ever. 

 

GoogleMaps_Images1.pdf

 

thanks dx for updating the defence date. 

 

Also - can you please clarify  what you meant by "Not Allowed Claims Dead"

 

 

[dx100uk]

they dont have many legs to stand on.

CCTV pcn's are not really allowed- they should issued a windscreen ticket.

 

they cant claim its anpr nor use those time limits for the ntk....so sent their ntk is too early

 

the experts will explain should be an easy win here

 

dx

 

[boxer1978]

Thanks DX.

 

So its time for the defence. 

 

In the defence .. Should my friend state who the driver was, if he was himself was driving? 

[dx100uk]

you've already been told what to file and where it is...

[Nicky Boy]

Boxer,

 

Go here and scroll down to, Q2) How should I defend?

I know there's a lot of information flying around, but you've really got to be on the ball.

It's a lot of self help here.

The fleecers won't be helping you...

Edited March 13, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[boxer1978]

POC - For Reference 

1.The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at Gatwick 80 Crawley CCTV – Gatwick rd Crawley West Sussex RH10 9PL on 06/08/2021, thus incurring the parking charge (The PCN). 
2.The PCN was not paid within 28 days of the issue.

3. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle.

4.Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

The claimant claims £100 for the PCN, £ 70 Contractual costs pursuant to the contract and the PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £xx pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 10.25% per annum, continuing £0.05 per day

 

Defence 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle XXX.

 

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

 

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 
 
4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.  
 
5. It is unclear from the particulars of the claim in which capacity,  the claimant is pursuing the defendant - the driver or the keeper.

6.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

 

7.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

8. Not withstanding the above on xx xxxx 2021 I made a request pursuant to CPR 31.14 for the claimant to disclose its necessary evidence in support if its claim. 

 

Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to evidence its cause of action and contractual costs and what loss it has suffered.  The Claimant is further put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all.
 

 

Please advise on any refinements.  

 

Also a couple of questions if you can answer

 

1> Does my friend need to declare the driver at this stage?

2> Re #3 in defence The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract  

Since we havent seen the PPC contract with the landowner yet, is it okay to put this in defence as stated fact?

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

1> Never declare who the driver was.

 

2> Your stated facts are as valid as the fleecer's "stated facts".

 

FTM is the expert at wording stuff. I'm sure he'll chime in later.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[FTMDave]

Not really Nicky Boy!  I'm just standing on the shoulders of the giants I found when I came across the site.

 

@boxer1978 We have had a few cases of motorists preparing what were, on the surface, marvellous defences, full of legal points perfect for scuppering the fleecers ...

 

... only to discover later that the charlatans' solicitors has used the intervening months to think up lie after lie to counter those legal points.

 

You should never play your cards too early.

 

Nicky Boy pointed out the generic defence we suggest.  Saying a contract wasn't formed covers a myriad of different scenarios - not using POFA correctly, rubbish signage, etc.

 

That's all you need - the generic defence.

 

The time for playing all your cards is your Witness Statement which is much later on in the process.

[boxer1978]

Thanks @Nicky Boy  @FTMDave- Appreciate your inputs.

 

Which points from my defence would you advise to cut out? I have only added #4 & #5 

 

BTW - I used the generic defence template. The POC is only for our reference.