**WON!!!!!** County Court claim letter over parking fines

[mystery1]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

So the bundle only has 7 notice to drivers ?

Cox st
12.47
15.25
11.14
10.58
10.43
15.13


Gulson st
11.37


But they are claiming 9 ?

M1

[jord22]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

Just gone back through the evidence bundle and you're right, there's 6 at Cox Street and 1 at Gulson Road.

Great news re. oral argument, I'd find it easier if it was in bullet points or some form like that, so I can just read it off?

The link you sent, I'm struggling to understand what you mean, can you put it in Lehmann's terms?

[mystery1]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

IN THE*[TOWN]
COUNTY COURT
CASE No.
BETWEEN

*
[IVOR PROBLEM]
Claimant
*
AND

*
[JUSTIN TIME]
Defendant
*
Skeleton argument for the defence


1. This is a claim by the claimant, UK Parking Control Limited ("UKPC") for 9 parking charge notices. Following the case of ParkingEye v Beavis in the supreme court there remains a number of issues for the court to decide in order for UKPC to win.

A. Does UKPC have a contract with the land owners or occupiers which allows them to operate on the land ?

B. Are the signs "large, prominent and legible" to the extent that a contract between UKPC and a driver can be created ?

C. If the signs are large, prominent and legible, can the wording actually create a contract ?





A. The land owner/occupier contract issue.

At point 3 in my defence, UKPC was put to strict proof of their claim within their pleadings that they were managing the site. The only evidence lodged on this point is a copy of a contract which is not dated, has no location details that pertain to the car park(s) Gulston St and/or Cox Street and would appear to pertain to Priory street if anything. Absent any proof to the contray , UKPC have failed to show any authority to operate on the land in question and the case should be dismissed.



B. The contract issue.

Should the court disagree on point A then i would point out that UKPC have supplied a few photographs of signs. None of these photographs are readable. As well as this, the map supplied in evidence does not show the location of any sign or indeed that there were any signs present. Further the map appears to show Gulson street but there is no evidence of any car park at Cox street. Beavis is clear that the signs must be "large prominent and legible" if they are ever to have any prospect of creating a contract. Para 91.

There are some other images which appear to be close up scans of signs however these prove little more than someone can use a scanner and do not prove the signs could be read in situ.

As there is no evidence the signs were "large, prominent and legible" no contract could be formed and as per UKPC v Masterton and Beavis, the claim dismissed.

"8. So for those reasons, I am unable to accept that the particular circumstances of this
case reveal a contractual licence to park with a contract between the parking manager,
in this case UKPC, in the Supreme Court authority ParkingEye, and the vehicle owner
or driver, in this case the defendant, and in the Supreme Court authority, Mr Beavis.

9. The consequences are that the Supreme Court authority does not assist me on the
charges levied by the claimant in this case and that in the absence of a contract
between the claimant and the defendant, the cause of action does not lie with the
claimant. The defendant’s submissions are that any cause of action lies with the
freeholder. I do not have any contracts between either the NHS Trust or Swan
Housing and the claimant and I do not need to consider this in the light of my finding
and I decline to do so in the absence of documents clarifying the legal position and/or
contracts of those three legal entities between themselves."

Beavis

"107. In our opinion the term imposing the £85 charge was not unfair. The term
does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the
general law or by statute. But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement
on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have
been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been
limited to the occupation value of the parking space."

Without a valid contract between the landowner/occupier any claim would lie in trespass and be a claim in the name of the landowner/occupier as per Masterton and Beavis and the case should be dismissed.



C. Is a contract created ?

Should the court find the signs are "large, prominent and legible" in order they are capable of forming a contract i submit that the content of the signs do not contain all the elements required to create a contract.

It is trite law that to create a contract there must be offer, acceptance and consideration.

The signs included in the evidence bundle state "Coventry University Students parking only" There is no offer to myself as a non student.

"Vehicles my be issued with a £80 parking charge notice, reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days if found ....."

It does not say you can park for £80/£40 or invite you to do so. The signs forbid all the actions stated. There is no offer and the basic principles of a contract are absent.

I submit this is very similar to the scenario to that which DJ Glen decided in Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull

17. Why is this important? It is important for this reason. In the Beavis case the scheme
was categorised by the permission the ParkingEye gave Mr Beavis to be in the car park
for a limited period of time. So whether you call it a contractual licence or whether
you simply call it a contractual permission, as Lord Mance in the end did, that was the
consideration and the consideration flowing the other way was Mr Beavis’s agreement
to be bound by those terms.

18. I am afraid that in my judgment that analysis just does not work in this case. It does
not work for this reason. If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was
saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree
with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core
consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that
this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against
parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out
of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for
anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass
on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the
form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be
damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land
in order to proceed in trespass.


19. I think Mr Samuels recognised the difficulty of his conditional obligation argument, ie
you must not park here but if you do then you have got to pay, and he urged upon me
in the alternative that one had to look outside of just the roadways and look at the
leases and the rights and obligations under the leases as a whole and to construct, as it
were, a package of mutual obligations and benefits which gave rise to consideration for
a contract whereafter a breach would result in a charge.

20 ...............However, in my judgment, there was never any contractual
relationship, whether one categorises it as a licence or simply some form of contractual
permission, because that is precisely what PCM were not giving to people who parked
on the roadway.

21. For that reason alone I will dismiss this claim, but as the parties have taken the trouble
to argue the other issues that arise and in case the matter has to go to any higher court,
I will indicate what my views were on the remaining issues."


For the reason that there is no contract the claim should be dismissed.



2. UKPC has brought a claim for 9 parking charges. Should the court not be with me on my above contractual arguments i would state that UKPC have no adduced evidence of all 9 charges. There are only 7 charges in evidence. 6 are from Cox street of which there is no evidence at all and 1 from Gulson road. As UKPC were put to proof of their claims the 2 with no evidence at all should be dismissed. The 6 from Cox street should also be dismissed as the claimant has no proof in court of these charges.


3. The only additional charge mentioned on the sign is £60 for passing on to a debt collector. If the court holds any charges are due then i submit that as there is no evidence of a debt collector having been used that only the £80 per ticket amount is allowed as the £60 has not been spent and no other charges are allowed for, aside from normal court costs as decided by the court.






Start from this and we'll see if any edits are required.

M1

[jord22]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

Thanks so much [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]. I'll take a look through this shortly.

Do I need to print this off and hand it to the other side tomorrow?

[mystery1]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

You need to print it off for yourself. Whether you wish to give them a copy, probably as if the judge requests to read it rather than listen to you droning on they should have a chance to read it also.

Don't forget copies of the cases mentioned (x 3) from http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html & http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

You also need to prepare your costs. £90 for a day off parking postage etc

M1

[jord22]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

Is there a template I need to prepare to print off my costs by the way? My costs would only be around £90 I suspect.

I've printed off Masterson, Bull and Beavis (Supreme Court).

I'll print three copies off of the document you prepared (I'm not in work tomorrow so any changes I need to do ASAP, but if not I'll do these straight away!).

[mystery1]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

No template. Just when it's over, if you win ask for what costs you have and as it's oral their is no format. Quite a few people forget as they are so relieved if they win.

I may have mixed up Street and road on the street names so make sure you correct that.

M1

[jord22]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

Yeah I'll just mention £90.

I'll go through that now, is there anything else that would need to be changed on it?

Also with the print outs of the other court cases, will the judge ask to see these, or is it good that I offer them as a reference point?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, you mentioned 'para 91', what's this in reference to?

[mystery1]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

Para 91 = Beavis paragraph 91.

The judge may ask to see them thus 3 copies. 1 for you, them and the claimant. If highlighting then only do so on your copy.

It is suggest to put all documents etc in a ring binder (x3) with labels for ease of reference. Obviously start with index, claim, defence,etc etc as you may get flustered looking through a random pile of paperwork with no order.

M1

[jord22]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

I won't have access to binders, so I'll have to put them in paper wallets or something like that.

I'm not sure if there's a Beavis para 91 on the link provided? Maybe I'm just being blonde. I'll get three printed off.

How's best to prepare for tomorrow?

[mystery1]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

I won't have access to binders, so I'll have to put them in paper wallets or something like that.

I'm not sure if there's a Beavis para 91 on the link provided? Maybe I'm just being blonde. I'll get three printed off.

How's best to prepare for tomorrow?

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...0-judgment.pdf


Just read a few times have a break, read later but not just before bed as you want to sleep. Read in the morning, get their early, read again, refuse to take any documents outside court from their brief and complain to the judge if they do give you stuff that should have been sent 14 days ago. Always be polite but don't be afraid to be firm if required.

M1

[jord22]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

I'll read my defence a few times first and foremost and just familiarise myself with the referenced sections in the documents, rather than read the whole thing!

So in essence, I'll read my defence and state it as read. I won't take any documents from them as I should've had them 14 days ago. Hope for the best.

[jord22]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

Scrap that - evidence is printed.

I've left my office now so won't be able to now print anything of. I've not printed off all of Beavis for myself just because I've got para 91 instead.

[jord22]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

Hi [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION]

A quick one - am I able to read my defence from the sheet?

[Kati]

Re: County Court claim letter over parking fines

Hi @mystery1 @Kati

A quick one - am I able to read my defence from the sheet?

you could have a sheet with your defence on if you needed ... you might be asked questions by the judge (to clarify things) xx

- - - Updated - - -

GOOD LUCK [MENTION=92610]jord22[/MENTION]