Bank Park ANPR PCN Claimform - Blue Car Park 2 Merry Hill Brierley DY5 1QX - *** Claim Dismissed ***

[FTMDave]

Right ... you can't file a new defence, what is done is done.

 

I don't really understand the difference between the  18 January deadline and the 1 February one.  In any case there is still time to respect the 18 January deadline and as a LiP you will be given some leeway.

 

All this secrecy though is nonsense.  No-one can help you if you don't give any information.  Forget about all the "identifying" rubbish, these horrible companies have hundreds of cases going on and can't monitor each one.  "Someone is suing me about something I did somewhere" will get you nowhere.

 

It's highly likely we know the company and we know the car park and can immediately help you to fight back, but straight away please fill in 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-aug-2016/

 

It's your own daft fault if mail regarding a legal dispute is arriving at an address which isn't yours. 

 

Please post up - redacted - the correspondence with the PPC including their WS (if that is what is was).

[FTMDave]

Thanks for posting everything up.  There is a lot to read through, but we have the whole weekend to do so, so you will get your Witness Statement to the court by the 18th.

 

From a first skim through, their signs seem to be pathetically small and they have invented extra charges, so that's already two sticks to beat them with.

 

As for Planning Permission, you may be able to do the search yourself, see if the local council has a portal where you can do so.

 

Look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page, start on the last page, and look for threads with "Discontinued" or "Dismissed" in the title.  These threads will have Witness Statements in them, you can use them already to start drafting your own.

Edited January 16, 2021 by FTMDave
Changed advice after rereading thread

[FTMDave]

I've had a read through their tripe of a WS.  Ironic that they accuse you of being repetitive (pot, kettle, black) and of using cut & paste (several of their paragraphs are identical, word for word, to those in WSs we've seen in the last few days from the VCS & Excel companies).  A photo of a P&D machine in a completely different car park is in there for some reason too!

 

Their point 10 (exhibit 2) refers to "prominently displaying signs" yet the only photo of a sign as seen by a motorist shows it as small, with small print and way above head height.  Nowhere on any of their signs can you read about a charge for overstaying ... well unless you have access to an electron microscope and point it at the last lines after a huge wall of instructions.  You can also state you don't believe they have PP for these signs or for their cameras.

 

Their point 9 (exhibit 1) is a letter, not a contract, and is nearly two years old.

 

Then in the claim they have included both legal costs (fine) and £60 Unicorn Food Tax (not fine, that is an attempt to get round the small claims limit on costs).

 

Start to draft a WS using the indicators in post 10.  There's ample time today & tomorrow for other opinions and for the WS to be tweaked.  You can then e-mail it to the court late tomorrow evening and send it by snail mail to the fleecers on Monday.

 

I think signage will be your winning card.

 

Two things.  What really happened when you parked?  Was it  a case of double dipping, or did you simply not see their carp signage?  Plus, can you remember when their NTK arrived?  I see it was dangerously near arriving after the 14 days specified in the pOFA which would be further ammo.

Edited January 16, 2021 by FTMDave
Usual typo!

[FTMDave]

3 hours ago, Andy711351 said:

So i was with my ex partner and we went round many shops and pared at various car parks some which were free

Right, so it's a case of double dipping then.

 

Do you have proof of purchase of anything you bought when you moved the car to go to the areas with unlimited parking?

[FTMDave]

So, so far we have -

 

1.  Appalling signage with the £60/£100-ish charge in particular being illegible.  No PP either.

 

2.  Double dipping, you actually obeyed what was on their silly signs.

 

3.  No locus standi.  A blank unsigned template is not a letter, let alone a contract.

 

4.  Double recovery.  As well as £50 legal costs they have invented £60 Unicorn Food Tax.

 

WS in post 99 is useful for (1), (3) & (4)  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417771-cel-pcn-claimform-tenerife-buildings-station-road-south-gosforth-newcastle-ne3-1qd-claim-discontinued/page/4/#comments

 

WS in post 87 is useful for (1), (3) & (4)  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421029-opcdcb-legal-anpr-pcn-paoloc-now-claimform-overstay-st-johns-retail-park-wolves-claim-discontinued/page/4/#comments

 

WS in post 122 is again useful for (1), (3) & 4  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/410445-ukcpmgladstones-windscreen-pcn-claimform-vista-centre-salisbury-rd-hounslow-tw4-6jq-claim-dismissed/page/5/#comments

 

WS in post 58 with comments in post 59 useful for (3) and (4)  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422971-excel-anpr-windscreen-pcn-claimform-brewery-st-car-park-chesterfield-on-0207-2018-claim-dismissed/page/3/#comments

 

I haven't got time to look at the lot, but there are probably useful WSs in the following (scroll down the pages till you come to the WS, which will always be an attachment)

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419899-ukcpmgladstones-spycar-pcn-claimform-no-stopping-trinity-park-birm-airport-claim-dismissed/

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/414313-cpmbw-windscreen-pcns-bw-pap-loc-now-claimform-residential-car-park-the-citrus-building-maderia-road-bournemouth-claim-dismissed-with-costs/

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421756-vcs-pcn-claimform-broomfield-developements-broomspring-close-s37xa-claim-dismissed/

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/429200-excel-pcn-claimform-broomhill-roof-car-park-in-sheffield-claim-dismissed/

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419312-vcs-pcn-claimform-no-stopping-in-restricted-zone-bristol-airport-claim-dismissed/

 

 

[FTMDave]

Understood the letter is signed.  Still not a contract though.

 

Insist on double dipping.  Firstly, judges often "hone in" on one part of the WS in particular to try to get the case over quickly, so you need to chuck in the kitchen sink to give the judge various chances to hoy the case out.  Secondly, the judge's decision will be based on the balance of probabilities, and if you come across as a honest witness the judge may well think you probably moved your vehicle (especially when the opposition are complete crooks who hide their charges in the tiniest of tiny writing on signs too small to be read).

[FTMDave]

I agree with dx.  When I said to chuck in the kitchen sink, I meant in the sense of including as many reasons as possible to scupper their claim.  You can be sure that Bank Park will send pages and pages of tripe.  If you counter all this succinctly, I'm sure the judge will appreciate it.

 

So drop paragraphs 3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, 27, 32, 33, 36, 37.

 

Lay it on thick in paragraph 6.  Add "The Defendant has examined Dudley Council planning portal and can find no trace of planning permission being granted.  Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence and makes it impossible for the Defendant to have entered into a contract with the Claimant.

 

In paragraph 23, after "The Market Shopping Centre", add "in Crewe, 57 miles away".

 

I like your headings, making it clear to the judge the points you are arguing.  However, change "Multiple visits/benefits of free parking to Merry Hill" to simply "Multiple visits", and change "The fine" to "The parking charge".

 

In general I think you need to be more succinct and put the most important points first.  For example, in the section on signage, lay it on thick that any mention of parking charges are deliberately hidden in tiny print right at the bottom of a long list of T&Cs, and that the signs are small and erected well over head height.

 

In the part about multiple visits, quote some of the shops you visited and where you parked, and include the receipts/bank statements as exhibits.

[FTMDave]

I don't think you have to do a massive amount of work now if you cut out those repetitive paragraphs.  The general way you've structured the WS is superb with the various, clear sections.  You've used your own words, rather than legalese, which is fine. 

 

You can be sure Bank Park will send an encyclopedia of bilge about what a great job they do and how important their industry is, all irrelevant to the claim, and all guaranteed to annoy the judge.

 

Just in bits about signage and double dipping sometimes you go into too much detail and "you can't see the wood for the trees".  Try to cut down the number of words and put the most relevant bits to scuppering the fleecers' case first.

[FTMDave]

Indeed, paragraph 12.  Apologies!  Don't know how that happened.

[FTMDave]

Andy, point taken about the address, but the judge on the day won't give a damn about where you live and I was trying to cut down on irrelevant content.

 

Cut out paragraph 3.

 

Simply e-mail the court and tell them of your change of address.  As you have to post the WS to the fleecers' solicitors tomorrow, include a separate letter informing them of the new address.  While you're in the post office, invest in another 2nd class stamp and inform Bank Park too.  Get free Certificates of Postling for both letters.

 

I take it that, even though you've moved, you're OK with the case going ahead in the same court?  The hearing will probably be on-line anyway.

[FTMDave]

Enjoy your walk dx.  I have the day free so can keep popping in here.

 

The OP has checked for PP and found nothing.

[FTMDave]

50 minutes ago, Andy711351 said:

By the way, if they did have permission would it be them who would have been the applicants for the permission or

the management company in charge of the overall management of the whole complex?

 

I'm afraid I don't know.  Hopefully someone more knowledgable will pop in.

 

Have a read of this thread.  It's short and I know the OP did a lot of work investigating planning permission  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430277-pcmuk-ltd-anpr-pcn-st-michaels-retail-park-basingstoke/#comments

 

 

[FTMDave]

Certainly include the bit about PP.  The PPCs usually don't bother with PP as they want to be up & running quickly to fleece motorists and are too lazy & arrogant to wait for official paperwork.

 

You'll know from the council soon anyway.

 

If by some freak they do have PP, then simply tell the truth to the judge in April, that you believed they didn't have PP when you compiled yourr WS but at a later date found out from the council that the opposite was true. 

[FTMDave]

OK, I've read through the second version.  Much, much better.  Well done!

 

Some suggested mini-tweaks.

 

I would still chop out the first part of paragraph 15, and all of 17.  I also don't understand the relevance of you going to the car park on 15 January in paragraph 21 and what you bought that day.  You talk about Homesense elsewhere.  I'd cut out the whole of the first part of paragraph 21.

 

Little typos: paragraph 2, where not were; 7, where not were; 10, sight not site; 11, "under the" written twice; end of 14, Court's not Courts; 15, land not gland; 19, car parks not car park's; 24, legal representative's not legals representative (forgive me, I'm an English teacher!)

[FTMDave]

Looks damn good to me - well done!

 

The reason why the site generally advises against using e-mail with the fleecers is through bitter experience of PPCs sending their documentation one minute before the deadline, full of lies, which it is then impossible to counter.

 

However as they already have your e-mail I agree with dx.

 

So

   - e-mail your WS to the court

   - e-mail your WS to the fleecers' solicitors

   - e-mail a separate short note to the court informing them of your change of address

   - e-mail a separate short note to the fleecers' solicitors informing them of your change of address

   - e-mail Bank Park informing them of your change of address.

 

 

[FTMDave]

enquiries@bankpark.co.uk

[FTMDave]

17 minutes ago, Andy711351 said:

Finally, as raised in my post #73, can I use Appenidx instead of Exhibit , to avoid confusion?

 

Sorry, missed that question.  Yes, use whatever term you want, it just has to be clear to the judge.

[FTMDave]

Firstly, even if they get away with this, it doesn't mean you won't win.  The solicitor can eloquently waffle on as long as they like that the signage isn't carp.  I'm afraid the signage is carp and the photos show it is.

 

Virtually everyone who has beaten these companies in court was facing a solicitor, but still won.

 

So do what dx, Andy and the court woman said.  Write to the court now pointing out this is a supplementary WS and it was submitted to you & the court 17 days after the deadline albeit with a date on to pretend it was written before the deadline, and you invite the court not to accept it.

 

If you get nowhere, then challenge it on the day in court.

[FTMDave]

I think there's a danger here of focussing on minutiae and not seeing the wood ...

 

During the hearing, either in person or on-line, you need to show the judge it was impossible to have entered  into a contract to pay £60/£90/£100 for overstaying, as the charge is deliberately hidden in electron-microscope readable text.

 

Secondly, you did abide by the rule you could actually read, which was not to stay longer than four hours.  You moved your car within that time and can prove it by your shop receipts.  These are your main points.

 

By all means challenge their supplementary witness statement, as explained in posts 88 & 90 & 92.  It's completely unfair that you set out all your points promptly in your WS while they get two bites at the cherry.

 

However, even if the judge does allow their document, so what?  it's pants!  There are the "clerical errors" which change nothing, as you were never going to win because they'd put an irrelevant sign in.  You can turn this to your advantage and say the reason for the errors is that theirs is a cut & pasted roboclaim which no-one has bothered to proof read.

 

There's the usual lazy justification for the Unicorn Food Tax which all the PPCs always trot out.

 

The only "new" point is pretending you must have walked to the shops elsewhere which you have receipts for.  Make sure you're ready for this point and note the distances between the various shops which will show that it is much more probable that you moved your car.

 

Sure, if you get the chance mention that they served you their documentation in the "wrong" way, but is it really so important in comparison with the two main points?

 

BTW, in the communications from Bank Park - Bank Park themselves, not debt collectors or solicitors - is there anything written about the letter coming from their legal department or saying the case will be/has been passed to a legal department?

Edited March 29, 2021 by FTMDave
Thread tidied

[FTMDave]

On 29/03/2021 at 14:27, Andy711351 said:

So  i suppose the signages seems to be the most important point. As you know what is available to the judge would be the exhibits and the electronic copies of the signages . How will i be able to actually; proof that thy are small enough in real life. The judge , as pointed, will see the electronic versions as in the exhibits supplied by the claimant, or even a printed copy. How, can I , as the defendant, on the day , actually proof that the signages in real life ( I have revisited the site) are in fact so small ?

 

This will probably be a virtual hearing, with the judge looking at the signs on their computer.  You should have ample opportunity to state your case.  Simply tell the judge the truth, that in their WS they have blown up the signs, and ask the judge to reduce the pictures to normal size and look at the difference between the large font and the miniscule writing where they have hidden away the £90/£100 charge.

 

14 hours ago, Andy711351 said:

FTM Dave, are you also asking the question for the same purpose?

 

No, it was just an vague idea, because all of the PPCs come out with the same lazy reasoning to justify the £60 Unicorn Food Tax, which is to say they don't normally deal with legal matters ... but then some of them are stupid enough to send letters from their "Legal Department!!  I was just wondering if they could be tripped up on this.

[FTMDave]

I think you're focussing too much on this supplementary WS. 

 

Had they managed to sneak in vital new evidence way after the WS deadline you'd be right to worried, but what they've sent is neither here nor there.

 

When the case starts, simply request that the judge disallows their supplementary WS.  They had ample time to prepare their WS, this was sent way after the WS deadline, and you don't' see why they should get a second bite at the cherry.  If their representative waffles on about "clerical errors" then use that to your advantage, point out that in plain English that means their original was a roboclaim which no-one had bothered to proof read, which is their own fault and shows complete disrespect to the court.

 

But the major point I'm trying to make is that, even if the judge disagrees with you, even if the judge allows the supplementary WS, it doesn't mean much, because what they've written is just daft waffle!

 

When you get the chance to speak, tell the judge you saw the four-hour limit but nothing about any payment being due as that is hidden in the tiniest of writing, and ask the judge to reduce the size from the ridiculously blown-up version the solicitors have sent, and to note the enormous difference between the font sizes on the sign.  Then point out that you did respect the rush-hour limit, you moved the car within this time to shop elsewhere and you can prove it with receipts, and this is a case of double dipping. 

[FTMDave]

That's brilliant news.

 

It's what you wanted.  Plus it's definitely not what they will have wanted, they will have expected an on-line hearing.  No way will Bank Park travel to the hearing as they're too stupid to deal with a court case on their own, and no way will they get their solicitors to go all that way.  They will have to scrat around to get a solicitor from your local area, who will know absolutely nothing about the case, to attend.

 

That's if they don't give in, either by discontinuance or by not turning up.

 

The hearing is referred to as an "attended hearing" so yes, they will have to turn up - or lose.

 

It's up to the judge what is allowed in their court, but if you point out that in their WS they have blown up the signs and you would like to show the font as you read it in the car park, I should think your iPad will be allowed.  

[FTMDave]

Having photos of the signage which undermine their case is great - but are they included in your WS?  Your WS is supposed to include everything you want to rely on in court.

[FTMDave]

I see you're doing a lot of reading-up: well done!

 

Also read up on who can represent them.  You have to plan on the worst-case scenario, so plan on them turning up.  But they may well not do.  Or they might send someone local to the court who has no right to address the court, which is what you need to read up on.   

[FTMDave]

Regarding Right of Audience, have a read of this case.  It's quite short  http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=right+of+audience

 

Bank Park "should" turn up, but they won't, as they're too stupid to deal with a court case on their own.  Fair enough, they have every right to send a solicitor.

 

So DCB Legal "should" turn up, but again they won't, because Bank Park are too tight to pay all the solicitor's travel expenses and time.  So if they go ahead a local solicitor who knows nothing about the case and doesn't care (so good for you) will be there and you should challenge their right to present the case.