OPS/DCB(L) 2xPCN's PAPLOC Now claimform - Machine said Not In Use - Llangrannog (Beach) car park, West Wales

[FTMDave]

Can the rest of you manage to open Peter Parker's link on page 4, post 81 (or thereabouts)?  I can't, with two different browsers.

LFI kindly P'Md me the link, but that doesn't work either.

[dx100uk]

Ceredigion | Council Direct | Application | 57825 (tascomi.com)

 

[lookinforinfo]

If you still cannot open it Dave, click on the word "Application" and it may take a few minutes to load .

[Nicky Boy]

Link works fine for me Dave. (Using Firefox).

[dx100uk]

could this poss be it's not allowed to be viewed outside the UK dave?

if not clear your cookies

dx

[ghedgehog]

I have messaged the person on Money Saving Expert who won their case but haven't received a reply. It's possible they're not monitoring messages anymore, I guess?

Getting quite close to the 14 day deadline. Should I go with the WS we have now, and send it in?

[FTMDave]

When exactly is the deadline?

[FTMDave]

@dx100uk @Nicky Boy @lookinforinfo I've tried various things and I just think the council are blocking non-UK addresses from searching, all of a sudden, which is strange.

The important thing is that the OP can see the planning permission objections and include some of the ones about Internet connections in their WS, should they wish to.

[ghedgehog]

Hearing is on 12th Sept so 14 days before is 29th Aug, or next Tuesday

[FTMDave]

Wait till the very last minute.

It would be good if possible to read the fleecers' WS before you send yours in, so you can alter yours to rubbish their case.

And even if the charlatans' one doesn't arrive by Monday - that has its positive angles too.

E-mailing to the court on Monday, and sending 1st class post to the fleecers the same day, is fine.

[ghedgehog]

OK, but Monday is a bank holiday. Maybe send on Saturday?

[dx100uk]

doesnt matter 

only day that doesnt count is ONE day over xmas to courts.

dont forget you can EMAIL the court but not the fleecers.

dx

 

[ghedgehog]

I have received the Claimant's WS now, redacted version not attached as ca 11MB in total. Do I need to chop it up, or is there any other way I can upload it?

[FTMDave]

Use  https://www.ilovepdf.com/compress_pdf

 

[dx100uk]

or chop in up and we'll merge.

dx

[FTMDave]

It would be good if you could upload it this evening.  I'm pleased to see that I for one am going away on a mini-holiday from early tomorrow morning so don't know how much free time I'll have after.

[ghedgehog]

Compressed version attached

 

claimants WS+exhibits.pdf

[dx100uk]

ref no's pages 2 9 10 11 26,40 43 52 54 55 56 59 61 70 73

name on 57 60 67

 

[FTMDave]

Reading through it all now.  Their own evidence of payment logs show the machine was knackered when you were there.  A couple of extra paras in your WS wouldn't go amiss.  Will suggest something in a mo.

[ghedgehog]

Have failed the redaction test, yet again. Another attempt attached

Couldn't see a ref on p11, other than that of the contract which surely doesn't matter.

I think the claimants, if they're reading this, will have figured out who I am by now anyhow

 

 

[dx100uk]

site code mistook it for ref no..sorry

files swapped thread tidied 

[FTMDave]

OK, suggestions in red below.

Witness Statement
One Parking Solution Limited v. <Defendant> (Claim Number <number>)
Below is the Witness Statement of
<Defendant>
<Address>

Sequence of Events
I parked in Llangrannog Beach car park on 03/05/2021 and 06/05/2021, and on both occasions the
only ticket machine showed Not in Use. Alternative means of payment, via an app, was not
available due to lack of mobile signal in this remote location on the West Wales coast.

I always pay for parking, and provide evidence (Exhibit 1) of having done so at other car parks in
West Wales during my holiday that week.

Frustration of Contract
One Parking Solution Limited (OPS) claims I am in breach of contract, by parking in Llangrannog
Beach car park, and failing to buy a ticket. I reject this claim on grounds of Frustration of Contract,
as there was no available means to do so, as explained above.

OPS is well aware of the ticket machine being Out of Use most of the time and of the unreliability
of the mobile signal, as this was highlighted in a report by OPS's trade association the British Parking Association (BPA) in 2019 (Exhibit 2). The BPA's representative went so far as to write: "My own experience confirmed that it was not possible for me to pay for parking and I had no choice but to leave the car park within 10 minutes. If I had taken longer, presumably I would have received a PCN from One Parking Solution".  OPS has chosen not to act on the recommendations of the BPA in their report.

The ticket machine being invariably Out of Use is reported in numerous articles in the local and national press.  To be succinct I include only two, an article in the Cambrian News from May 20th 2021 (Exhibit 3), which describes some of the many cases where OPS have issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to motorists who were unable to buy a ticket, and even some who did, and another published on the BBC website (Exhibit 4).

Planning permission for ANPR cameras was granted to OPS in May 2019.  There were a large number of objections to the application.  Many pointed out then that the internet reception was insufficient to provide a service.  So OPS knew from the start that paying was going to be a problem.  Four years later they are still charging motorists for something that is not the motorists' fault. 

In a number of persuasive court cases judges have indeed ruled that Frustration of Contract applies in cases brought by OPS for this car park.  One such case was in February 2022 and another the same or the next month before Deputy District Judge Henderson sitting at Blackwood Civil and Family Court.

Breach of Code of Practice
Section 9.5 of the BPA Code of Practice (Exhibit 5) states “You must not use predatory or
misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges”.

This is exactly what OPS is doing though. The constant stream of complaints on Trip Advisor
(Exhibit 6) about this car park and its operator, is an indication that OPS is deliberately making it as
difficult as possible for motorists to purchase a ticket, so they can demand a Parking Charge, and
indeed have even demanded a Parking Charge from some who did manage to buy a ticket, in the
hope they’ll have thrown it away and not be able to prove they ever had one.  The earliest of these complaints was made in June 2019 and the latest in July 2023.  Indeed the latter is the latest review on the site.  The pattern is always the same - for four years OPS has left a single, Not in Use machine on site which makes it impossible for the motorist to pay.

OPS's own Witness Statement Exhibit 8 backs up everything I have said.  On 03/05/2021 my car entered the car park at 12:29. There is not one record of payment by machine ("Metric") after that time.  On 06/05/2021 no-one paid by machine ("Metric").  That is because the machine was Not in Use.

Admittedly on both days some motorists were eventually able to get an Internet signal and paid on-line ("JustPark").  It would be interesting to see a list of those who were able to pay this way and those who were not due to the appalling Internet signal and who received a PCN.  OPS have, unsurprisingly, chosen not to supply the court with this list.

Another of OPS's wheezes is to issue PCNs to motorists who have paid on-line after eventually getting a signal but who did so after the 10 minutes after entry that they allow.  it is perfectly possible that all those who paid on-line on those days also received PCNs.

OPS are being dishonest with the court as nowhere in their Witness Statement do they mention the well-catalogued saga of four years of difficulties in effecting payment in the car park, that someone from their own trade association was unable to pay and that persuasive cases have gone against them due to Frustration of Contract.

It is rather "rich" for OPS to complain that I used a template defence when paras 1-7 of their Witness Statement is cut & paste of issues not in dispute.  In fact in para 26.ii. of their statement they say: "The Defendant could not have submitted a Defence with the detail it contains if the Particulars were so insufficient as to prevent them from understanding the claim".  Obviously, pertinent "detail" would not be present in a "template".

It is risible that they refer to the appeals system as "robust" - I made an appeal but they rejected it as they reject all appeals.  It is not I who is wasting the Court's time.

Double Recovery

OPS has artificially inflated their claim for two £100 invoices to a total of £340, as well as claiming legal representative's costs.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.

In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General
Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an
abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it
is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v
Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an
additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own
initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights
Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.

It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs
and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule
3.3(4)

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for
contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Edited August 25, 2023 by FTMDave
Tidying up

[ghedgehog]

Thanks for your suggested additions, Dave, and well spotted re the timings of the metric payments.

I hope you enjoy your well-earned mini holiday

[FTMDave]

Thank you!  I have three nights in Wroclaw and thoroughly intend to explore as much as I possibly can.

I know you want to send this off on Saturday.

So use tomorrow (Friday) to see if there are any other comments from the other regulars.

Then tidy up the WS.  Each paragraph needs a number. 

Make sure the list of exhibits match after my faffing about.

If you're particularly pernickety, make it consistent, you've gone for "OPS" rather than "the claimant" and "OPS is/has" rather than "OPS are/have" which comes naturally to me.  I've tried to copy you but I'm sure have got it wrong somewhere.  Obviously this is of miniscule importance.  Just I'm a pedant

E-mail the court their copy.  In the subject line put the claim number, the names of the parties, and "Witness Statement"  Click on "return receipt" or similar.

Send the fleecers theirs by 2nd class post as that's all they're worth, make sure to get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

[Nicky Boy]

I'v made a suggested addition to the WS above in blue...

Any comments peeps?