Show Posts - 1293489

I got frustrated trying to type a defence into the buggy MCOL UI and just bashed off a summary. I'd be mid-sentence, and all of a sudden, what I was typing would randomly relocate itself elsewhere in the box and screw up something else that had already been typed. I also didn't see the point of going into any great detail because I honestly didn't expect the Claimant to try and proceed on such a stupid and legally weak basis. Until this goes to court and someone from Moorside actually shows up, I refuse to believe that this is anything other than a scare tactic to try and extract payment.

In fairness, I wouldn't mind going to court. I'm a law grad and always enjoyed proceedings. The defence I filed via MCOL:QuoteI dispute this charge as the driver of the vehicle. The vehiclewas not 'parked' but merely stopped for two minutes with theengine running to collect goods. This is a 'loading' activitydistinguished from parking in the appeal case Jopson v HomeguardServices.Furthermore, the signage is forbidding ('Vehicles belonging toNndos Staff and Customers are not permitted to park in this carpark'), meaning no contract for parking could have been formed(PCM (UK) Ltd v Bull). If parking is forbidden, you cannoteffectively contract to do it. The most the Claimant can claim inthis scenario is trespass, and damages for trespass are limited tothe landowner's actual financial loss, which is nil.Finally, a duration of less than three minutes (confirmed by theClaimant's own evidence - 20:10:39 hours to 20:13:16 hours) fallswithin the mandatory consideration period allowed by its tradebody's own Code of Practice to review signage and leave.The Claimant therefore has no claim, and I am prepared to defendthat position in court.

The signatory is Rebecca Horton-Grainger.I've already filed a defence. I submitted what I've outlined above. I'm guessing it's too late to submit anything else at this stage.

Yes, that's exactly my line of thinking. This extortion attempt is absolutely absurd.I did get an N1SDT, but I ripped it up once I signed up to MCOL to manage everything online. I've scanned and uploaded it: https://ibb.co/GvMngmk7The Claim Form says I agreed to pay within 28 days, which is false. I never said that.

I admitted I was the driver because it was a vehicle registered in another person's name, and I didn't want them to take the heat for it. The only letter I've received, aside from the money claim letter, is my appeal denial by UKCPS in 2023:"Thank you for your appeal received on 08/10/2023 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered and our records show that the PCN was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking. I have reviewed your appeal and the comments you have made, The location where the vehicle was parked is private land where parking is permitted for the customers of [doctor's surgery] only.Unfortunately, [restaurant] is not a facility at [doctor's surgery] and therefore, staff and customers of [restaurant] are not permitted to park in this car park. As you entered [restaurant] (I did not, my passenger did) at the time of the contravention the Terms and Conditions were breached and therefore, The driver contractually agrees to pay a parking charge.Please find enclosed Photographic evidence of the vehicle parked at [car park]"

I received a private parking invoice from UKCPS in 2023. I didn't pay it and told them to take me to court, and they are.Facts of the matter: I entered a car park and drove into a bay to allow a passenger to collect a food order from a restaurant. The engine remained running, and I did not exit the vehicle. The passenger returned 2 minutes and 37 seconds later, and I immediately left the car park.The signage states, among the usual things, that: "Welcome to [Doctor's Surgery] patients' car park" and "Vehicles belonging to [restaurant] staff and customers are not permitted to park in this car park."I responded to UKCPS's money claim with a brief outline of my defence. They've rejected this and are saying UKCPS will continue to court if I don't pay their final settlement figure of £200.I am happy to go to court and intend to present a case that no contract or breach existed because:1. The signage is prohibitive. It doesn't make an offer of parking for customers and staff; it simply states they're not permitted to park there. A driver in a prohibited category cannot “accept” a non-existent offer; there is therefore no contract capable of being formed with that driver. Case law supporting this includes:- Jopson v Homeguard: "Parking" is leaving a car for a duration beyond that needed for the normal actions of getting in/out, loading or unloading; and that “merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it”, otherwise a traffic jam would be a line of parked cars.- PCM (UK) v Bull: A sign that forbids parking cannot simultaneously offer a contract to park.- ParkingEye v Beavis: A valid contract exists, subject to the usual offer, acceptance, and consideration. If any are missing, there's no contract.2. The sign states, “Vehicles belonging to [restaurant] Staff and Customers are not permitted to park in this car park.” UKCPS's own video stills show my passenger exiting the vehicle, leaving the car park, and entering the restaurant, leaving shortly after with a bag.On any ordinary reading, “vehicles belonging to [restaurant] staff and customers” means vehicles owned or driven by those staff or customers. It does not mean “any vehicle in which a [restaurant] customer happens to be a passenger”.Under ordinary principles of construction and s.69 Consumer Rights Act 2015, any ambiguity in a consumer contract must be interpreted in the consumer’s favour.It is therefore for UKCPS to prove that the vehicle belonged to or was being driven by a [restaurant] staff member or customer, no? If they can't (which they can't), they have no case.3. Consideration period - the IPC Code of Practice, which is binding on UKCPS as an IPC member, requires operators to allow motorists a consideration period on arrival to locate, read, and decide whether to accept the terms, before any parking charge becomes payable. Ticketing within a couple of minutes of arrival is, on its face, inconsistent with that requirement.I, as the driver, was recorded on site for less than three minutes in total. This is plainly within any reasonable consideration period. No contract can sensibly be said to arise “by conduct” before a motorist has even had a fair opportunity to read and consider the terms, particularly in a car park environment at night.As for when a consideration period "ends", the 13.1 (g) of the IPA Code of Practice says five minutes: "The consideration period ends at the point where there is evidence that the driver has, by parking, accepted the terms, conditions and restrictions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or turning off the ignition of the vehicle and remaining stationary for more than 5 minutes."Non-compliance with the relevant trade body Code was described by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis as a key factor when assessing the fairness and enforceability of private parking charges. An operator who disregards its own Code in such a heavy-handed way cannot then ask the court to enforce its charge. 4. No "parking" occurred. A sub-three-minute stop with the engine on for the collection of pre-ordered goods is loading/unloading and, per Jopson v Homeguard, is not “parking”.Does this sound like a strong case?The only letter I've received, aside from the money claim letter, is my appeal denial by UKCPS in 2023:"Thank you for your appeal received on 08/10/2023 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered and our records show that the PCN was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking. I have reviewed your appeal and the comments you have made, The location where the vehicle was parked is private land where parking is permitted for the customers of [doctor's surgery] only.Unfortunately, [restaurant] is not a facility at [doctor's surgery] and therefore, staff and customers of [restaurant] are not permitted to park in this car park. As you entered [restaurant] (I did not, my passenger did) at the time of the contravention the Terms and Conditions were breached and therefore, The driver contractually agrees to pay a parking charge.Please find enclosed Photographic evidence of the vehicle parked at [car park]"The signage: https://ibb.co/Lh6nwnvS