couple of things,

make it clear that for showing locus standi you have asked for proof of this and they have failed to provide it so you are asserting they do not have it and therefore no cause for action

 

DONE - see point 5

"The Claimant has failed to show any authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public or to make civil claims in their own name. This was requested via a CPR 31.14 request received by them on 18th of August 2017. They have failed to provide this. It is the Defendents belief the Claimant does not have this and therefore no cause for action."

 

make it clear at point 6 that the contract is formed between the company and the driver and the keepers liabilty only exists where the protocols of the POFA have been adhered to and in this case they haven't.

 

If you look at point 2- We are already admitting I am driver due to the mistake I made in first defence therefore no point going into POFA? Or is this still worth adding despite admitting I am driver?

 

That also limits the amount the company can claim to the prescribed fee expressed on the sign so a claim for monies in excess of this are unlawful under the POFA as well as the consumer rights act.

 

ALREADY DONE- see point 9

"The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge before a Notice to Keeper is issued. In any event the Protection of Freedoms Act is clear that a vehicle keeper would only be liable for the amount of the penalty charge notice, and no further costs.

"

 

Where you refer to regs of the POFA to provide information such as point 2(k-x) this doesnt have to be on the signage but in the NTK they send out so you will need to clarify why they have failed on these points if you want to leave them in.

 

see point 7

point 2(c-x) IS REGARDING The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 not POFA. It is regarding the distance contract (signage) and the mandatory information it must provide otherwise consumer is not bound by the contract.

Final draft above - Am I ok to send?

Needs to be served by 4pm on 24th Jan (Wednesday)

Many many *thanks* in advance!

At 10. Are you sure of your figure of up to 1,000 claims a week regarding WY Parking? That seems like an awful lot for a two-bob tin-pot outfit.

BMPA have them listed with very few tickets issued and very few court claims. I'd hate for that defence to fall apart based on factual inaccuracy.

Lies, deliberate mistakes and errors of fact should be left to the parking companies and Gladrags. They'd hate it if they see that you're trying to muscle in on their territory

If you mean Gladrags, it's best to make that perfectly clear, because they aren't the claimant, even if they're the ones pulling the strings

At 10. Perhaps change "the claimant" to "the claimants legal representative"??

10. Legal representatives fees

The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite being well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the small claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid. The Claimants legal representative is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a weekly basis. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery as a way to inflate the value of the claim. Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the £100 parking charge, this is essentially double charging and therefore unlawful. In the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.

I did follow DragonFly1967 advice and alter the wording regarding legal representative.

Received the attached Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track:

Hearing on the 1st of May

Notice of Allocation.pdf

so direction questionnaire time but don't blink 1st.

so direction questionnaire time but don't blink 1st.

Directions questionnaire was done months ago?

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477641-WY-Gladstones-claimform-PCN-Glassy-Bar-95-Legrams-Lane-Bradford-BD7-1NH&p=5066325&viewfull=1#post5066325

wake up at the back...DX

what I mean is if they are you intend to rely on anything else

you/they must exchange it by 14 days before 1st may...

so, check with the court on the 4th april to see if they have paid the fee and if they havent you fax the court demanding that the calim be struck out as per this order.

reason for this is often the court clerks will allow the plaintiff a couple of days extra (or even another week) to pay up when this plaintiff's lawyers are well known for abusing the system

so again, look up other cases that they failed to pay the fee for and quote them so you can show that it is a habitual wasting of the courts time.

1. Checked with court- Yes the Claimant has paid the court fee

2. Today I have received the following:

- Witness Statement (numbered pages 1-4)

- Agreement with land owner (numbered page 5)

- Pictures and Site Plan (numbered pages 6-9)

- Notice to Keeper (numbered pages 10-12)

- Debt Recovery Plus Letter (numbered page 13)

- Zenith Collections Letter (numbered pages 14)

- ? Record of Letters sent out (numbered pages 15)

- Letter before Claim (numbered pages 16)

- Pictures (numbered pages 18-21)

My Comments:

Amount

- The Sign says "Parking charge £90"

- The Notice to Keeper says "Parking Charge Notice - £120"

- Debt Recovery Plus Letter says "£126.65 instead of full amount £149"

- Zenith Collections Letter says "£149"

- Letter before claim says "£150"

- Claim Form says £150"

Witness Statement

- Point 7. Relying on Beavis again (different signage and circumstances)

- Point 8. Signs are not clear and unambiguous - Clearly state "Permit Holders Only". District judges also disagree with this (Forbidding notice: KPC v Masterson B4GF26K6, PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6, Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2)

- Point 9. "Valid permit must be displayed" reinforcing forbidding notice

- Point 12. Just shot themselves in the foot by quoting "Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place" (No entrance signage, only 3 signs not 4, 2 of which on other side of car park on building (2 stories up) and forbidding notice

- Point 19. The Charge (see above regarding amount)

I am planing to submit the following in my defendants bundle-

Witness Statement

Exhibits-

Beavis Sign & Their Sign (to show the difference)

Photos of their signage (No entrance signage, only 3 signs not 4, 2 of which on other side of car park on building (2 stories up) and forbidding notice)

Case Transcripts:

1. Forbidding notice: UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6, PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6, Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 (cant find actual transcript for this)

2. Legal Rep Fees: Parking Eye v Mrs S B9FC508F (cant find actual transcript for this)

BPA Code of practice (relevent extracts)

Bradford Council email confirming no advertisement consent

1. Please can you advise or point me in the right direction of what should be different in my Witness Statement compared to my Defence? Even better a draft witness statement/ link to another thread?

2. Anything else of note in their witness statement which I should bring up?

Deadline for Above: 16th May

glads WS.pdf

I think you've left your name on the DRP letter.

HB

Yes, please remove the attachment- will reupload

already done the pdf

as lasttime you left LOADS of ref numbers and barcodes showing.

dx

there are numerous example WS's here already 1mm3

Thank you dx100uk for sorting the PDF.

Could you link me a Witness Statement you would recommend to use?

Also any comments/ anything you note from their bundle? (will await ericsbrother comments also)

no find them yourself

use our search CAG box of the top red toolbar

witness statement claimform PCN

or alike

you should also include a picture of the entrance showing that there is NO sign.

rgearding the planning,

read the parking pranksters blog (last posting in december for a link to a treatise on planning written by a retired lawyer.

It will shoot down in flames any arguments about deemed consent so copy the document and add it to your bundle.

what you have done so far is pretty good so dont be looking for a template WS, that will more likley damage your defence than help it.

Write out what you intend to say and we will try and help.

Differentiate between the WS and other evidence such as rebuttal of their evidence.

Your WS should concentrate on firstly their abuse of the process and secondly on the lack of contract and that will include persuasive cases like BULL.

Copy that transcript and just give it a reference in your WS so the judge can flick to it whislt still reading the rest of your statement

Ok, this may be something or nothing but my searches on the land registry and title plans/ deeds have confirmed:

WY Parking agreement in respect of car parking control is-

Address: Glassy Bar Bradford 95 Legrams Lane, Bradford BD7 1NH

Client print and signature: Raj Parekh (who is the Bar Land Lord of Glassy Bar):

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09399997

Throughout the whole claim (including ALL court paperwork) they have alleged I breached terms of parking at above address (95 Legrams Lane)

HOWEVER, Land registry shows the above land is NOT owned by Raj Parekh but someone else: (ie. Their agreement is not with landowner)

SITAL THAKORLAL PATEL who is director of T.B. (HALIFAX) LIMITED registered address 91 Legrams Lane, Bradford BD7 1NH:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01890795

My car wasnt parked on 95 Legrams Lane but on 91 Legrams Lane according to the Land registry title plans. (ie. The address and land that they are going after me on are wrong)

The Site plan in WY Parking Witness Statement also does not agree with the Land registry title plans. (ie. They have lied on their witness statement?)

PlanWYK136927.pdf

PlanWYK539883.pdf

RegisterWYK539883.pdf

good spot!

Well, with that info, their claim is going to sink like the Titanic.

Nothing new for Gladrags of course, but never mind, their Gullable clients will foot the bill as usual.

the you need to push this up the list of your defence points, and the lay it on with a trowel that there an be no contract as the land wasnt the land specified in their claim and they have no contract with anyone at the address and that their contract at the WRONG address is not with the landowner of that property.

Piccies of the land suitably marked with a red pen as well as the plans/aerial photo.

How does this look? Needs to be sent today

In the County Court at Manchester Claim Number:

BETWEEN :

 

WY PARKING ENFORCEMENT LIMITED

Claimant

And

 

 

Witness Statement

 

1. I, am the defendant in this case.

 

2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

 

3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defense as already filed.

 

4. I assert that on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of an registration number .

 

5. Numbers (#) mentioned below relate to the Witness Statement filed by the director of the Claimant company, Mohammada Shah.

 

6. Exhibited to this Witness Statement are the following documents which I wish to rely upon:

a) Land Registry Title Plan & Register WYK136927

b) Land Registry Title Plan & Register WYK539883

c) Address Plan

d) British Parking Association Code of Practice excerpts: Sections 7 and 18

e) Site pictures

f) PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6

g) UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6

h) Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2

f) Bradford Council Planning email

g) Treatise on Planning permission and Advertisement consent for Signage

h) Beavis Sign

i) CPR Request

 

Vehicle was not parked on land specified by claim therefore no contract

7. The Claimant alleges I parked at Glassy Bar, 95 Legrams Lane, Bradford, BD7 1NH. My vehicle was parked on the land to the left hand side of Glassy Bar. This is evidenced by the Claimants own Photographs of the (alleged) incident. This land falls under 91 Legrams Lane, Bradford, BD7 1NH not 95 Legrams Lane. This is evidenced by Land Registry Title Plans and Register WYK136927 (91 Legrams Lane) and WYK539883 (95 Legrams Lane) together with the Address Plan.

 

The claim form, all notices and the Claimants contract for Parking Control Services relates to 95 Legrams Lane not 91 Legrams Lane. As the address (and land) where my vehicle was parked is different no contract can exist.

 

No entrance signage therefore no contract

8. The British Parking Association (of which the Claimant company is a member) Code of Practice says regarding entrance signs:

"18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area."

 

The claimant is required to follow this code of practice but has not. There is no signage OR warning sign on the entrance to the car park. The Claimant is in breach of their own contract: Agreement in respect of Parking Control states under point 1: "the operator to keep to Code of Practice of BPA". I was unaware of ANY signage until alerted by the claimants parking charge notice. The Site pictures exhibited to this Witness statement evidence that entrance signage is not present. The elements of offer, consideration and acceptance have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.

 

No specific parking-terms signage seen therefore no contract

9. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice (Specific parking-terms signage) gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:

"18.3 You must place signs (plural) containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand."

 

Section 18 (Signs) of the BPA Code of Practice (Specific parking-terms signage) states:

"18.5 If a driver is parking ... they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you."

 

Contrary to the Claimants Site plan - There is only 3 signs on the site NOT 4. This is contradicted by the claimants own image of 3 yellow circles on The Site Plan. 2 of the signs are attached to Glassy Bar (95 Legrams Lane) on the right hand side when entering. These are small and attached 2 stories up. They cannot be seen by any drivers on entering the car park or even whilst parking. There is parking available underneath these signs [Glassy Bar (95 Legrams Lane)] so the signage can also be confused to only apply to vehicles parking here on the right hand side when entering. Myself and 4 of my passengers did not see this signage. Had I seen ANY signage I would not park there. The Site pictures exhibited to this Witness statement evidence this together with the Claimants Site Plan pictures.

 

There is only 1 sign on the left hand side when entering. My Vehicle was parked on the left hand side. The single sign is of low height and on a fence which shows signs of disrepair (falling back). This makes the sign even smaller, less visible and difficult to read by people in their vehicles. Furthermore the sign is directly in front of a parking spot- Medium/ Large vehicles block the sign. This sign was blocked by a medium sized van on the day of the incident. This prevented both myself and 4 other passengers from seeing it. Had I seen ANY signage I would not park there. These points are evidenced by the Site Pictures together with Claimants Photographs of the (alleged) incident.

 

The Claimants photos of the (alleged) incident have all been taken and distorted in a clever way to:

 

a) Hide the vehicle parked in front of the sign

b) Distort the proximity of the sign to the vehicle (there are at least 2 cars between the vehicle and the sign ie. sign is in third box away from vehicle)

 

I refute that I saw or read any sign and the claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.

 

10. Re # 8 and 11 The claimant states "The signs on the Land are clear and unambiguous", "It is evident.. that there are sufficient signs". Re # 12 The claimant relies on Vine v London and quotes "Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place". I strongly refute this as evidenced by the above two points (7 & 8). The signage fails to meet the standards set in the BPA code of practice and unless the claimant can show how any method they use to determine the suitability of their signage matches or exceeds the minimum requirements they cannot be said to be adequate.

 

Sign is of prohibition - Not of an offer to park therefore no contract

11. The sign is incapable of forming the basis of a contract. The first line below to "Warning" "Private Property" states "Permit holders only". This is a forbidding notice, not an invitation to park on certain terms. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

 

This is clear from several cases. In PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6 [2016] the signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company. In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim. In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

 

No advertisement consent therefore no contract

12. The Claimants claim relies on a sign to form the basis of a contract. As the sign does not fall under any of the classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 of The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 the claimant should apply for advertisement consent.

 

The Bradford Council Planning Register does not show any such applications in its planning history. Furthermore I have email confirmation from Bradford Council planning department that there is no advertisement consent for any signage at this location. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

 

I have exhibited to this Witness Statement a Treatise on Planning permission and Advertisement consent for Signage. In particular I would like to highlight Point 5 in Conclusions:

"5) There are two Approved Operator Schemes supposedly regulating the

private parking industry: the British Parking Association (BPA) and the

Independent Parking Community (IPC). Both bodies have a Code of Practice

(CoP), and both CoP’s require their members to abide by the Law. The

evidence gathered here shows that, at least for the sample of 400 private

parking sites investigated so far, virtually every single site is (or has been)

breaching planning law (Town & Country Planning Act 1990), and is

therefore also breaching the respective Code of Practice. The DVLA KADOE

contracts with the parking companies require companies to operate within

the Law, which vast numbers of them (although not all) clearly do not."

 

In the absence of strict proof I have reasonable belief that the Claimant was committing an offence and therefore no contract could have been entered into.

 

No Locus Standi

13. WY Parking Enforcement Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. Section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators some of the common law principles of operating on someone else's land as a licensee. One such item is written authority - a written contract - to be there.

 

This was requested via a CPR 31.14 request received by them on 18th of August 2017. They have only now submitted this Agreement in respect of Parking Control.

 

However further to seeing the Land Registry Title Plan & Register WYK136927 and WYK539883: their Agreement in respect of Parking Control is:

a. At the wrong address (and land)

b. Not with the landowner

 

The Claimant has confirmed they do not have any authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public or to make civil claims in their own name.

 

Applicability of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

14. The Claimant might argues that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Beavis case is applicable.. Mr Beavis refused to pay a charge of £85 for overstaying a permitted period of free parking in a car park at a retail park. The signs displaying this information were accepted to be large, prominent and legible. The notice stated ‘2 hour max stay… Failure to comply … will result in a Parking Charge of £85.’ Mr Beavis exceeded the time limit by one hour but declined to pay the charge and maintained the term which sought to impose the charge was an unfair term.

 

The Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence: This case is not supported by any similarity in the circumstances (Overstaying permitted period of free parking compared to Permit holders only) or signage (See exhibited Beavis sign compared to Claimants The Sign).

 

The further costs clause is a penalty

15. The sign provides for a parking charge of £90.

 

The Claimant struggles to decide how much they want to charge:

Notice to Keeper £120

Debt Recovery Plus £126.65 (instead of full amount £149)

Zenith Collections £149

Letter before claim £150

 

The Claimant seeks £150 (compared to sign which provides for £90) which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty, and therefore unenforceable.

 

The Claimant contradicts himself at #19 the Claimant states "The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of £100" yet is seeking £150.

 

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis the Supreme Court recast the test to be applied when seeking to distinguish a liquidated damages clause from a penalty clause. To engage a penalty the question was whether the relevant provision was “unconscionable” or “extravagant” (Lord Hodge at [221]). The full test was expounded by Lord Hodge (at [255]).

 

The Supreme Court was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable (ParkingEye v Somerfield). The charge to the Defendant of £150 is evidently extravagant and unconscionable in that it is disproportionate to the Claimant’s interest, and disproportionate to the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the Defendant’s alleged breach of contract.

 

The Defendant therefore disputes the amount claimed, as it comprises excessive and non-contractual elements, and additional costs must be proved. The Claimant claims a sum of £150 as a ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied), which includes £50 that the claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges, which amounts to double charging.

 

The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge before a Notice to Keeper is issued. In any event the Protection of Freedoms Act is clear that a vehicle keeper would only be liable for the amount of the penalty charge notice, and no further costs.

 

In C5GF17X2 Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford the Judge says "additional £50 costs added on could not be claimed. The signage simply says additional costs could be claimed and does not say what these are - this is not contractual and therefore additional costs must be proved."

 

Legal representatives fees

16. The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite being well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid. The Claimants solicitor is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a weekly basis. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery as a way to inflate the value of the claim. Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the £90 parking charge, this is essentially double charging and therefore unlawful. In the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.

 

The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”. This was presumably the £25 court fee.

 

The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.

 

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

 

 

Signed

Print

 

Dated

that is good.

Dont forget to take copies of the cases you mention with you so use the transcript of BULL that you can find on the parking pranksters site.

I do not think it is necessary to send copies of the transcripts to Gladdys but make sure you have a spare copy for the day.

i would hope that when they read this they will ask to discontinue without a costs order so write a letter asking for your full costs as the claimant has behaved unreasonably and thus CPR 27.14.2(g) allows for this.

You ask for 5 hours LiP research costs @£19.50ph.

whatever your printing and postage costs are and your travel and subsistence costs.

Also if you have to lose a days pay to attend you ask for that as well.

Lay this out so it is easy to see what is being claimed and why and let the judge pick through what they will allow as reasonable.

You do this even if Gladdys pull the plug the day before (normal) and if they do contact you saying they are going to discontinue dont believe them unless the courts tell you a week before the hearing.

If they abandon the day before you still turn up and and for costs as their behaviour is in breach of Civil procedure and unreasonable conduct.The

One last thing,

the POFA only allows the parking co to claim the contractual charge advertised unless ther contract with the DRIVER state clearly that other costs may be claimed.

They are not permitted to add a bean if they are suing you as the keeper and they always try and blur this line so use this point against them and force the to say in what capacity they are claiming you owe money add this to your point 15 to clarify your position as to why the charge cannot be anything other than the notified £100

How does this look? Needs to be sent today

Just received your message about my WS. Looks like yours is now approved by the site team, it's probably to late to send my over to you now.. Hopefully you'll nail them with yours - there's a few points in yours which I also have in mine.

Good luck and I will at some point copy mine up and post up so people can see it.

Ok, so I haven't heard anything from Gladstone's so I assume they all ready to go tomorrow.

I should question who the individual is from Gladstone's and rights of audience?

I shall read through my witness statement and defence again.

Do I need to print out 3 copies of everything again? (already sent both Court and Gladstone's all documents I intend to rely on including transcripts of previous cases)

Any more advice?

Thanks!

Yes

No

I WON + GOT LIMITED COSTS (£110)

I will post a lengthier report when I get chance