Jump to content

hamadryad

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hamadryad

  1. Hi all, It went off last night, amended in line with all the very helpful comments. Got an acknowledgement receipt from the court too. Silence from BW! Got hard copy from them through the post today. Cheers all! H
  2. Last amendments going in now. Cheers all. If I get away with this........
  3. Ive been typing it up while youve been commenting, so missed the sections. I'll amend it as per your input
  4. am the defendant in this claim. I am a litigant in person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits in the evidence section. 3. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. 4. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 4.1. As detailed on page 17 of the evidence, I arrived at the car park at 17:47 on 17/08/2021 and found a parking space for my car. 4.2. I went to the pay station to enter my car details, but could not get the keypad to accept the full details of the car. 4.3. There seemed to be some fault with the machine, whereby the keys would to operate properly. 4.4. Realising that the machine was faulty, I did not put my card into it. 4.5. On looking around the car park for another machine, I noted that others were having issues, and on speaking to them I was informed that it was proving impossible to enter a complete registration into the machines, (Exhibit 1, reviews of Britannia Parking issues at A for relevant info from other areas) 4.6. realising that there were issues about paying for the parking, I left the car there, returning at 20:18 on 17/08/2021. 4.7. Britannia Parking issued a PCN against me at my old address, (34 Bluebell Rise, Chalford, Glos), because DVLA had that address as my home address, (I had lived there for 4 years with my mother, nursing her through her Alzheimers prior to her going into care), and I had forgotten to amend my address. 4.8. when Britannia Parking got no response, they passed the matter onto BWLegal, and they used Transunion to find where I had moved to, 104a Alexandra Road, Poole, Dorset. DEFINITION OF ‘RELEVANT CONTRACT’ From PoFA 2 (1) means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is:- a. The owner or occupier of the land: or b. Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44, for a contract to be valid requires a director from each company to sign, signatures to be confirmed by 2 independent witnesses. The fact that no signatures or witnesses were present means the deed has not been validly executed. Therefore there can be no contract between Britannia parking and R Thornewill. Britannia Parking operate parking facilities in various locations around the country, and therefore must have signed numerous contracts, which raises 2 points: The first is that by issuing many PCNs, Britannia Parking did so knowingly not having a valid contract is bordering on fraudulent. Second, VCS in order to gain access to DVLA data VCS have averred that they have complied in their CoP that they have complied with all the legal necessities, which appears patently untrue. As Lord Neuberger said in the famous Parking Eye v Beavis at the Supreme Court [2015] UKSC 67-"And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced". The Noble Lord is correct and should call into question the right of Britannia Parking to obtain information from the DVLA. 5. PARKING CHARGE NOTICE 5.1. The PCN was issued to my old address. Had Britannia parking bothered to contact any of the credit reference agencies, they would have quickly discovered my error in not changing my address details. There would have been no need to involve BWLegal, and incur their grossly inflated charges for a simple mistake that anyone could make. 5.2. At no point have I tried to avoid contact with Britannia parking, rather I have been at pain to ensure that appropriate information is made available. 6. DOUBLE RECOVERY 6.1. The claimant’s particulars of Claim include the following: a. The parking Charge - £100 b. Debt Recovery costs - £60 c. Court fee – Issuing the claim - £35 d. Hearing fee - £27 e. Solicitors costs on issue (CPR 45.2) - £50 f. Interest as the court deems fit – £4.80 6. 2. Over and above the parking charge of £100, which is extremely excessive, the claimant is seeking to recover the items at b, c, d, e, and f. There is no justification or breakdown provided without any real breakdown as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. 6. 3. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4 states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper ... is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100. 6. 4. Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery. 6. 5. The Claimant employs a paralegal, Kimberley Kaddra as shown in paragraph 1 of the Claimant's Witness Statement. It is presumably the normal daily work of this employee to deal with legal matters. 6. 6. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum(£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. 6.7. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out abinitio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 (page 129, Exhibit 16) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process. 6.8. In fact, in Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia Parking vs Crosby, the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton- Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. 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 ParkingEye 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. 6.9. 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. 6.10. 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) 6.11. The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused. 6.12. I invite the Court to dismiss this Claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of preparation for this hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14 (see Section 04 – Schedule of Costs) 7. STATEMENT OF TRUTH 7.1. 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.
  5. THis is the letter of authority from Stanborough Developments Ltd, who own the land. The date of the 'offence was 17 Aug 2021, and the PCN was sent out, (to my old address), on 24 Aug 2021 Scan_20221115 (9)_Compressed.pdf
  6. OOps! I see from another thread, that a district Judge in Bradford ruled that the additional £60 for 'contractual losses' amounted to an 'abuse of process' and therefore made the claim invalid. It was struck off! would that apply here? H
  7. THat's their witness statement. THe rest is 50 pages of double sided text, photos etc
  8. Hi all, Covid got in the way, and it's slipped my mind! So much catching up to do!!!! I've printed out the 50 odd pages they are relying on. Should I scan it all into pdf & send it? IOs there a form of witness statement I should use? H
  9. Hi, Got an offer of 25% off if I accepted by 13 Nov, (court date is 13/12/22). Gave it a good ignoring. Today I got a whole load of stuff from them, detailing all the guff that they are relying on in bringing the case. Masses of it, from a Kimberley Kaddra at BW legal. It quotes all sorts of references. I can scan it in, but there is rather a lot of it! I have read many of he reviews of this company, and they are nearly all bad, and I know of someone (who is prepared to write a statement) who tried to pay at another location and the machine would nottake his registration number and he got and paid a £100 bill, H
  10. Hi, Here is the court order. Given that they are a local company, (albeit with a poor rep), do you think they will pursue this? Your thoughts notice of allocation to small claims track.pdf
  11. Well, after ignoring the several letters asking me to pay up, I’ve now been informed by the court that I have a Microsoft Teams meeting where a judge? will hear my/their case. Seems we are going the distance with this. shame it’s by ‘teams’ cos had they been required to attend they might have shyed off, being in Leeds. Ah well. H
  12. Can I take it that the details of their response mean they stand a good chance of winning? I do wonder! H
  13. Thank you. Hopefully they will back down. Seems a little unlikely though, given what their letter said! still, hope springs eternal as they say! h
  14. Hi all! I've heard back (at last) from the BW fools. Attached is what they have sent. I've also heard back from the court saying that the case has been allocated to the Small Claims Court. The car is scrapped now, so I didn't think it would matter, but fair enough. Herewith the merged and redacted docs. Cheers, Robert n271+ bw letters.pdf
  15. Hi all, I've got to the bottom of it now. Seems they did cancel the number cos it doesn’t show on my vodaphone account any more. just need to check if the two reference numbers match. H
  16. Hi Ethel, Yes I have another phone with them. About May last year I renewed my contract with Vodaphone and during the process I was misled into having another number. I was totally unaware that this had happened. I didn’t have another phone, and on checking with Vodaphone they confirmed that it had never been used. I didn’t realise I had been billed for it because I have 2 accounts. One is the auto account that pays all the bills so I don’t ever forget one, and the other is the rest. Spends etc. I don’t really check the bill account. Lucky I did really, cos otherwise I’d have been paying for it still. Anyway, after many phone calls, they agreed to stop the unused number. Now I’ve got this letter from them detailing that they’ve transferred this bill the a set of fleecers. I could pay it, but they’ve had enough out of me, and I don’t see why I should have to pay for something I didn’t want and haven’t used! H
  17. Hi all, Vodaphone have been billing me from my 'Automatic' bank account for a number I do not own. Didn't check the account cos it's all standing orders etc, but when I did I discovered that Vodafone had been charging me for this number I didn't have or need. After MANY MANY calls they agreed to cancel the line and I was assured that that would be the end of it. I've just got notice that there is an outstanding amount of £56.70 that is being transferred to Zinc Credit Management, and that they will be contacting me very soon. Also if I don't pay, I'll be subjected to an 'Estimated early termination fee of £240.26 and a 15% addition to the balance to 'cover the costs incurred in collecting the payment'! I know vodafone record all calls, so I know they know that they agreed to cancel the spurious number, I'm just getting a little annoyed with people who do not do what they say they will!! H
  18. Hi, It's due to the recipients on 04 Jul. It's going 1st class today! H
  19. I emailed them about how I couldn’t log in. Still waiting for a response! Got a letter from the court yesterday though, saying that the case is on the small claims track. Not read it in detail yet cos I’ve was out yesterday and last night. I will read it thoroughly later though. H
×
×
  • Create New...