Background  

1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.  

Unfair PCN  

2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the 46 signs displayed in their evidence clearly show a £60.00 parking charge.  There can be no room for doubt here - there are 46 signs produced in the Claimant's own evidence..

(which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  I don't think you need this.  There's no point confusing the judge with extra figures, which in any case are in small print on the signs and are irrelevant anyway as you didn't pay.  Let's stick with a clear £60 v £100.

2.2  Yet the PCN affixed to the vehicle was for a £100.00 parking charge.  The reminder letters from the Claimant again all demanded £100.

(reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).  

2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.   

2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim. 

No Locus Standi 

3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  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, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. 

Your bit in orange above is fine 

3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The contract produced was largely illegible and heavily redacted, and the fact that it contained no witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “No Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract. 

3.3  The contract contains the wording -

"Parking Charge Notices may be issued for all or any of the reasons below:
   Parking without a valid permit of authority
   Parking out of a marked bay
   Parking in a disabled bay without a valid disability badge on display
   Parking on yellow lines/hatched areas
   Parking and leaving site
   Overstaying a defined time limit".

The contract makes no mention of EV charging bays or their abuse.  The Claimant issued a PCN and then this court claim for a reason absent from their contract with the landowner.

Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed  

4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.  

4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.  

This has to go.  They have produced a contract, albeit a rubbish one.

4.3  Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  

4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses this document.  

No Keeper Liability  

5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.  

5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.    

5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.   

I don't think you need to muddy the waters by mentioning the photos.  It's the PCN that is important.  I would replace the para in orange with -

5.3  The Claimant did not mention the parking period in the PCN affixed to the windscreen.  This alluded to an "observation time from 20:19 to 20:24" when their attendant viewed the vehicle.  It is self-evident that the car was parked both before and after being observed.. 

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  

The notice must -  

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; 

The Claimant's PCN did not include the parking period as required by the Act.

22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim. 

5.4  As the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable. 

No Breach of Contract  

6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract. 

6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat, 

I would cut out this whole section.  Them putting an 0 instead of a O is the tiniest of technicalities and just shows desperation IMO.

Interest 

7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for four years in order to add excessive interest..

Double Recovery  

7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges. 

7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100. 

7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 

7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 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.” 

7.6 In Claim Nos. 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 recoverabl15e 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...'' 

7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 2) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case. 

7.8        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.  

7.9        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).  

In Conclusion  

8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim. 

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.

1. Background 

1.1 Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of November 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019. 

2. Contract 

2.1 No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) 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, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. 

The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract. 

3. Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed 

3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself. 

3.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 

3.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved. 

3.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents. 

4. Unfair PCN 

4.1         As stipulated in Exhibit 1 (Pages 7-13) sent by DCB Legal following the defendant’s CPR request the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows £60.00 parking charge notice and will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof when the signage changed to show £100.00 parking charge as the evidence provided by DCB Legal stipulated £60.00 parking charge was indeed the parking charge at the time defendant parked and included in Exhibit 1  

4.3        The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC  

4.4        It is also unfair to delay litigation for so long and claim nearly four years' interest. 

5. No Keeper Liability 

5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time. 

5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.   

5.3        The claimant did not mention parking period instead only mentioned time 20:25 which is not sufficient to qualify as a parking period.  

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 

The notice must - 

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; 

6. No Breach of Contract 

6.1      No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. 

6.2        The wording “Electric Bay Abuse” is not listed on their signs nor there is any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. 

7. Double Recovery 

7.1        As well as the original £100 parking charge and £50 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70. 

7.2        PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) 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. 

7.3        The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off". 

7.4        Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery. 

7.5        Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the 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 all the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 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 practise 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.” 

7.6        In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia 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 Judgement 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 judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal 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. 

7.7        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. 

7.8        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). 

7.9        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. 

8. In Conclusion 

8.1        I believe the Claimant has got use to intimidation tactics and has got greedy. I believe the truth of the manor is the Claimant has used bullying tactics successfully for too long and is therefore assured that innocent drivers will fall into the trap of paying rather than going through the hours it takes to defend themselves. In the process, wasting the time of the Court, the time of the Defendant and everyone else who has advised the Defendant, out of sheer decency to help have a fair hearing and see justice delivered. 

8.2        I am still in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 4 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks’ worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle. 

8.3        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.