In short, I think we had some luck on our side. If anyone is reading this for their own claim you need to put a LOT of research time in. It took me at least a good 20 -30 hours overall reading, editing, copy/pasting and trying to understand the arguments. It wouldve been a lot easier if I had done this in a more organised fashion. I went into this without knowing a lot. Personally I think the stuff I presented was confusing and didn't follow a nice, logical format and was not succinct. That's mainly down to doing it last minute - so avoid that at all costs! Finally, thanks to all your help guys. To be completely honest, I think the £60 fine at the start would have been cheaper when considering the time cost and stress of the process, and I know many, if not all on this forum would disagree with me (since we are all here to fight these extortionists). The PPCs have used the legal system to make this process lengthy, (stress-inducing for those not in the know) and full of uncertainty and for them it is a numbers game, which unfortunately continues to net them lots of money.

Won the case! No solicitor for the claimant came, Judge asked us to explain our case (I brought a friend who I thought would be my lay representative, but Judge said they could only be a Mackenzie friend) Argued over following points: Prohibitive sign - although I dont think I explained myself clearly and Judge didn't seem too convinced by it Misleading signage - Judge didn't accept our argument of "within windscreen", but was convinced by logo and Unfair Contracts 2008 regs Locus Standi - argued they breached their contract because said sign didnt follow contract documentation Conduct - made point that no record of LBA or NtK received - WS from Gladdys mentioned an NtK Judge also said this charge was a penalty and they were familiar with Beavis case but not PCM v Bull Also, the fact that it was a residential road, the Judge disagreed that any services were provided by PCM Funny thing happened when it came to asking for costs, Judge said that it might not be the end of the issue and to take the dismissal of the claim, still asked for travel costs and they seemed peeved off. Was a bit put off by that.

Used map locator on land registry. Still owned by Bovis

Can't find the judgement about open ended parking contract, Found out from council that road is still unadopted but the property which the vehicle was parked in front of, is not owned by Bovis Homes - not sure if this counts, as Bovis could still own the road or if frontage applies

Just to clarify - the contract they've shown says "We will require PCM UK to undertake the management and/or enforcement of parking on the land specified above" The contract explicitly says that they are required to manage parking?

Summary of Witness Statement: 1. Parking charge issued due to contravention of T&Cs – no valid permit on display 2. Paragraph #5: Signage quote: “Vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the windscreen of the vehicle, providing …” 3. Defendant raises issue with the authority by which my Company has issued the above charge. Document GSL1 – copy of contract with Landowner 4. Goes on to mention that Company has authority to enforce parking charges. Quotes Beavis and VCS vs HMRC “made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance.” 5. Quotes Lord Justice Lewison in VCS vs HMRC 2013 6. Paragraph #11: Defendant suggests there was no contract, this is not agreed with. Terms of signage are unambiguous in nature… 7. Rules of interpretation require simply that the parties knew of their obligations to one-another. The Defendant was offered to use the Land and thereafter either follow the rules and park for free or in breach of the rules and agree to pay £100. 8. Quotes Alder v Moore – court concluded that one should consider obligations imposed by the agreement, not the terminology used. 9. Principles in the case are same as Parking Eye (vs Beavis), except the rule breached was that motorists must leave within 2 hours. 10. #Paragraph 18 – Signage (…) has been approved by the International Parking Committee. 11. Quoted a letter I sent, where I mentioned their stupidity ! 12. #Para 26: Company is an Accredited Operator of International Parking Committee and goes on to quote the code. 13. Para 27: In view of Defendant not paying charge within the initial 28 days or the further 28 days allowed after the NtK has been sent, the charge has become overdue and £60 added. a) Already included Beavis transcript + Beavis sign in my exhibits b) Can I be sued as both the driver and the keeper – because it doesn’t seem to concretely mention what they are suing me as. c) The contract they have – attached – mentions “The scheme will be operated in accordance with the BPA (British Parking Association) and AOS (Approved Operator Scheme) Code of Practice. Could this provide a line of defence – i.e. they were not following their own contract, therefore have no authority?

For cases that I have mentioned, should I include the whole transcript or the front page? I will bring the full transcript to the hearing

Thanks for the additional info! Should I post this special delivery as it needs to get to Gladdys/Court by the 7th

Updated. Will probably post this today . Added in paragraph 8 as PCMs contract with freeholder states they will operate in accordance with BPA and AOS Code of Practice I, defendant, OF 1 Street, Postcode WILL SAY AS FOLLOW: 1. I am the recorded keeper of vehicle with registration of CARREG. 2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement are the following documents which I wish to rely upon: i. Exhibit A1: The signage ii. Exhibit A1.2: A contract between the claimant and the landowner iii. Exhibit A2: Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 iv. Exhibit A3: Definition of the terms ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary v. Exhibit A4: The parking permit that I own vi. Exhibit A5: Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 vii. Exhibit A6: Release of information from DVLA’s registers, page 8 3. The claimant’s document GSL1 purporting to be a contract with the freeholder of the relevant land dates from 2004. There is no evidence that the contract was ever renewed, and I believe that the claimant has no locus standi in this matter. 4. I do not believe that this operator has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. I contend that they merely hold an agreement to maintain signs and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I put the operator to strict proof otherwise because it cannot be assumed that any agent on site has any more than a bare licence. I require an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100. Regarding Part A, Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I require evidence of full compliance: “The written authorisation must also set out: i. The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined ii. Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation iii. Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement iv. Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs v. The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.'' 5. The claimant (PCM UK) claims in paragraph 18 of the Witness Statement that ’signage (…) has been audited and approved by the International Parking Community’. Similarly, the signs as shown in Exhibit A1 and even in the claimants’ own evidence bundle show that they belong to the Independent Parking Committee. This is a private company that is not an accredited trade association, which calls into doubt the validity of the signage as an offer of contract. The claimant cannot claim to be a member of an accredited trade association which was not in existence at the time the breach of contract took place. 6. If the claimant cannot update the relevant signage regarding their membership to an accredited trade organisation, it sheds doubt on whether the claimant may have a current agreement with the landowner. As the signage claims the claimant belongs to an accredited trade association which does not exist, the rest of the signage is not a valid offer in terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requirement which PCM UK cannot fulfil before they are able to create a liability for the supposed debt. 7. In addition, I believe PCM UK lack planning consent for the signs. Planning consent is required to update the signs, which have not been changed since 2016 when the Independent Planning Committee changed names to United Trade and Industry Limited and ceased to be an Accredited Trade Association as of May 2018 according to Page 8 of the Release of Information from DVLA’s Registers (Exhibit A6). 8. Breach of BPA code, therefore nullifying any agreement with the landowner. According to the contract provided by the claimant (Exhibit A1.2), the freeholder specifies that the operation run by PCM UK “will be operated in accordance with the BPA (British Parking Association) and AOS (Approved Operator Scheme) Code of Practice.” As mentioned above, the contract which the claimant has provided fails to comply with Section 7.3 of the BPA code of practice. In addition, the signage used fails to comply with Section 18.7 “You should display the … AOS logos at all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator.” The signage refers to an organisation which is not an accredited trade association. Since the claimant fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of their agreement with the landowner, the claimant has no locus standi in this matter. 9. The Court’s attention is drawn to the case of Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes). Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case it has been produce because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. The Court’s attention is drawn in particular to paragraph 20 of the Transcript of that case “It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of profession services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful”. Paragraph 28 continues - “cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to perform.” In this case it was not lawful for the Claimant to have in place its signs upon which it relies for the formation of an asserted contract with the Defendant. 10. The claimant claims in paragraph 11 of the Witness Statement that ‘The terms of the signage on the land are unambiguous in nature’. I wholly disagree with this statement. As can be seen in Exhibit A1, the signage mentions ‘A valid parking permit (must be displayed) within the windscreen’. Exhibit A3 shows the definition of the word ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is ‘inside’. That is, the permit must be placed inside the windscreen. This is physically impossible, rendering it impossible to adhere to the contract as PCM UK even based on the conditions that PCM UK claim. 11. Furthermore, the signage of the contract is contradictory in nature. The signage mentions that ‘Parking is permitted for (valid permit holders only)’ which implies that parking without a valid permit is prohibited and so is not an offer of a contract. However, the signage later states any individual parking ‘agree(s) to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100…’. 12. The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR: VEHICLES FULLY DISPLAYING A VALID PARKING PERMIT”. It is submitted that if this notice is attempting to make a contractual offer, then as it is forbidding it does not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. 13. The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that: “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.” While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive. 14. In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretation the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply. 15. Additionally, the contract fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. 16. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. 17. The signage is prohibitive as the only way to agree to the terms of the contract is to break them. Anyone not authorised to park is a trespasser and that is a separate matter for the landowner. A contract which can only be formed by breaking it is an unfair contract under section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit A5) and thus not binding. 18. The claimant has indicated they are pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle according to paragraph 27 of the witness statement. Therefore, the claimant cannot now decide there is driver liability from the outset. 19. It is also denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, PoFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) (Exhibit A2) as no Notice to Keeper was issued. Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper, nor has the claimant provided any evidence that a Notice to Keeper was sent. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. 20. In addition, the claimant obtained the registered keeper details without following proper protocol as under the contract terms, the Independent Parking Committee is not a member of a Governmental Accredited Trade Association as required by Section 56, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Exhibit A2). Therefore, details for the registered keeper were obtained unlawfully. 21. Since I have a permit (Exhibit A4), I am authorised to park. The permit was visible from outside the vehicle as it had fallen into the passenger footwell. The fact that the permit was not displayed “within” the windscreen is “de minimis” as the claimant should know who has been issued permits and PCM UK should have other methods of obtaining permit details such as referring to the list of permit holders, meaning any expense on their action is due to their own incompetence. 22. Also, the claimant purports the debt has risen by virtue of the matter being passed to the company’s legal representatives, namely Gladstone’s Solicitors. In the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] at Para 419 HHJ Hegarty QC states: It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.’ I asks the court to put the claimant to strict proof of the costs of £60 that have been incurred (that is the original PCN amounts to £100, they have added £60 as extra costs), and not double charging for legal services as has been the case in Gladstone’s Solicitors history amongst the courts, by issuing template claims against unaware motorists hoping to recover costs. 23. I would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis (2015) case. It is denied that at a residential site with residents parking with full authorisation at their own home, the claimant as a third party firm incentivised to issue penalties, have any overriding 'legitimate interest' (like there was in the Beavis case) nor complex contractual arrangement that can disengage Lord Dunedin's penalty rule. In fact, I own a parking permit which was visible from out of the vehicle. One of the key points of the Beavis case was the charge was necessary to deter overstaying. Therefore, as there is no ‘legitimate interest’ on the part of the claimant, this charge is an unenforceable penalty.

Updated again. Once again, thanks for all your input, I know the deadline is closing and I'm feeling the pressure. Once again @ericsbrother, I am sorry but I need your help! I can't find relevant info for lack of planning permission and criminality... I believe I have included other points Their agreement with the landowner claims they must be a member of an ATA, but if the signage is incorrect does that mean that agreement doesn't hold? 1. I am the recorded keeper of vehicle with registration of CARREG. 2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement are the following documents which I wish to rely upon: i. The signage ii. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 iii. The parking permit iv. Definition of the terms ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary v. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 Cannot find any judgements to show that old contracts need to be renewed 3. The claimant’s document GSL1 purporting to be a contract with the freeholder of the relevant land dates from 2004. There is no evidence that the contract was ever renewed, and I believe that the claimant has no locus standi in this matter. [JUDGEMENT CASE] Mentioning differences in IPC and validity of contract as ericsbrother mentioned 4. The claimant (PCM UK) claims in paragraph 18 of the Witness Statement that ’signage (…) has been audited and approved by the International Parking Community’. Similarly, the signs as shown in Exhibit A1 and even in the claimants’ own evidence bundle show that they belong to the Independent Parking Committee. This is a private company that is not an accredited trade association, which calls into doubt the validity of the signage as an offer of contract. The claimant cannot claim to be a member of an accredited trade association which was not in existence at the time the breach of contract took place. 5. If the claimant cannot update the relevant signage regarding their membership to an accredited trade organisation, it sheds doubt on whether the claimant may have a current agreement with the landowner. As the signage claims the claimant belongs to an accredited trade association which does not exist, the rest of the signage is not a valid offer in terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requirement which PCM UK cannot fulfil before they are able to create a liability for the supposed debt. Found a document from 2018 saying that the Independent Parking Committee is not on the ATA for DVLA 6. In addition, I believe PCM UK lack planning consent for the signs. Planning consent is required to update the signs, which have not been changed since 2016 when the Independent Planning Committee changed names to United Trade and Industry Limited and ceased to be an Accredited Trade Association as of May 2018 according to Page 8 of the Release of Information from DVLA’s Registers (Exhibit A5). Help needed for this point. BPA doesn’t list any size guidelines. 7. According to the British Parking Association, signage needs to be of such size that planning permission is required. 8. Specifically, the claimant obtained the registered keeper details without following proper protocol as under the contract terms, the Independent Parking Committee is not a member of a Governmental Accredited Trade Association as required by Section 56, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Exhibit A2). Therefore, details for the registered keeper were obtained unlawfully. Tried to incorporate @ericsbrothers point – not sure 9. Due to the unlawful nature of PCM’s conduct, any liability is negated as Lord Scarman said that people may not profit from criminality by way of a criminal conduct. Although PCM UK’s behaviour was not criminal, it was unlawful. 10. The claimant claims in paragraph 11 of the Witness Statement that ‘The terms of the signage on the land are unambiguous in nature’. I wholly disagree with this statement. As can be seen in Exhibit A1, the signage mentions ‘A valid parking permit (must be displayed) within the windscreen’. Exhibit A3 shows the definition of the word ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is ‘inside’. That is, the permit must be placed inside the windscreen. This is physically impossible, rendering it impossible to adhere to the contract as PCM UK even based on the conditions that PCM UK claim. 11. Furthermore, the signage of the contract is contradictory in nature. The signage mentions that ‘Parking is permitted for (valid permit holders only)’ which implies that parking without a valid permit is prohibited and so is not an offer of a contract. However, the signage later states any individual parking ‘agree(s) to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100…’. Found parking prankster case that has similar issues with PCM signage 12. The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR: VEHICLES FULLY DISPLAYING A VALID PARKING PERMIT”. It is submitted that if this notice is attempting to make a contractual offer, then as it is forbidding it does not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. 13. The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that: “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.” While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive. 14. In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretation the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply. 15. Additionally, the contract fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. 16. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. 17. The signage is prohibitive as the only way to agree to the terms of the contract is to break them. Anyone not authorised to park is a trespasser and that is a separate matter for the landowner. A contract which can only be formed by breaking it is an unfair contract under section 62 of the Consumer Regulations Act 2015 (Figure 7) and thus not binding. 18. The claimant has indicated they are pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle according to paragraph 9 of the witness statement. Therefore, the claimant cannot now decide there is driver liability from the outset. 19. It is also denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, PoFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) (Exhibit A2) as no Notice to Keeper was issued. Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper, nor has the claimant provided any evidence that a Notice to Keeper was sent. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. This paragraph clearly instructs the claimant that where no notice to the driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used), the notice to keeper must be served no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. 20. Since I have a permit, I am authorised to park. The permit was visible from outside the vehicle as it had fallen into the passenger footwell. The fact that the permit was not displayed “within” the windscreen is “de minimis” as the claimant should know who has been issued permits and PCM UK should have other methods of obtaining permit details such as referring to the list of permit holders, meaning any expense on their action is due to their own incompetence. 21. Also the claimant purports the debt has risen by virtue of the matter being passed to the company’s legal representatives, namely Gladstone’s Solicitors. In the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] at Para 419 HHJ Hegarty QC states: It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.’ I asks the court to put the claimant to strict proof of the costs of £60 that have been incurred (that is the original PCN amounts to £100, they have added £60 as extra costs), and not double charging for legal services as has been the case in Gladstone’s Solicitors history amongst the courts, by issuing template claims against unaware motorists hoping to recover costs. 22. I would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis (2015) case. It is denied that at a residential site with residents parking with full authorisation at their own home, the claimant as a third party firm incentivised to issue penalties, have any overriding 'legitimate interest' (like there was in the Beavis case) nor complex contractual arrangement that can disengage Lord Dunedin's penalty rule.

Updated the ATA bit: 1. If the claimant cannot update the relevant signage regarding their membership to an accredited trade organisation, it sheds doubt on whether the claimant may have a current agreement with the landowner. The claimant belongs to the International Parking Community, however, the signs as shown in figure X and even in the claimants’ own evidence bundle show that they belong to the Independent Parking Committee, this is a private company that is not an accredited trade association, which calls into doubt the validity of the signage as an offer of contract. As the signage claims the claimant belongs to an accredited trade association which does not exist, the rest of the signage is not a valid offer in terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requirement that they cannot fulfil before they are able to create a liability for the supposed debt. 2. Specifically, the claimant obtained the registered keeper details without following proper protocol as under the contract terms, the Independent Parking Committee is not a member of a Governmental Accredited Trade Organisation as required by Section 56, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, details for the registered keeper were obtained unlawfully. @ericsbrother when you said parking pranksters blog, dec 2016 - the relevant case I found was this one: Graham Park Way It had a lot of similarities towards the way the signage is shown. I don't know if you were referring to that, but I think its not material relevant to the PoFA point you mentioned. With respect to planning permission, I can find nothing to show that it was granted. The homes were built ~2009. I have called the council today and they have said that Bovis are the landowner.

No, I haven't moved. I've dug up some information from the estate agent, this is not in the lease but posted online as a guide for student accommodation: Certain areas of Hatfield require parking permits to park on the street if you are a resident in that street. Look out for signs on the street and take appropriate action. ... As a resident you will receive parking permits by Parking Control Management Limited with maps and instructions on the areas affected. This year, the permits will be delivered to our offcie and you will be able to collect once we advise you that we have received them.

Updated the witness statement, please criticise. Red to show changes. Also still can't find relevant judgements about the need to ratify old contracts Honestly, my WS seems like a jumble of arguments and some of the points I feel don't fully make sense to me. I've looked at other WS online and they are more legalese, it makes my head hurt. Also, I've read different things about what should be in a witness statement. It feels more like a defence that a statement of facts... I, defendant, OF 1 Street, Postcode WILL SAY AS FOLLOW: 1. The defendant is the recorded keeper of vehicle with registration of CARREG. 2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement are the following documents which the defendant wishes to rely upon: i. The sign (‘the alleged Contract’) ii. The parking permit iii. Definition of the terms ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary iv. A letter from the claimant discussing the appeals rejection v. A copy of the lease agreement the defendant was provided through the lettings agency – which supplied the parking permit vi. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 3. The claimant’s document GSL1 purporting to be a contract with the freeholder of the relevant land dates from 2004. There is no evidence that the contract was ever renewed and the defendant believes that the claimant has no locus standi in this matter. [JUDGEMENT CASE] 4. The claimant claims in paragraph 18 of the Witness Statement that ’signage (…) has been audited and approved by the International Parking Community (“the IPC”)’. However, under the supposed contract, shown in Figure 1 which the claimant claims the defendant entered into, the contract terms mention the “Independent Parking Committee”. The claimant cannot claim to be a member of an organisation which was no longer in existence. In documentation received by the defendant, the claimant has also claimed that they were a member of the International Parking Community. 5. If the claimant cannot update the relevant signage regarding their membership to an accredited trade organisation, it is possible that the claimant may not have a current agreement with the landowner. 6. Specifically, the claimant obtained the registered keeper details without following proper protocol as under the contract terms, the Independent Parking Committee is not a member of a Governmental Accredited Trade Organisation as required by Section 56, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, details for the registered keeper were obtained unlawfully. 7. The claimant claims in paragraph 11 of the Witness Statement that ‘The terms of the signage on the land are unambiguous in nature’. The defendant wholly disagrees with this statement. As can be seen in Figure 1 of the contract, the signage mentions ‘A valid parking permit (must be displayed) within the windscreen’. Figure 3 shows the definition of the word ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is ‘inside’. That is, the permit must be placed inside the windscreen. This is physically impossible, therefore, this contract cannot be adhered to even with a permit as the claimant claims. Figure 4 shows an appeals rejection letter from the claimant. The wording used to place the permit is ‘affix to the windscreen’. Once again, this shows that the claimants own staff recognise the wording used in the signage as inappropriate. 8. Furthermore, the signage of the contract is contradictory in nature. The signage mentions that ‘Parking is permitted for (valid permit holders only)’ which implies that parking without a valid permit is prohibited and so is not an offer of a contract. However, the signage later states any individual parking ‘agree(s) to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100…’. This contradicts the claimants statement that the signage is unambiguous as this now implies an offer of contract. 9. The signage is prohibitive as the only way to agree to the terms of the contract is to break them. Anyone not authorised to park is a trespasser and that is a separate matter for the landowner. A contract which can only be formed by breaking it is an unfair contract under section 62 of the Consumer Regulations Act 2015 (Figure 7) and thus not binding. 10. It is also denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the no Notice to Keeper was issued. Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. This paragraph clearly instructs the claimant that where no notice to the driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used), the notice to keeper must be served no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. I have attached a copy of the POFA 12 schedule 4 as Figure 6. 11. Since I have a permit, I am authorised to park. The fact that the permit was not displayed “within” the windscreen is de minimis as the claimant should know who has been issued permits. 12. Also the claimant purports the debt has risen by virtue of the matter being passed to the company’s legal representatives, namely Gladstone’s Solicitors. In the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] at Para 419 HHJ Hegarty QC states: It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.’ The defendant asks the court to put the claimant to strict proof of the costs of £50 that have been incurred (that is the original PCN amounts to £60, they have added £50 as extra costs), and not double charging for legal services as has been the case in Gladstone’s Solicitors history amongst the courts, by issuing template claims against unaware motorists hoping to recover costs. 13. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis (2015) case. It is denied that at a residential site with residents parking with full authorisation at their own home, the claimant as a third party firm incentivised to issue penalties, have any overriding 'legitimate interest' (like there was in the Beavis case) nor complex contractual arrangement that can disengage Lord Dunedin's penalty rule.

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I cant find a case where a judge required an agreement to be ratified on Parking Prankster, although I'm still looking. Again, struggling to understand what you mean (sorry!). Not sure what I'm looking for, but, in the witness statement they refer to International Parking Community and in their own evidence bundle they have a sign which shows the Independent Parking Committee. I thought this was the so-called silver bullet? This would be enough to win the case... The agreement is with the freeholder although the parking is on a public road (I think). The lease doc has no mention of parking at all. However, the estate agents are the ones who hand out the parking permits...

Just going through all my documents. I don't believe I have received an NTK... The first I knew of this was the TRACE debt recovery letters.

Hows this for the ParkingEye vs Beavis case: The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis (2015) case. It is denied that at a residential site with residents parking with full authorisation at their own home, the claimant as a third party firm incentivised to issue penalties, have any overriding 'legitimate interest' (like there was in the Beavis case) nor complex contractual arrangement that can disengage Lord Dunedin's penalty rule. Do you think that I should keep the points in my previous post or are they 'speculative' e.g. the unfair terms?

Witness statement up. 6 points: Signage is inaccurate - IPC is not an ATA member so Keeper details obtained illegally (?) as PoFA 2012 conditions not met. Signage is confusing - Initially it mentions that parking is only permitted for permit holders (ie. prohibitive) but then goes on to mention a £100 charge Wording used in contract - placing permit within windscreen is physically impossible Contract terms are unfair - £100 for parking is excessive - not sure to include this, not sure about points for elaboration Primacy of contract - permits offered to tenants exclusively. Lease makes no mention of permits but AFAIK permits are only given to tenants via the lettings agency - again not sure if I should keep and elaborate (would need a bit of help) £60 DCA charge is excessive and unfair - need to elaborate this too. Was thinking of adding in the permit was visible as it was in footwell. Here it is: I, defendant, OF 1 Street, Postcode WILL SAY AS FOLLOW: 1. The defendant is the recorded keeper of vehicle with registration of CARREG. 2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement are the following documents which the defendant wishes to rely upon: i. The sign (‘the alleged Contract’) ii. The parking permit iii. Definition of the terms ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary iv. A letter from the claimant discussing the appeals rejection v. A copy of the lease agreement the defendant was provided through the lettings agency – which supplied the parking permit 3. The claimant claims in paragraph 18 of the Witness Statement that ’signage (…) has been audited and approved by the International Parking Community (“the IPC”)’. However, under the supposed contract, shown in Figure 1 which the claimant claims the defendant entered into, the contract terms mention the “Independent Parking Committee”. The claimant cannot claim to be a member of an organisation which was no longer in existence. In documentation received by the defendant, the claimant has also claimed that they were a member of the International Parking Community. 4. Specifically, the claimant obtained the registered keeper details without following proper protocol as under the contract terms, the Independent Parking Committee is not a member of a Governmental Accredited Trade Organisation as required by Section 56, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, details for the registered keeper were obtained illegally. 5. The claimant claims in paragraph 11 of the Witness Statement that ‘The terms of the signage on the land are unambiguous in nature’. The defendant wholly disagrees with this statement. As can be seen in Figure 1 of the contract, the signage mentions ‘A valid parking permit (must be displayed) within the windscreen’. Figure 3 shows the definition of the word ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is ‘inside’. That is, the permit must be placed inside the windscreen. This is physically impossible, therefore, this contract cannot be adhered to even with a permit as the claimant claims. Figure 4 shows an appeals rejection letter from the claimant. The wording used to place the permit is ‘affix to the windscreen’. Once again, this shows that the claimants own staff recognise the wording used in the signage as inappropriate. 6. Furthermore, the signage of the contract is contradictory in nature. The signage mentions that ‘Parking is permitted for (valid permit holders only)’ which implies that parking without a valid permit is prohibited and so is not an offer of a contract. However, the signage later states any individual parking ‘agree(s) to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100…’. This contradicts the claimants statement that the signage is unambiguous as this now implies an offer of contract. 7. It can be claimed that the ‘so-called offer’ in the contract is unfair.*** 8. Since the permit is provided exclusively to tenants and tenants are offered a permit through the lettings agency, not through the claimant. Therefore, the lease agreement holds primacy of contract. The lease document contains no mention of conditions exercised by the claimant so do not have any right for imposing this unfair charge on the defendant. 9. The claimant has unfairly added £60. ***

Currently looking at witness statements in other cases Evidence_edited.pdf Witness_statement_edited.pdf

Thanks Andyorch and ericsbrother for the advice. I was researching defence statements and witness statements, would it be possible to mention additional points to my defence - such as the fact that (as mentioned earlier) the letters/signage mention the wrong IPC. Also, I have dug up my lease and no where is it mentioned about parking permits. However, the permits are only given if you are a tenant (3 per household). I was reading about rights of supremacy of contract - could that be applied here? Lastly, what about the instructions provided on the back of the permit, as mentioned earlier, it is impossible to place the permit within the windscreen - is this an argument that can also be bought up. I have written the witness statement (I wasn't sure to include any of the above points - i think I'm not supposed to, so I left them out). I've also included the bit about the appeals but crossed it out as I think it's irrelevant. The defendant received a parking permit through the lettings agency which provides two permits per household. No additional documentation was provided for the permit, nor were any contracts signed except the lease agreement. On the day of the event, the permit was on the passenger footwell and was visible from the outside. Any individual looking inside the car would be able to see it from outside. The defendant appealed the case using an online website form provided by PCM. No response was provided. The defendant followed up the appeal by emailing PCM and was told that if a response was not provided, the defendant should have called within 14 days. Upon calling the number, the defendant encountered instructions to pay the ticket with. The appeals reply letter provided within the witness statement from the claimant is the first time that the defendant was made aware of its existence. Gladstones have also provided their witness statement to me. I will post it up shortly.

Hi guys, I'm feeling massively panicked now that this case is actually going to court - which I didn't expect! - some advice? Not sure where to start at this point, my heart is just racing. Is this the point where I bring up the incorrect information about the placing of the parking permit and the false info about the membership that they claimed to have?

this is the letter i have

Hi all, So I now have a court date set for the 21st of March, the claimant has paid the £25 court charge to proceed with this case, I have till the 7th to give the court and claimant the documents i wish to rely at the hearing, im not sure what i need to do right now, any help, thank you in advance.

it seems the letter was sent to the wrong address so the letter i received was on a handwritten envelope, the email address looks like a private one. my only concern is as the letter was posted on the 23rd of november i have to reply by the 10th however im at university and my letters are sent to home, could i ring the courts and explain the situation so i have extra time to post the N180 form?

So i have received another letter from the courts however it has been dated for the 23rd of November and i only received it yesterday. The letter says the following " take notice that this is now a defended claim, the defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed (however "a copy of which is enclosed" has been crossed out with a pen and there is no copy in the letter recieved) It appears this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track. If you believe this track is not the appropriate track for your claim, you must complete box C1 on the small claims directions questionnaire. You must by 10 December complete the small claims directions questionnaire (N180) and file to the court office." the really weird thing is the letter came in an envelope with my name and address hand written and there was another letter with the letter above, stating: " your court letter enclosed received by mistake. If you need any help for your case with PCM contact ...(there is an email address). We are residents in a estate which PCM controlled the parking. We won a lot of court cases against PCM and got our costs from them as well £450, £1500, £1700. If you or know someone won court cases against PCM let us know. regards." (the english on the letter is exactly like it is on this post) Im very confused as to what is going on and why this person would open my letter? Please help.

so I've copied the example letter from the parking pranksters website, is this acceptable to send to the county court for the request for an oral hearing. "To the court manager (Copy to Gladstones) As the facts of the case are in dispute, I believe it important to be able to orally challenge the claimant, and any witness statement they may file later. It is also noted that Gladstones regular behaviour is to ambush defendants in court by failing to provide any information until the last minute. I therefore wish to be able to challenge whatever information is filed should I disagree. It is noted that the correct procedure is to file any challenges to my defence as a reply to defence. Gladstones solicitors regularly ignore the court process by attempting to file new legal arguments in their witness statement at the last minute. As they are regularly assist in parking cases they are well aware this is not correct procedure. Should they do this, I would need to orally dispute this. For all these reasons I request that an oral hearing is held. Additionally, regarding their claim together with a lack of any reply to defence, I would content they have not established any prima facie case and therefore have no prospect of success. As this is a regular tactic of theirs, the court can use their discretionary case management abilities and strike the claim out. I enclose a copy of an order showing a similar claim by Gladstones which was struck out. It is worth noting that Gladstones do not respect court procedure and although the claim was struck out they then refiled the claim with new particulars. This was then of course duly struck out again