UKCPS/MIah Claim Form - Parkit, Bridge St Sheffield, S3 8NS - *** Claim Dismissed ***

[dx100uk]

Nothing to do with insurance!

[aa412]

Is this any better? Thanks again!

 

 

In the matter of

 

UKCPS Limited (Claimant)

v

******** (defendant)

 

Claim no:

 

Witness statement of Ms *******, defendant

I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

 

1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event was over a year ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.

 

2. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts UKCPS to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

 

3. The Claimant has failed to indicate in what capacity I am being sued as it can’t be as both driver and keeper as per Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act [2012] and the signage in the car park refer to the driver. See Exhibit 1

 

4. On 31st March 2018 I submitted a CPR 31.14 Request for Disclosure of Specific Information to the Claimant by registered Royal Mail requesting the contract between the Claimant and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name. The claimant has failed to provide evidence of this therefore I believe that they are at best merely agents of the landowner, and have no locus standi in this matter. See Exhibit 2

 

5. In the same CPR 31.14 request made to the Claimant I also requested proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. The Claimant has failed to produce evidence of this. I therefore believe that their signs are placed illegally and so I cannot be held to a contract with the claimant. See Exhibit 3

 

6.Notwithstanding point 5 if there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because the sign upon entry to the car park do not include terms and conditions and the size and placement of the additional signage does not do enough to bring the existence of terms to the attention of someone parking.

 

7.The signage in Exhibit 4 does not constitute an invitation to offer parking for non-valid pay & display ticket holders. The offer to park is for valid pay & display ticket holders only. As there is no offer this becomes a case of trespass as in D3QZ88D0. NWCP v Mr H 29/9/2017.Preston.

 

8. Signage inside the car park is not visible from the car until after parking given the height and small size of it compared to the location the Claimant has marked that the car was parked as per ParkingEye v Mr K, Swindon County Court . See Exhibit 5

 

9.The signage in Exhibit 6 does not mention any further conditions nor does it provide any charges for breaching the offered terms. The signage also does not indicate who manages the carpark or who is offering the contract.

 

10. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The defendant makes a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g

 

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

Signed

Dated 14/08/2018

[aa412]

I found a couple of cases through Parking Prankster alongside the case numbers but I can't find the full cases anywhere. Am I missing something? I'm looking for 3QT22802 and D3QZ88D0. Thanks.

[aa412]

Hi All

 

This had to be received by the Court today but I'm going to send it next day delivery to both parties. Please could you let me know if you think it's ok.

 

Thanks

[JoeyJoeC]

Remove your attached PDF's, they're not actually redacted, I can see your name (begins with A) and car reg starting with L. The guides on this site are wrong and the original information somtimes remains.

[aa412]

Thanks although I don't think I can do it myself! That's so strange, when I download them they are still redacted. I did them in paint and Acrobat reader!

[JoeyJoeC]

PDF's are layered documents, it looks like the original scanned image only has some overlayed redaction, and doesn't form a part of the image. It's an issue with how the site guide asks people to upload images and so affects everyone, I have reported this before to the site but it fell on death ears. I've reported the issue again.

 

Edit: Actually the guide seems to have been updated, I'm not sure how you've managed to do it this way then!

[aa412]

Is it all of the pdfs or the just the most recent one? I edited them in different ways.

[dx100uk]

Most recent

But ive sorted it now

[dx100uk]

Post 8 applies here too LiP

[aa412]

Post 8 applies here too LiP

 

Great, thanks. As it is I'm going to have to change those cases from Parking Prankster as I can't find them anywhere to print them out. Just want to make sure I'm even on the right track with my revised WS? Any feedback would be greatly received. Thanks

[dx100uk]

put them in you only need the printout in court in case the judge asks for it I think.

 

not sure on a lot of that ws now you have docs.

 

on the contract to manage the car parking its dated 2014, they've not provided no truth its been annually carried fwd?

 

think it needs a re write in some places

[aa412]

put them in you only need the printout in court in case the judge asks for it I think.

 

not sure on a lot of that ws now you have docs.

 

on the contract to manage the car parking its dated 2014, they've not provided no truth its been annually carried fwd?

 

think it needs a re write in some places

 

So you think some of it isn’t relevant because I have the docs? Does it need rewording to say the same thing in a clearer way or do I need to add something/ change strategy here. I’ve spent hours looking at this stuff and I’m starting to panic that I won’t get it right especially as it’s already late. Thanks again for your help.

[dx100uk]

ill be blunt here...

 

this is 3 times you've left things until a day or too before a fatal deadline when you could have sorted it WEEKS before.

[ericsbrother]

You copy what is on screen and take that along. so if the prankster says case ref xy1234z56 park wrong v smith you quote that and show the short report as being the evidnce that yours is the same. the printout of the blog entry is the evidence, you dont need to full trnascript of the original case as it will stand or fall on the court report.

 

I found a couple of cases through Parking Prankster alongside the case numbers but I can't find the full cases anywhere. Am I missing something? I'm looking for 3QT22802 and D3QZ88D0. Thanks.

[ericsbrother]

OK now lets pick holes in yur WS

 

 

1. that invites the judge to decide on balance of probability who was driving. Either say you werent the driver at the time and there is no keeper liability of drop the point. that then kills point 2 so stick to just that.

 

 

3. you miss the point of the POFA, so stick to they ahvent created a keeper liability so no cause for action against the keeper and they have failed to identify the driver at the time and cannot assume that they are one and the same.

 

 

4 that looks like a schoolboy essay, stick to the point and that is The defendant does not believe the claimant has LOCUS STANDI as claimant has failed to produce evidence of a contract with the landowner that gives them the authority to enter into contract with the pubic and to make civil claims in their own name by way of a CPR 31.14 request. No need to say how you delived this request and leave the judge to decide if their contarcts merely agency if they havent got anything in writing. It makes no differenec to you as the claim will still fail.

 

 

5 tidy up by just saying likewise so you dotn reperat all of the CPR bit

 

 

6 a say that the signage at the entrance is at best an INVITATION TO TREAT as well. That menas no contract and you dont have to agree to all of the other things offered by way of signage or blurb on the ticket machine

 

also point out that the sigange is prohibitive in nature so not a genuine offer to park and thus the claim is merely an unlawful penalty.

 

drop point 10 it is legal gibberish that has been around since all lawyers spoke in latin and not relevant to today. All it shows i you used a cut and paste format. Write in plain english unless you are using leagl terms that you understand so to that end look up LOCUS STANDI and INVITATION TO TREAT so you know what they mans and why they are relevant. Also take copies of more cases regarding expanding on the points you are adding.

Edited August 16, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[aa412]

Thank you so much! I know I have a habit of leaving things till the last minute but this time I had genuine reasons. Either way no excuse. I'm working through this now and will update shortly.

[ericsbrother]

dont forget to dif up examples of the same arguments winning the day on places like the Parking prankster's blog.

 

Quote the case refs and copy the report from the blog and add it to your bundle you will find plenty to go on and they all help show that they are persuasive arguments.

 

as long as the orogianl case ref is quoted such as parkwrong v smith Liverpool cc nov 2010 ref: xx23y1234

you can then just copy the blog rather than seek out the original material.

 

It will either be relevant in the courts eyes or not, they wont argue about the source as they have access to the full decision if they want.

[aa412]

I've incorporated your advice. In some cases included it in existing paragraphs that I think are relevant. So my understanding is that I don't need to include the cases in the WS bundle, rather bring along copies on the day? Thanks as always.

 

In the matter of

 

UKCPS Limited (Claimant)

v

******** (defendant)

 

Claim no:

 

Witness statement of Ms *******, defendant

 

I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

 

1. The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability so there is no cause for action against the keeper. They have also failed to identify the driver at the time and cannot assume that they are one and the same.

 

2. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has locus standi as the Claimant has failed to produce evidence of a contract with the landowner that gives them the authority to enter into contract with the pubic and to make civil claims in their own name by way of a CPR 31.14 request.

 

3. The Claimant has also failed to produce evidence of proof of planning permission granted for signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Therefore, the Defendant believes that the signs are placed illegally and so the Defendant cannot be held to a contract with the Claimant.

 

4. Notwithstanding point 5 if there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because the sign upon entry to the car park do not include terms and conditions and the size and placement of the additional signage does not do enough to bring the existence of terms to the attention of someone parking. The signage at the entrance is at best an invitation to treat, therefore no contract was formed and additional terms and conditions on further signage do not need to be accepted.

 

5. The signage in Exhibit 4 does not constitute an invitation to offer parking for non-valid pay & display ticket holders. The offer to park is for valid pay & display ticket holders only. As there is no offer this becomes a case of trespass as in D3QZ88D0. NWCP v Mr H 29/9/2017.Preston. The signage is prohibitive in nature and therefore is not a genuine offer to park and thus the claim is merely an unlawful penalty.

 

6. Signage inside the car park is not visible from the car until after parking given the height and small size of it compared to the location the Claimant has marked that the car was parked as per ParkingEye v Mr K, Swindon County Court.

 

7. The signage in Exhibit 6 does not mention any further conditions nor does it provide any charges for breaching the offered terms. The signage also does not indicate who manages the carpark or who is offering the contract.

 

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

Signed

Dated 14/08/2018

[aa412]

I’ve gone with this as a final version in the interests of time. I’ll have missed today’s post for NDD. Is it best I still post or hand in in person tomorrow?

[ericsbrother]

OK, take copies of the reference material and go with it. ideally post to the court and the claimant but take spare printouts along with you if you are currently pressed for time.

Hand in today, TBH the courts give you 5 days leeway as a guide and I dounbt if Miahs will be on top of it for a couiple of days so today will be fine

[aa412]

Hi All

 

My court date is this Wednesday.

Other than bringing copies of everything with me and additional cases to support me is there anything else I need to know?

 

I haven't asked for costs in the WS as I was told to take the line out.

 

Do I need to bring something with me on this?

 

Thanks in advance (actual advance this time too)!

[ericsbrother]

you write a separate schedule of costs and ask for them under CPR 27.14.2(g), unreasonable behaviour by other party. So 5 hrs research time @ £19.50/hr, travel, copying, of docs etc and loss of income if you have to take time off and dont get paid. if self employed you dont get this

[aa412]

Case dismissed!

 

I’m really not sure that would have happened if it wasn’t for the fact that last night I found that the car park only had temporary planning permission to operate as such which lapsed in 2015!

 

Luckily the judge allowed me to enter it as I kind of tacked it on to my CPR 31:14 unanswered request for planning permission for signage etc. The judge said dismissed due to not being able to enter into illegal contracts.

 

No costs granted to me though as he didn’t believe they had acted unreasonably.

 

Thanks for the advice given here.

[honeybee13]

Well done! Also on finding the planning permission information.

 

 

I'll amend your thread title.

 

 

HB