Jump to content

dejam99

UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London ***Discontinued***

Recommended Posts

The matter will be considered on paperwork without a hearing. The parties attendance is not required and the Judge will determine the matter based upon the documents and evidence supplied and any written representations received

 

sadly a lot of people fall for this junk. As said, demand a hearing in front of a judge.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where did they get your email from?

block them now and bounce that email back.

 

as for your N180 which came from the court I hope?

 

you really should be reading up on ALL PPC claimform threads during your 'downtime' between the stages of the claim so you KNOW what happens next and how to suitably respond.

 

no to mediation

1 wit you.

yes to small claims track

the rest is obv

 

3 copies

one to the court

one to gladdys minus sig/email/phone

one for your file.

 

FWIW: that's the same drivel they send to everyone that gives them a free and easy way of intimidating a defendant by email.

the claim has not been allocated so it a bit cheeky of them to say CPR doesn't apply

and you object to a paper only hearing as you wish to cross examine their evidence with whomever turns up in court to face you P2P.

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

directions questionnaire is simple, tick box and add any date you arent available.

 

Ignore Gladdys as they are hoping you will agree to a hearing on the papers because they know that they cant attend a hearing at your local court because they dont want to spend time in gaol for perjury and anyways they have only charged their clients about £50 for things so far and having to schlep around the country costs them more than that.

 

The IPC advertise their membership as being cheaper than the BPA and play on the fact that as brilliant lawyers they make sure their clients dont lose appeals etc.

 

AS the membership of the IPC are the low lifes of the parking world they like to hear this claptrap but end up paying dearly for bad advice and foolhardy adventures in cou

 

That is what the letters are about, to try and hoodwink you into thinking they are actually professionals at this rather than just chancers

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Thanks for your advice. I will ask for a court hearing and complete the direction of questionnaire as you advised me.

 

thanks for all the support as ever :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where did they get your email from?

block them now and bounce that email back.

 

as for your N180 which came from the court I hope?

 

you really should be reading up on ALL PPC claimform threads during your 'downtime' between the stages of the claim so you KNOW what happens next and how to suitably respond.

 

no to mediation

1 wit you.

yes to small claims track

the rest is obv

 

3 copies

one to the court

one to gladdys minus sig/email/phone

one for your file.

 

FWIW: that's the same drivel they send to everyone that gives them a free and easy way of intimidating a defendant by email.

the claim has not been allocated so it a bit cheeky of them to say CPR doesn't apply

and you object to a paper only hearing as you wish to cross examine their evidence with whomever turns up in court to face you P2P.

 

dx

 

 

 

Hi, I didn't give them my email or communicated with them at all. I did put my email in the moneyclaim website when I done the defence. So the court probably forwarded my email address to them.

 

The form came through post so I am guessing it came from the court. somebody had already scribbled the claim no. in the form before sending it to me.

 

I will complete it accordingly and ignore gladstones emails.

 

thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok await allocation date

Time to read up on suitable witness statements and getting your evidence like photos etc together

 

Whatever you do dont blink first!!

 

Pers i would send and email to Gladstone telling them that any email address they have for you is NOT to be used to file any papers regarding claim xxxxx now.

 

That will stop them filing their Ws the night before yours is due thus removing your chance to change yours and pull theirs apart


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let them know that the email addy is blocked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will do that now guys :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,
The date for the court hearing has been confirmed. It's on the 26th of March 2019. Just want to say a massive thank you for all the help so far, I really appreciate your help. Without this forum, I probably would have gotten frightened and paid it by now. 
I am on the process of writing the witness statement which I will share with you shortly. 
Just to recap on what happened so far:
•     Parking Charge Notice issued on June 17 for £100 by UK CPM for ‘unauthorised parking’. The NTK was sent 17 days after the incident occurred 
•    The formal demand letter was received on July 17
•    Two DRP letters received on Sept 17 for £160
•    Another DRP letter on Oct 17
•    DRP sent a letter using Gladstone letter heading received on Nov 17
•     Letter before claim received on June 18
•    I didn't receive a PAP letter
•    County Court claim form received Set 18 for £249.67
•    Acknowledgment of service done
•    Defence submitted (see above)
•    The direction of questionnaire completed with a request for an oral court hearing in oppose to gladstones’s paper hearing.
•    Received Acknowledgment of defence from the court
•    I sent a subject access request to UK CPM and they have replied with – a copy of the parking charge notice, formal demand letter, two pictures of the car and a screenshot of their system where it shows their activity i.e. PCN issued, a letter sent, referred to DRP etc.
•     I also sent Gladstones a CPR 31.14 Request and they have replied back saying CPR isn’t applicable in small claims
•    I have also asked them to erase my email address as I had put it in the direction questionnaire without realising. They have replied to say they have legitimate grounds to hold my email address. 
•    Letter received from the court to say the case has been transferred to my local court
•    The general form of order received from the court 
•    Notice of allocation to the small claims track (hearing) letter received.  

I have taken pictures of the car park as evidence where it has no signs at entry and no marking on the floor. Also, the signs are blocked by a barrier, so you can’t get very close to reading the small prints. 

I will share the draft witness statement soon to get your feedback. 

Thank you again for all your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,
Really sorry for sending this draft WS a bit late. I have been working on it all weekend. I honestly tried my best. I hope you guys don't think its too awful. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. thank you so much!
_____________________________________
In the County Court at
Mayors and City of London Court

Claim No. XXXXXXXX

Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)

and
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

Witness statement of Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX

1. 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. Any evidence to my statement will be referred tothe attached documents as Exhibit MA1, Exhibit MA2 and so on.

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

3. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver when the charge occurred.

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


4.1. I deny keeper liability so no cause for action against me. The claimant has failed to show locus standi so I do not believe they have a right to bring an action against me. 

4.2. No enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen.


5. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle XXXXXX at the time of this parking incident, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from over a years ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.


6. I deny being the driver at the time of the supposed event and therefore puts UK CPM to strict proof that any contract can exist between them and myself which they claim has been breached.


7. At the time of the charge in 2017, the car was used by a number of family and friends who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case. 


8. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on XX.06.2017 at XX:XX on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on XX.07.2017 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit MA1.


9. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letter issued on XX.08.2017. See Exhibit MA2


10. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly state threatening the use of language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me. See Exhibit MA3


11. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on XX.11.2017 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt.

This letter again uses threatening language and assumptions such as ‘It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges’.

This letter repeatedly states that I need to contact the client (UK CPM) and their agent (Debt Recovery Plus Limited) however, it is obvious to notice that this letter isn’t from Gladstones Solicitors. It looks like the Debt Recovery Plus Limited using Gladstones letter headed paper and signature to threaten the keeper.

The evidence is in the reference number on this letter, which is the same reference as the previous three letters from Debt Recover Plus Limited. See Exhibit MA4


12. Seven months later I received the ‘letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors, this time with a different reference number on the letter than the previous one. See Exhibit MA5

13. I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by the claimant and their agents because I believed they were spam (this sort of [problem] had been exposed on Watchdog).

Also, as I was not the driver and these were not offence or fine from an Authority like a Council or Police. so there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail. 


14. The Notice to Keeper was issued on the XX.07.2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. This is a clear indication that the claimant has not obliged with the following:
Failure to comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice


15. As the claimant is a member of the IPC, they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The terms and condition are clearly stated in Part A of the IPC Code of Practice.

The claimant did not comply with the Part C point 5 of the code of practice where it says:
‘5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must;

(m) Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.’


16. As the claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association, IPC, in order to pursue the keeper, the claimant must have compiled with POFA 12 Schedule 4.
I have attached a copy of the IPC Code of Practice as Exhibit MA6
Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 12") - Schedule 4 


17. It is also denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the Notice to Keeper was issued 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. The letter was received by the keeper on day 20 following the parking charge (3 days after it 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 Exhibit MA7


18. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the POFA 12 schedule 4, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right. 
19. The claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the I was the driver. The claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the POFA 12 schedule 4.


20. I submit that, as a registered keeper who was not driving and who only received non-POFA 12 schedule 4 Notices to Keeper which were never my concern nor liability, these are better described as ‘irrelevant notices’. The claimant chose to issue non-POFA PCNs and was aware this risked a DVLA ban for misleading keepers re: liability for non-POFA PCNs. Now, this claimant seeks to bring me to Court as if I am liable for non-POFA PCNs! 
The claimant also failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’


21. I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs. As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for.
22. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’. 


23. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC.


24. It is denied that there was any ‘'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA 12 schedule 4 and/or the existing easements, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. 


25. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures.


26. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is impossible to see the signs during the night as there is no light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit MA8


27. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit MA9


28. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road), about 12 feet high which can barely be noticed or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit MA10


29. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but they were impossible to get close to within 10 feet due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit MA11


30. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:


31. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract. See Exhibit MA12


32. The claimant has provided no evidence the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting/giving way to pedestrians or vehicles. The claimant has also failed to provide if any of these signs were up on the day of the ‘parking charge notice’ occurred and what physical conditional they were at.


33. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1.


34. Conclusion – failure to comply with IPC Code of Practice and POFA 12 schedule 4 on inadequate signage and so no keeper liability. 


35. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing the data and then suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay almost £250 including what was apparently an unproven £60 charge, allegedly incurred by another party (Debt Recover Plus LTD), if incurred at all.


36. I am no more liable now than I was then, but this unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report the claimant to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2017. I will also complain about the claimant to the DVLA and IPC for not complying with their Code of Practice. 


37. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties - and has obtained default CCJs in the hundreds, despite never complying with the POFA 2012 schedule 4 and even bringing pre-POFA cases to the Courts, as here.


38. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as a registered keeper when the claimant has no such right and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
Statement of Truth


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

Signature
Date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lots of very unnecessary waffle there...

drop 1
drop 13
narrow drop 1
drop 13
narrow down the non compliance with IPC codes of practices / POFA it waffles and reperats the same things over lots of paragraphs...keep it simple and brief.
the codes is , they failed because.

drop 36

drop 37

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

drop 34 as well, that is  belittling the actual law on this and the law sattes that the NTK has to arrive within 14 days after the date of the event so no keeper liability has been created so you ask for "strict proof" that a contract existed between the claimant and the defendant.

 

alos, going back to the beginning drop the sob story about being a poor lone LiP,  just state your case so join the first 4 points together and say that you are the defendant in this matter and that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle but deny that you wre the driver at the time (if you are going down the no leeper liability road) and that as the conditions to create a keeper liability under the POFA 2012 were not adhered to there is no cause for action  by the claimant against the defendant.

the you move your other points to bring that aprticuar argumant to the top of the list and then when you get into the lack of signage, paucity of signage and no actual consideration so no contract you start that section off with "in any case" so it si clear that the following do not rely on the fist bit being true or successful and they ahve their own stand alone merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, thanks for the valuable feedback. and sorry that this awful.I really appreciate your time and willingness to help me.

is this any progress?

 

In the County Court at

Mayors and City of London Court

 

Claim No. XXXXXXXX

Between

UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)

and

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

 

Witness statement of Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit MA01, Exhibit MA02 and so on.

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

3. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg - XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by a number of family and friends who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case. Without knowing who the driver was, I put the claimant to strict proof that any contract can exist between them and myself which they claim that it has been breached.

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

5. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on XX.06.2017 at XX:XX on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on XX.07.2017 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit MA01.

6. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letter issued on XX.08.2017. See Exhibit MA02

7. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly use threatening language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me. See Exhibit MA03

8. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on XX.11.2017 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt. This letter again uses threatening language and assumptions such as ‘It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges’. This letter repeatedly states that I need to contact the client (UK CPM) and their agent (Debt Recovery Plus Limited) to pay the £160. See Exhibit MA04

9. Seven months later I received the ‘letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors. See Exhibit MA05

10. I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by the claimant and their agents because I believed they were spam (this sort of [problem] had been exposed on Watchdog). Also, these were not offence or fine from an Authority like a Council or Police so there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail.

11. The Notice to Keeper was issued on the XX.07.2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. This is a clear indication that the claimant has not obliged with the following:

Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 12") - Schedule 4

12. It is also denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the Notice to Keeper was issued 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. The letter was received by the keeper on day 20 following the parking charge (3 days after it 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 Exhibit MA06

13. Under the POFA 12 schedule 4, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. The claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the POFA 12 schedule 4.

Failure to comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice

14. As the claimant is a member of the IPC, they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The terms and condition are clearly stated in Part A of the IPC Code of Practice. The claimant did not comply with the Part C point 5 of the code of practice where it says:

‘Part C, 5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must;

(m) Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.’

I have attached a copy of the IPC Code of Practice as Exhibit MA07

The claimant also failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’

15. I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs). As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for. Despite asking for it on subject access request on XX.11.2018 (See Exhibit MA08), the claimant failed to provide copies of the supposed contract

16. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’.

17. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence.

18. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures.

19. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs and even impossible to see at the night as there is no light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit MA09

20. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit MA10

21. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road), that is affixed 12 foot high off the ground which can barely be noticeable or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit MA11

22. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but it was not possible to get within 10 feet of the sign due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier and at this distance the tiny, illegible whatever terms could not be read. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit MA12

23. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.

24. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges", (See Exhibit MA13) which are anyway not my concern as I cannot be liable for more than the sum on the notice to keeper, even if the claimant had complied with POFA 2012 schedule 4, which is denied for the reasons set out above.

25. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1.

26. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as a registered keeper when the claimant has no such right and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature

Date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

still way too much waffle tbh. Read other similar threads and use a defence from there. The NTK wasnt sent or received in time, so that kills their claim dead in the water.

Edited by renegadeimp

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would leave in all of the bits about the signage but you need to really ram the point about no keeper liability home and make it clear that you were not the driver at the time and ask for strict proof  a to who that was as you are not liable for their actions or debt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@renegadeimp  @ericsbrother

Thanks Guys,

I will give it another shot today. I really appreciate your feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the other thing is you are using the pictures you have taken so make a plan of the site (use google satellite images and then show on that where the entrance is, where the signs are etc and show how you cnat see the sigsn from the driver's seat as you enter the land, cant see the signs hidden behind bins or trees or whatever to show that there was not much chance actual offer and consideration due to the deficiency of the signage.

You need to include all of this in your bundle but they are add-ons to the WS but refer to them in the WS.

 

Now point 26, You need to state that you are asking for a full costs recovery order due to the claimants unreasonable behaviour knowing they had no prospect of ever winning the claim as per CPR 27.14.2(g). you then need a schedule of costs  (take this with you on the day) which will include 5 hours Lip research time @£19.50 per hour,  loss of earnings, stationery and prinitng costs etc and you ITEMISE all of this. fail to do that and you wil get your bus fare at best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,
All evidence are saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xvuq6aqx26c8nxn/AACo0JGAB7IfSe0WIIKGwajva?dl=0 
I am looking to submit it tomorrow. any last minute check/feedback would be appreciated as ever. 
I made some further cuts to the WS following feedback from Pepipoo:

In the County Court at
Mayors and City of London Court

Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

Witness statement of Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX
1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit MA01, Exhibit MA02 and so on.
2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise. 
3. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.
4. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg - XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by several family and friends.
5. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on XX.06.2017 at XX:XX on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on XX.07.2017 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit MA01.
6. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letter issued on XX.08.2017. See Exhibit MA02
7. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly use threatening language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me. See Exhibit MA03a, MA03b, and MA03c
8. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on XX.11.2017 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt. This letter again uses threatening language and assumptions such as ‘It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges’. This letter repeatedly states that I need to contact the client (UK CPM) and their agent (Debt Recovery Plus Limited) to pay the £160. See Exhibit MA04
9. Seven months later I received the ‘ letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors. See Exhibit MA05
10. I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by the claimant and their agents because I believed they were spam. Also, these were not offence or fine from an Authority like a Council or Police so there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail.
11. The Notice to Keeper was issued on the XX.07.2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. This is a clear indication that the claimant has not obliged with the following:
Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 12") - Schedule 4 
12. It is denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the Notice to Keeper was issued 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. The letter was received by the keeper on day 20 following the parking charge (3 days after it was issued). Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. 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 Exhibit MA06
Failure to comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice
13. As the claimant is a member of the IPC, they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The terms and condition are clearly stated in Part A of the IPC Code of Practice. The claimant did not comply with the Part C point 5 of the code of practice where it says:
‘Part C, 5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must;
(m) Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.’
I have attached a copy of the IPC Code of Practice as Exhibit MA07
The claimant also failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’
14. I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs). As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for. Despite asking for it on subject access request on XX.11.2018 (See Exhibit MA08), the claimant failed to provide copies of the supposed contract 
15. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’. 
16. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence.
17. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures.
18. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs during and even worse to see at the night as there are no adequate light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit MA09
19. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit MA10
20. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road), that is affixed 12 foot high off the ground which can barely be noticeable or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit MA11
21. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but it was not possible to get within 10 feet of the sign due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier and at this distance the tiny, illegible whatever terms could not be read. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit MA12
22. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
23. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged " debt collection charges". (See Exhibit MA13)
24. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1.
25. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow the full costs recovery order due to the claimant’s unreasonable claim as per CPR 27.14.2(g). My costs schedule will be submitted separately, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signature
Date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are points 6-10 really necessary?  They just add waffle and don't really get to the point about their demand being pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I was planning to get rid of these points. 

Also - just called the court, and they said that no court fee or application has been submitted but the claimant yet. the deadline was 5th March 4pm. and it said without the fee and application, it will be struck out. however,  unless they have paid it via post which might take a bit to update court database. I am will submit the WS either way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In point 24 add that they failed to answer your CPR request.  And the conclusion, they have no "locus standi" in the matter.

Did you check if their signs have planning permission?  If so you can add that point too, that there is no planning permission which is a criminal offence and therefore it is impossible to enter a contract.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very doubtful theyll pay it.  They prob wont even bother responding,  and already moved on to the next poor sap


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi FTMDave

Apparently, CRP is not applicable in small claims. and how do I check planning permission. doesn't say anything on the sign them selves. thanks 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when the CPR was sent it was NOT ALLOCATED to any court track.

so it IS applicable for when it was sent


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most councils have a portal on their website that allows you to check planning permission. Try there.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?




  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sangie5952   Thanks that has clarified what the ET1 form represents. We haven't made disclosures yet so I can include the relevant evidence then. Appreciate your help many thanks.  
    • The “fact”, and I use that term guardedly, is that you allege a breach of contract so significant that it justified your resigning - "constructive unfair dismissal". That is the fact that you are claiming. You are discussing evidence here - something that proves the fact. Evidence does not need to be included in the ET1, and few would include anything more than a cursory overview. The tribunal does not "hear" your ET1.  They hear your evidence supporting the allegation you made in your ET1. Do you understand the difference? So evidence may still be collected and may come to light. Technically, right up to the hearing, although, in practice, you need permission to include any evidence not disclosed in the exchange of bundles.    If you have already exchanged bundles, although seems unlikely, then you would need the permission of the tribunal to add further evidence. 
    • You were of course quite within your rights to ask questions with regard to the member of staff’s authority over you etc, and all you legally have to supply is your name and address. It sounds as though he thought you were being difficult? This doesn’t help your case of course, but that’s how it sounded Reading your post.    I suggest awaiting any correspondence from the train operator and go from there. You mentioned you were read your rights, or words to that effect? You were cautioned, but it sounds like you chose not to answer any questions. This is of course your right, but in refusing to answer questions, you can’t really submit any defence for your actions should the matter go to court. That’s the whole idea of the caution.   reading your post, it sounds like you want to hold your hands up anyway, so is and when a letter does arrive, I’d suggest a ‘damage limitation’ approach and send the default grovelling reply asking to meet their reasonable admin charges to keep the matter out of court.
    • I'm sure it will. Take your time to absorb it and don't put yourself under pressure. You'll get there, lots of people have.   HB
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 57 replies
×
×
  • Create New...