Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Amis95

UKCPM/Gladstones MNPR PCN claimform - operator pictures - 93-101 GREENFIELD ROAD LONDON E1 1EJ - ignored everything to date - *** Claim Dismissed***

Recommended Posts

Hi dx100uk, 

I have been confused with conflicting advise from both forums. I did cut down but they said I woudn't be able to add anything at WS if I dont mention it in defence. I was also worried about the deadline. 

Doesn't point two confirms that I am not the driver so no keeper liability? 

 

here's the post on MSE forum - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75963952#post75963952 

I posted in their forum as I have seen somewhere in this site that you recommend them and their newbies post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably a very old post or relating to the fact that the newbies guide give a good overview.

 

the trouble with that site is they've never really understood that once a PPC claim gets to the WS stage, whereby the claimant must produce everything they intent to rely upon, it becomes blatantly obvious that everything else they pad that defence out with can then be questioned without it being in an initial defence.  and anyway, our 2 or 3 line one does cover it all but not in 3rd part harmony.


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha, I see, that makes sense. I am hoping for the best now and keeping my fingers crossed this doesn't come back and bite me. you have a good point there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, 
I put that I am unavailable until the end of Dec for a court date because I have various commitments for charity fundraising

 

. In the meantime, I am looking into gathering information for the WS.

 

I kept forgetting to send a SAR to the UKCPM and CPR 13.14 to Gladstones.

Can you guys direct me towards any templates that I can use for both of these?

 

Many thanks in advance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

too late to send the CPR 31.14 request to have the desired effect so you will have to rubbish them in your WS and hope that the judge is a stickler for procedure and forces them to show their authority or chucks the claim out.

 

as for SAr, you just write saying that you request to see everything they hold on you as a SAR under the GDPR. say that as they are suing you there is no need for you to prove you are who you say you are unless they have doubts about them suing the right person...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

I have a date for the court which is 6th January. I have until the 22nd of Dec to submit my witness statement. UKCPM has until 9th Dec to pay for the court fee. I have started writing the witness statement so will have something to share with you by end of the week. I had no response to the SAR I sent on 25th of Oct.

 

thank you for all the support.

 

best wishes  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they will have to disclose everything in their ws

It might well pay you to purposefully file last after theirs if they pay the fee

 

Have you done land search and asked them or the managing agent for signed contract copy and payment to date

 

And signs and camera planning permission from relevant council?


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx100uk,

I will be going for a land search later today to take pictures. I am not sure how to find the contract and up to date payment. Do I ask for that to the UKCPM because I am not sure who the land owner is. 

There are no camera but they come around with their car fitted with a camera to produce tickets. There are signs however and can you tell me if I should ask the council for the planning permission? these signes are fitted on the side walls of buildings.

thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

land registry gov.uk website not visit the site.

find the owners ask them 

 

local .gov council site

prove they have planning permission for their signs.


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, 
I have been really unwell recently (bed bound a the moment) but have tried my best to come up with a WS which I am sure you all will think is rubbish at this stage.

 

I tried to look up and find planning permission information for signage and any contract the PCO has with the landlord but failed to find anything. thank you for the endless support, I am in so much appreciation.  

 

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 XXXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX

 

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit AM01, Exhibit AM02 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 11.06.2018 at 19;05 on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on 14.06.2018 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit AM__. 

 

6. As the claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (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 claimant has failed to comply with the IPC Code of Practice (See Exhibit AM__) as follows:

 

7. The Notice to Keeper says that Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the vehicle because ‘it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at 93-101 Greenfield Road that we are authorised to manage on the 11th June 2018 at 19:05. The terms and the conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park you are bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if you breach these terms and conditions.’ The claimant is put to strict proof that the car was parked and the terms were offered to the driver. 

 

8. Claimant’s claim that the car is parked, yet the two pictures provided in the Notice to Keeper shows picture one was taken at 19:05:40 and second at 19:05:43 which cannot prove that weather the car was parked, giving way or turning around. This also goes against the IPC Code of Practice Part B 15.1 which states ‘Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.’

 

9. The claimant 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 25.10.2019 (See Exhibit AM__), the claimant failed to respond and provide copies of the supposed contract. The claimant also failed to respond to a second subject to access request sent on 10/12/2019 (See Exhibit AM__).

 

10. The claimant failed to comply IPC Code of Practice Part B 2.2 which states ‘Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code’ (PART E Schedule 1 – Signage).

 

11. 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.

 

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

13. 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 the day and even worse to see at the night as there are no adequate light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit AM__

 

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

 

15. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road rather than forward), that is affixed around 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 AM__

 

16. 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 AM__

 

17. 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.

 

18. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges". See Exhibit AM__

 

19. 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. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

 

20. The claimant is yet to provide evidence of relevant planning permission from the local authority to put up signage in the car park.

 

21. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, (See Exhibit AM__) at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £71.69, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

 

22. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

 

23. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

 

23. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

 

24. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity. 

 

25. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff. 

 

26. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

 

27. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

 

The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

 

28. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

 

29. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.


30. 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

that's a good effort stop putting yourself down

did you ring the court to see if they've paid the fee by the 9th?

 


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much @dx100uk

I also realised now what you mean about short defence as I was doing the WS made me repeat a lot of the same stuff. apologies as it was first time for me so have learnt my lesson. 

I called the court today and they said the fees has been paid and application was filled in. I was kind of hoping they didn't but looks like they mean business :(

I am determined though. Can you guys tell me if I lose, does it mean I get a  CCJ? I will pay it off if I lose straight away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wont remain registered as long as you pay within 28 days of judgement SHOULD you lose.

 

i'm sure other will pipe up and suggest refinements too.

 

you have until the 22nd of Dec to submit your witness statement to the court & gladdy's

 

 

 


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where you mention other cases you copy the source even if this is a screen shot so it is apparent whwere it was published.

the judges have access to all soets of stuff you dont if they feel like using it but generally they want you to show them something written rather than just citing something that you could have made up for all anyone else knows.

 

I would also add info regarding the POFA and what is supposed to happen and why the issuing of just a NTK is defective 

(use the disappearing ticket threads on parking pranksters blogspot to rub it in)

 

state that only the original amount on the NTK can be claimed if they are using the POFA to create a keeper liability ( they are but will fudge this) and that none of the other costs are allowable as they were not part of the contract offered on the (missing) signage.

That should be pressed home before you point about CPR 22

 

the parking co's add these sums because someone thought it a good idea and they all copy each other.

£60 for getting a dca to send a letter that isnt lawful and costs them less than £15?

 

Because some people pay they get greedy and expect to continue to collect that when they know it isnt lawful but as their entire business is built around mostly unlawful behaviour it shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

don't send you WS/evidence bundle off until the last knockings as you don't want to give them the opportunity to change theirs to suit the situation.

 

Post theirs up as soon as you get it so we can pick holes in it.

 

Also see who signed it off and if it is a pile of cods you should be asking the court to have the chance to cross examine the author or have it chucked out. Some judges will go along with that if they believe that it isnt a statement of truth so always worth asking.

 

It is unlikely that Gladdys or the parking co will actually turn up, they usually send a local solicitor along and pay them £50 for bluffing their way through. sometimes the solicitors will send a paralegal to save costs but you can challenge their right of audience.

 

Again judges have the authority to allow unauthorised persons to speak but if they follow procedure the person who isnt an employee of the parking co nor a solicitor isnt allowed to speak and that will agin make ther WS dead in the water as they cant reply to thsee awkward questions you would have asked if the right person was there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @ericsbrother, I will take in your feedback and get a updated version to you next week. 

anyone else has any more feedback? I will always appreciate it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @ericsbrother

 

couple of queries:

I will find the reference to the cases I have mentioned

 

I didnt understand your comment below or know where to go and find it. pls help

 

On 13/12/2019 at 11:34, ericsbrother said:

I would also add info regarding the POFA and what is supposed to happen and why the issuing of just a NTK is defective 

(use the disappearing ticket threads on parking pranksters blogspot to rub it in)

 

I noted your points down about questioning their WS and representative. thank you

 

I will post an updated version tomorrow.

 

if I was to leave it last minute to see their WS how would I deliver it?

 

I can hand deliver it to the court on Friday and email Gladys but I dont know of any emails to send to them.

 

would you recommend something different? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you print off the POFA and add that to your bundle and then show in clear detail as to why their NTK is defective becasue of the different timescales required under S4, 5, 8 and 9.

 

The "disappearing ticket" problem means that they have to show evidence that it was correctly issued to the driver and their NTK was issued in the correct time.

 

Knowing when they got your keeper details from the DVLA would assist you in knocking this back but it is undoubtedly too late to get this data from the DVLA hence using the parkingn prankster's commentary as heresay evidence that this is a common problem amongst certain parking co's and invite the judge to belive you when you say one wasnt attached to the vahicle and your dog didnt eat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @ericsbrother 

I had a look at POFA and looks like they have issues the PCN correctly in terms of time which was within 14 days as this was a camera one so no windscreen ticket to the driver.  The PCN was issued 3 days after the incident. hope I am on the same page and not confused to what you are trying to point out. 

 

I am almost done with the WS version 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we see the ntk with in out pix please

Pdf only read upload


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not ANPR catures

its an operators pictures

or more likely a resident that gets a back hander for tupping people in

so possible DPA/GDPR data handling issues here

so vanishing windscreen ticket jobbie

and NTK should have been 29-56 days

this is why its so important to read our stickies and post the docs we need to see at the start of thre thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As they were operator pictures you can argue that they would have affixed a ticket to the vehicle for the attention of the driver and that means they issue the NTK between 29 and 56 days after the event, giving the driver time to pay up.

 

Being IPC members they use a distorted version of the law because it suits them to do so. One day I will look at Hansard and see what the will of parliament was.

 

you dont have the original NTK posted up so we cant comment on their pathway, please do so and then  we will be able to pick holes in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, 

 

I know UK CPM come around with a car which has a camera on top that takes the pictures and wizzes out. they don't actually put the ticket on the car.

 

I understand from POFA, in this case they have 14 days to issue the NTK and if they put a ticket then 29 to 56 days. But so I understand what you are referring to is that POFA refers to ANPR and this is not. so I can add a paragraph that says they breached POFA  8 (5)?:

 

As this is not a ANPR ticket, the Claimant has breached POFA 12 Schedule 4, by issuing the Notice to Keeper only three days after the alleged incident which goes against 

 

Paragraph 8 (5) of POFA which states 

'The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.' The NTK should have  been issued after the 28 days period given to the Notice to Driver. 

 

I am I on the right page here?

 

so sorry I am not that good with stuff like this. thank you so much for the endless support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, before I add the additional paragraph as advised above, here is a updated WS:

 

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 XXXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX

 

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit AM01, Exhibit AM02 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 (if it was parked) 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 alleged charge, the car was used by several family and friends.

 

5. According to the Notice to Keeper, the alleged charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on 11.06.2018 at 19;05 on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) letter to me on 14.06.2018 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the Notice to Keeper is attached as Exhibit AM__.

 

6. As the Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), they are required to subscribe to the Approval Operator Scheme (AOS) and adhere to this Code of Practice which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The Claimant has failed to comply with the IPC Code of Practice (See Exhibit AM__) as follows:

 

7. The Notice to Keeper says that PCN was issued to the vehicle because ‘it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at 93-101 Greenfield Road that we are authorised to manage on the 11th June 2018 at 19:05. The terms and the conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park you are bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if you breach these terms and conditions.’ The Claimant is put to strict proof that the car was parked and the terms were offered to the driver.

 

 

 

8. Claimant’s claim that the car is parked, yet the two pictures provided in the Notice to Keeper shows picture one was taken at 19:05:40 and second at 19:05:43 which cannot prove that whether the car was parked, giving way or turning around. This also goes against the IPC Code of Practice Part B 15.1 which states ‘Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.’

 

9. The Claimant never showed 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.

 

10. The Claimant failed to comply IPC Code of Practice Part B 2.2 which states ‘Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code’ (PART E Schedule 1 – Signage).

 

11. 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.

 

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

 

13. 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 the day let alone see them at the night as there is no adequate light on that road or beside the signage. (See Exhibit AM__)

 

14. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. (See Exhibit AM__)

 

15. Around forty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road rather than forward), that is affixed around 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 AM__)

 

16. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage was 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 AM__)

 

17. 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 Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case 2015.

 

18. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges". (See Exhibit AM__)

 

19. 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. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

 

20. The Claimant is yet to provide evidence of relevant planning permission from the local authority to put up signage in the car park.

 

21. If the Claimant is using The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 12) to create a keeper liability, POFA 12 Schedule 4, (See Exhibit AM__) at Section 4(5) states that ‘The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper’ in this case £100. The purported added 'costs' for which no calculation or explanation is given are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) (See Exhibit AM__), and the Consumer Rights Act ('the CRA') 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. (See Exhibit AM__)

 

22. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'recovery costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

 

23. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

 

24. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

 

24.1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.
 

The Beavis case is against this Claim
25. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for the recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters

 

25.1. This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. Ad at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

 

25.2. In the Beavis case, it was said at para [205]: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

 

25.3. At para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

 

25.4. At para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.'' and at para 198: ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

 

The POFA 12 and the Accredited Trade Association (ATA) Code of Practice (See Exhibit AM__) are against this Claim

26. POFA 12, Schedule 4 at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the Claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

 

The CRA is against this claim

27. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

 

27.1. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) v Davies) (See Exhibit AM__) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

 

27.2. That decision in Wales was contested in a N244 application by VCS, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30 Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on, and despite parking firms continuing to include it in their Particulars, most advocates have now stopped pushing for it at hearings. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances, and further, he ordered that the Claimant must now produce a statement of how they pleaded claims prior to Beavis, and subsequently.

 

27.3. In Claim numbers, F0DP806M and F0DP201T (See Exhibit AM__, a court report)  - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.

 

27.3.1. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included British Parking Association (BPA) members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' robo-claim model, and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the POFA 12, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in the Beavis case. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

 

27.3.2. BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated conduct in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.

 

27.3.3. That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:

(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA 12, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).

(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.

(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

 

27.3.4. At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. It was successfully argued that the parking firm's consumer notice stood in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. Using the statutory duty upon the Courts to consider the test of fairness and properly apply schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 it was irrelevant whether or not the consumers' defences had raised it before, which they had not. The same issues apply to this claim.

 

27.3.5. A transcript will be publicly available shortly. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the Claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims is, in other cases, aware that if the defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''

 

27.4. Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the CRA 'core exemption'. The Completion & Marketing Authority (CMA) (See Exhibit AM__) Official Government Guidance to the CRA says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' The parking industry is the exception to this rule because they have no consumer 'customers' yet are consumer-facing. Their intention is very clearly in many cases (including this case) for a consumer not to see the onerous terms hidden in their notices and it is averred that no regard is paid to consumer law.

 

27.5. The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expanded at 1.20: ''A consumer notice is defined broadly in the Act as a notice that relates to rights or obligations between a trader and a consumer, or a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability to a consumer. It includes an announcement or other communication, whether or not in writing, as long as it is reasonable to assume that it is intended to be seen or heard by a consumer. Consumer notices are often used, for instance, in public places such as shops or car parks as well as online and in documentation that is otherwise contractual in nature. [...] Consumer notices are, therefore, subject to control for fairness under the Act even where it could be argued that they do not form part of the contract as a matter of law. Part 2 of the Act covers consumer notices as well as terms, ensuring that, in a broad sense any wording directed by traders to consumers which has an effect comparable to that of a potentially unfair contract term is open to challenge in the same way as such a term. There is no need for technical legal arguments about whether a contract exists and whether, if it does, the wording under consideration forms part of it.''

 

28. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the Isle Of White (IOW), Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out another parking ticket claim. The Judge mentioned the POFA 12 and the Beavis case, and determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' Further, in issuing his Order without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the CRA 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

 

29. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

 

30. The Claimant has also failed to respond to my subject access request on 25.10.2019 (See Exhibit AM__) and to a second subject to access request sent on 10/12/2019 (See Exhibit AM__).

 

31. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.

32. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA 12 and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

33. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature: _______

Date: ______

 

And here's a list of evidence that I included as Exhibits but I need your advice on if you think I need them all:

list of evidence:

           NTK

           IPC code of practice

           Paragraph 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 pictures of signage

           Parking eye vs Beavis case 2015 – advised no need to exhibit it as evidence

           POFA 12 Schedule 4

           Civil Procedure Rules 1998 ? - I couldn’t find it apart from the 114 updates

           CRA schedule 2 grey area

           ATA code of practice

           Case number  (I have the two judgement shared in #14 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6014081&highlight=supplementary+witness+statement

           Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - #79 of this thread. Court report written by Coupon-mad https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6006850&page=4#topofpage

           The Completion & Marketing Authority

           Cstill looking to find evidence of paragraph 28 of Judge Joseph’s struck out

           my SAR sent evidence

 

Hi @dx100uk,

 

Here it is: 

 

ntk.pdf 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...?


×
×
  • Create New...