MET/DCB(L) windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - electric bay abuse - ASDA Arla Old Dairy South Ruislip

[dx100uk]

we know there are extensive delays at the bulk court as they are/have introduced new systems.

don't worry you have the evidence it was sent and received.

 

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

I am having great  difficulty reading the contract and the windscreen PCN. Could you please repost the whole contract [and only the contract and windscreen PCN please] in a more legible form as there are often things on both that could help your case.

For instance on the contract I can just make out that they give the address as HA4 OFY which does not coincide with the PCN. And so far I have yet to see where the Land owner has given permission for Savills to act on their behalf. But so much of the print after that is so garbled that I juast cannot make it out.  We don't know if Savills have allowed them to take legal action and whether any Consideration/Grace  times have been inserted.

Interestingly their signage says they can charge 1.5% for debit and credit card payments. These were banned by Law the year before [January 2018] . While I accept that Rocky didn't pay anything and that Met wouldn't have charged either, nevertheless did that render the sign unlawful and therefore could be ignored?

[jk2054]

did u email ur dq?

 

ccbaq email is best

[lookinforinfo]

On second thoughts it may be better to say in your WS that the sign is unlawful as it stands and motorists should be asking for their money back may be enough to decide not to go to Court and risk losing the case and having to  repay all the motorists. They wouldn't want  to risk that.

[rocky_sharma]

To give update

MCOL claim history now shows that DQ has been submitted by me and claim was transferred to county court closer to me.  

please see attached 

Hope this is ok if not please let me know.

I believe I will soon be getting the date of hearing

I will attach my witness statement soon to be reviewed.

Original Windscreen PCN - Copy.pdf Reprinted Windscreen PCN - Copy.pdf

Landowner contract.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before.

The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example?

Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.

First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes.

Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets.

Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable.

Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall.

I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists.

Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points.

So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

11 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them.

Yes LFI,

the exact wording on the "contract" is:

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

Absolutely no mention of EV charging bays.

[rocky_sharma]

Today I received attached letter from country court.  It says I need to submit documents to other party and court by 4pm on 7th June.

Do I need to submit other evidences as well to DCBLegal apart from my witness statement? (such as original windscreen PCN followed by other letters)

Do I need to wait for WS from MET first before I send mine?

I will post my WS here for review.

Thanks

 

 

Country Court Hearing Letter - Copy.pdf

[jk2054]

wheres the NOH

[AndyOrch]

21 minutes ago, rocky_sharma said:

Do I need to submit other evidences as well to DCBLegal apart from my witness statement? (such as original windscreen PCN followed by other letters) Your witness statement will refer to other docs I assume so you will have exhibits ( yes other evidence)

Do I need to wait for WS from MET first before I send mine? Would be wise

Andy

[FTMDave]

We look forward to seeing your Witness Statement - the clock is ticking.

[rocky_sharma]

DCBLegal has sent me letter to settle the case for £220.00 and gave 7 days to confirm.   Do I need to respond if I don't want to settle outside the court?

[lookinforinfo]

You don't need to respond since it is not a serious offer. The Law Lords decided in the famous  Parking Eye v Beavis case that £100 was more than enough to cover the breach and all the expenses involved in pursuing the motorist. 

If they wanted to settle then something in the region of £50 would have been more appropriate rather than trying to fool the Court that they are still trying to resolve the matter.. Mind you if they offered that last figure it would mean that they thought you would win.

[dx100uk]

std begging letter everyone gets ..ignore

dx

 

[rocky_sharma]

Please see my witness statement below.  Please let me know what modifications I need to apply.  I haven't included anything related to "administrative charge while paying by credit or debit card" as I wasn't sure if I should include since sign says "it may apply"

 

1. Background 

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

 

2. Contract 

2.1 No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) 2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is- 

(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or 

(b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44 

For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. 

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

 

3. Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed 

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

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

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

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

 

4. Unfair PCN 

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

4.3        The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC  

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

 

5. No Keeper Liability 

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

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

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

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 

The notice must - 

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

   

6. No Breach of Contract 

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

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

 

7. Double Recovery 

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

7.2        PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £100. 

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

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

7.5        Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.” 

7.6        In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. 

7.7        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14. 

7.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4). 

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

 

8. In Conclusion 

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

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

8.3        I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

[lookinforinfo]

 

Rocky that is a really good start on your WS there are some points that need some improvement or altering to increase the chance of winning in Court or even before it gets to Court.

2 The Contract- you cannot state that they do not have a contract when further down you state that the contract has not been validly executed. So part of not having a contract should be deleted  Also I seem to remember that the signatories to the contract were redacted which given the fact that even the current Government referred to the rogues in the private parking industry the redactions are unacceptable.

4.3 you have to specify why they got the PAPLOC wrong

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

After 5.3 and before 6 you must explain that as the PCN does not comply with the Act you as keeper are not liable-only the driver is.

6.1 you should carry on point out that where you parked does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.

6.2 is inaccurate as I am pretty sure that the sign did say that the charging points were for electric cars.  

8.1 Please amend use on line 1 to used and manor to matter on line 2.

I think you have to be careful with the use of words like swindle and claiming to be innocent when even though their notices and PCN are flawed you did park where you shouldn't have. The Judge would take a dim view of that.

Far better to complain that it has taken them four years and still seem unaware that their signs are poor and misleading; their PCN does not affect you, the keeper; they are unlawfully charging you an extra £70  and they cannot even get the postcode where you parked correct. 

You could then respectfully suggest that the case should be thrown out in its entirety.

I expect that the Site members may offer more that can strengthen an already great WS [I meant before my suggestions!]

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by lookinforinfo

[FTMDave]

That is a great start.

Please do a new version with LFI's suggestions - don't worry about the numbering as it will have to be changed several times.

The other regulars will be on during the day to suggest tweaks - me very late as I lie in bed in the mornings but then have to work the afternoons and evenings till 10:30pm!

[FTMDave]

I've done a new version including LFI's suggestions.  I've also change the order to put your strongest arguments first.  Where possible the changes are in red.  The numbering is obviously knackered.  See what you think.

Background 

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

Unfair PCN 

4.1  On XXXXX the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) the solicitors helpfully sent photos of 46 signs in their evidence all clearly showing a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will  be reduced if paid promptly).  There can be no room for doubt here - there are 46 signs produced in the Claimant's own evidence.

4.2  Yet the PCN affixed to the vehicle was for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced if paid promptly).  The reminder letters from the Claimant again all demanded £100.

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

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

No Locus Standi

2.1  I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is- 

(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or 

(b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44 

For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. 

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

Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed 

3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved. 

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

No Keeper Liability 

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

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

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

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 

The notice must - 

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

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

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

Interest

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

Double Recovery 

7.1  The claim is littered with made-up charges.

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

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

29. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”

30. In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

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

7.7        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14. 

7.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4). 

In Conclusion 

8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

Edited 48 minutes ago by FTMDave
Extra info added

[rocky_sharma]

Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review.  While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS.

[FTMDave]

No!

What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN.

The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN.

Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).