Hx Parking/gladstones CCJ - Exceeded 1hrs Free - McDonald's Alma Leisure Park Chesterfield CCJ issued thanks to useless parking fines ltd - continued.

[Digital_2012]

@brassnecked thanks for detail explaination i have signed N159 form which says i disagree with hearing on paper so i can attend the hearing i am making copies as well and sending to Gladstone as well

[FTMDave]

OK, well done.

 

So the next step is to prepare your Witness Statement.  You've mentioned several times on your thread about their rubbish signage, LFI has pointed out how they don't respect POFA, etc.  So when you have time post a draft.

 

Have you looked up planning permission?  Both for HX Parking's signs, and for Alma Leisure Park itself as it's unlikely the original PP was for just one hour's parking.

[Digital_2012]

@FTMDave i have tried numerous times to contact chesterfield council also contacted the original land owner who owned by canada life but no one actually gave me a clear answer. Chesterfield council are useless they never responded well and asked me to original land owner. Only thing left that going back to car park and take photos and vids of sign boards and attac with WS. PS i have submitted N159 form to the court and Gladstone as well

Edited May 20 by Digital_2012

[FTMDave]

I googled the leisure park & planning permission, and PP being granted for some of the businesses popped up.  But HX Parking were conspicuous by their absence.  I think that's a good indicator. 

 

When you were with useless Parking Fines do you know if they sent the fleecers a CPR request?

 

Now - have a look at this story from 2020 and especially the photo  https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/warning-over-chesterfield-cinema-car-park-limit-1356667

 

It turns out the limit for parking is five hours - but that drops to one hour after midnight.  And you got there two minutes after midnight.

 

This begs two questions.  Isn't such a drastic change after midnight an unfair term when the cinemas and eateries are still open?  Indeed you went there to go to MacDonalds.

 

Secondly the idiots have described 00:02:05 as the start of the period of parking, so if that really is the period of parking then logically you could easily have entered the complex before midnight and taken two minutes to find McDonald's and a parking spot.  The signage is unclear.  What happens if you arrive at 22:00? - can you stay till 03:00?

 

That's aside from the signage being carp and non-illuminated and mention of the £100 charge being in the very last line.

 

If you get the chance go back after midnight and take photos of the signs.  It doesn't matter what they say if you can't read them.

[FTMDave]

More stuff from the local rag where the fleecers are actually interviewed  https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/chesterfield-leisure-park-car-park-bosses-defend-five-hour-limit-1368045

 

Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site.

 

OK, fair enough.  So why does the limit drop to one hour after midnight then?  Are there loads of local workers working night shifts of an hour and a half?

 

five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant.

 

Well one hour isn't sufficient to come out after a long film that finishes after midnight and then eat in a restaurant.

 

There don't' seem to be many signs about in the photo at the end of the article either.

 

[Digital_2012]

@FTMDavewhen i visited Alma leisure park there were pandemic restrictions but they ease down for couple of weeks . I went there night time and yes it took time to get to the McDonald's car park and finding the suitable parking bay. Then i went to McDonald's I still have statement showing purchase from McDonald's. Now i need a good WS template and good photo evidence to prove that how bad and unclear their signs boards are

[FTMDave]

Have a look at Doomtrooper's WS  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/441307-vcs-spycar-pcn-claimform-no-stopping-jla-liverpool-airport/page/4/#comments

 

It should be at post 94, but it may be a couple of posts above or below as the post count goes wonky sometimes.

 

Doomtrooper's case is very, very different from yours, so I'm not saying to copy the legal arguments, just to set it out as they did.

 

Mind you, you can use huge chunks of Doomtrooper's sections 8 and 9 as these antics are common to all the PPCs.

[Digital_2012]

@FTMDaveokay a lot to read but i will keep reading and prepare WS accordingly

[lookinforinfo]

I've had another look at their WS and as it definitely states that they are pursuing you as the keeper in point 19, they must lose their case because their PCN is not compliant with PoFA on two counts. 

 

First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.

 

The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.

 

Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.

 

The entrance sign does not include the T&Cs so it is only an offer to treat  not  an offer of a contract. Their only appears to be one type of sign inside the car park which is unusual and a lot of the signage is in too small a print to be acceptable in Law as capable of forming a contract. The signage also includes unlawful demands for extra charges which makes the whole contract invalid. 

 

PoFA 2012 made it quite clear that the maximum  amount claimed was the amount on the sign. This has been reinforced by the Private Parking Code of Practice which states that no extra charges can be made over the signage figure. Indeed a Government Minister is quoted as saying that the extra charges demanded by parking companies are "a rip off" yet they still include them. They are an abuse of process and should be subject to adding exemplary costs payable to the motorist to act as a deterrent to rogue car parking companies.

 

They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."

 

  So it is not as if this is a secret-since it has been out since February 7th 2022 . You would have thought that as this Code was designed to root out the rogues in the industry that the parking industry would already have made adjustments to their activities in order to align themselves with the will of Parliament as proposed by Minister Neil O'Brien  who said   "The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible."

 

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse but even Gladstones are surely aware that the extra charges are unlawful  it beggars belief that they can aver that they have told the truth on their WS.

[brassnecked]

Looks like they are just submitting their previous WS as their case so the new COP should bite them on the bum, along with no Keeper Liability.

[Digital_2012]

@lookin4infothanks it seems like there are a lot of points to chose from your post for WS.

 

Is it possible if can post a draft so i can copy points and include in my ws

 

i will attach the photographs as exhibit and also attach the proof of purchase from the McDonald's as well.

PS shall i include defence as exhibit with Witness statement?

[FTMDave]

No, don't bother with the defence.

 

It's unclear what you want when you mention a draft?

 

 

[Digital_2012]

Draft i meant template of witnesse statement

[dx100uk]

no there are no ws templates there can't be , as each case is slightly diff, the basic points are the same but some points need customisation and other points not covered specific to you need adding.

 

threads like doomtroopers etc that are already here are your best places to research for your one.

you are the person before the judge

there is no good in using templates as they simply allow copy and paste and if you don't understand what and why you are putting things in a WS you will be exploited by the claimant rep.

 

dx

 

[FTMDave]

As dx says, parking cases vary so much that it is impossible to design a template.

 

You can get an initial draft together now, which will obviously have to be tweaked when you get photos and when the fleecers' WS turns up.  However, your WS needs to be structured, more or less, like this -

 

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - do something similar to Doomtrooper.

 

INADEQUATE & CONFUSING SIGNAGE - you never saw a sign, there is a paucity of signage, the signs aren't illuminated and you went at night, etc.  Even if you had seen a sign, which you didn't, it's confusing as to what someone who arrives before midnight should do.  The fleecers describe the period of parking as starting at 00:02:05 so logically you must have entered the complex before midnight.  The £100 charge is mentioned in the very last line of a long sheet of text.

 

UNFAIR TERM - the normal parking limit is five hours which you respected, quote what the fleecers say in the local rag are the reasons for the 5-hour limit, yet after midnight this is reduced by 80% which is bound to catch out users of late-night films at the cinema or eateries which are still open, add proof you were a MacDonald's customer.

 

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE - no PP, again Doomtrooper's is an example.

 

LOCUS STANDI - HX are not the landowner, you do not believe they have the authority to bring the claim.

 

NO KEEPER LIABILITY - use LFI's ideas about how they have not followed POFA.

 

ABUSE OF PROCESS - you can use all of Doomtrooper's.section up to point 9.6 (don't use 9.7 or 9.8 or anything afterwards).

[Digital_2012]

Thanks guys i am working on it i will post the draft when i complete the ws

[Digital_2012]

Ok guys here is the draft of WS please guide me if needs any changes. Thanks

 

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD 

 

CLAIM NO: XXXX

 

HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT)

VS

XXX (DEFENDANT)

 

Date: 3^rd May 2022

 

Witness Statement

 

1. I Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.

1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.

1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

 

2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in ( the bank statement proof exhibit 1).

 

3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.

 

3.1. The photographs of the  NTK letter shows that the car entering the car park at 00.02.00 midnight but the fact is that the car entered before midnight and it took time for the driver to find the suitable parking bay so it allows driver to park the car there for five hours.

 

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. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability. 

 

5.1. Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle but the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes Any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control” 11. The road on which the alleged contravention took place is subject to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) of RTA and it being a road “to which the public has access”, It is also subject to the Liverpool Airport Byelaws 2019, Schedule 4 of PoFA therefore, does not apply, and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges.

 

5.2. As part of the KADOE contract, it states under paragraph B2.1(a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date). 

 

5.3. the only basis in the DVLA KADOE contract for obtaining the Keeper details is for using POFA. Of course, POFA can’t apply on airport land where byelaws apply – plus POFA is only relevant for parking. PROHIBITION 6. It is also my position that the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. I base this on the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6 (page 79, Exhibit 10), where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”. District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”. 

 

6.1. I question the existence of the alleged contract which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”. The signage is wholly prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration. In the absence of consideration, no contract exists 

 

6.2. In case Ransomes vs Anderson, Claim No. 3YS16797, the Defendant went to the industrial estate and after not being able to get into their designated parking area, parked on the road, on a double yellow line, for which he was issued a parking ticket. In his judgment the district judge rejected the contract claim on the basis that the noticed was too vague and uncertain to generate contractual liability. The sign, in question, started with: “Warning: Private property. Not Trespassing. No Parking. No Stopping. No Waiting.

You have entered this private property. You are now subject to the terms and conditions of the landowner listed below”. District Judge accepted in principle that Mr. Anderson committed a trespass and that trespass must have caused some loss to the claimant, in terms of expenses incurred, but made no award of damages in relation to it and dismissed the claim

 

The Service Agreement between Vehicle Control Services (hereby known as VCS) and Liverpool Airport dated 08/07/2013 clearly states “for a fixed period of 24 months” (Exibit C), therefore this contract expired in July 2015.

 

It is contended that no legal contract existed between VCS and Liverpool Airport, at the time of the alleged breach of contract. 

 

7.1. Definition of “Relevant contract” from PoFA 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) authorized, 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.

7.2. According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44, a contract to be valid requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. The fact that no witness signatures are present means the deed has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between VCS and the motorist. And even if “no stopping” could form a contract [which it cannot], it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.

 

7.3. According to information on John Lennon Liverpool Airport website (https://www.liverpoolairport.com/ ). Peel Group/Ancala are the land owners NOT Liverpool Airport. More recently, Ancala Partners LLP, the independent infrastructure Investment Manager completed the acquisition of a 45% interest in the Airport in September 2019, with Peel and Liverpool City Council retaining 45% and 10% interests respectively.  7.4. Surely VCS a company that signs innumerable contracts must be aware that no contract exists at the Liverpool Airport. Two points arise from that. 

 

7.4.1. 7.4.2. The first is that by issuing many PCNs at Liverpool Airport with knowingly not having a valid contract is bordering on fraudulent. Second, VCS in order to gain access to DVLA data VCS have averred that they have complied in their CoP that they have complied with all the legal necessities, which appears patently untrue.

 

7.5. Claimant contract contains logo of BPA (British Parking Association) which implies that VCS operates under BPA code of practice which is false. According to information on BPA website (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/bpa-approved-operators ) VCS is not a member of BPA. (Exhibit C) ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

 

8. After receiving the claim form I subsequently submitted my CPR 31.14 request (Exhibit D), in which I requested copies of the claimant’s planning permission for the signage at the site in question. The claimant failed to produce any, and after checking this myself, I found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.

 

8.1. Planning application for the relevant signage (ref: 15A/0657) was made on 11/03/2015 which expired on 24/08/2015, however without permission being granted this application was later withdrawn by the applicant on 16/06/2021. ABUSE OF PROCESS

 

9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. 

 

9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice). 

 

9.1.1. 9.1.2. 9.1.3. Section 5.3 of the new Code of Practice states the following: “The provisions of Schedule of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relate specifically to the parking of vehicles on relevant land and the recovery of parking charges – they arose from the need to respect landowners’ interests given the introduction of the prohibition on wheelclamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle. However, this Code also applies to instances where the prohibition on stopping arises from a clear security concern e.g. within airports. Parking operators must only pursue parking charges in instances that could be interpreted as stopping if they have explicit consent to do so on evidenced security or safety grounds from their conformity assessment body, following audit of the adequacy of the signs and surface markings in place to inform drivers of the restrictions in place.” Section 7.2 of the new CoP, defines explicitly, when photographic evidence should be used to serve notice: “Care must be taken to ensure that photographic evidence from camera vehicles is only used to serve a notice of parking charge in respect of parked vehicles, not vehicles whose drivers have momentarily stopped e.g. to check directions or an address within a business park.” The Minister Neil O’Brien, who’s foreword I have attached (Exhibits E) also goes on to state “And there will be no wriggle-room for rogue companies who continue to flout the rules. If they fail to follow this Code, they will effectively be banned from issuing parking charges indefinitely”

 

9.1.4. The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation. This indicates that the new CoP should be adhered to now, where possible, but clearly VCS are choosing to ignore these new rules, and continuing to go about their business as normal, regardless of the law.

 

9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. 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. 

 

9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”

 

9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that 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 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 4^th 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 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.’’

 

 9.5. 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 HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. 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 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...'' 

 

9.6. 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 14They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  “g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs.”

 

 

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 May 23 by Digital_2012

[FTMDave]

Bits are good, bits are not so good, as is normal with a draft.

 

I have a full day of work now but promise to look in late this evening.

[Digital_2012]

@FTMDave okay thanks in advance

[FTMDave]

I've put some headers in like in Doomtropper's WS so we, and the judge, can quickly see the arguments you're making.  More later this evening.

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD 

 

CLAIM NO: XXXX

 

HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT)

VS

XXX (DEFENDANT)

 

Date: 3^rd May 2022

 

Witness Statement

 

1. I Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.

1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.

1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

 

INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE

 

2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in ( the bank statement proof exhibit 1).

 

3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.

 

3.1. The photographs of the  NTK letter shows that the car entering the car park at 00.02.00 midnight but the fact is that the car entered before midnight and it took time for the driver to find the suitable parking bay so it allows driver to park the car there for five hours.

 

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.  

 

NO KEEPER LIABILITY

 

5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability. 

 

5.1. Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle but the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes Any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control” 11. The road on which the alleged contravention took place is subject to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) of RTA and it being a road “to which the public has access”, It is also subject to the Liverpool Airport Byelaws 2019, Schedule 4 of PoFA therefore, does not apply, and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges.

 

5.2. As part of the KADOE contract, it states under paragraph B2.1(a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date). 

 

5.3. the only basis in the DVLA KADOE contract for obtaining the Keeper details is for using POFA. Of course, POFA can’t apply on airport land where byelaws apply – plus POFA is only relevant for parking.

 

PROHIBITION

 

6. It is also my position that the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. I base this on the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6 (page 79, Exhibit 10), where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”. District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”. 

 

6.1. I question the existence of the alleged contract which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”. The signage is wholly prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration. In the absence of consideration, no contract exists 

 

6.2. In case Ransomes vs Anderson, Claim No. 3YS16797, the Defendant went to the industrial estate and after not being able to get into their designated parking area, parked on the road, on a double yellow line, for which he was issued a parking ticket. In his judgment the district judge rejected the contract claim on the basis that the noticed was too vague and uncertain to generate contractual liability. The sign, in question, started with: “Warning: Private property. Not Trespassing. No Parking. No Stopping. No Waiting.

You have entered this private property. You are now subject to the terms and conditions of the landowner listed below”. District Judge accepted in principle that Mr. Anderson committed a trespass and that trespass must have caused some loss to the claimant, in terms of expenses incurred, but made no award of damages in relation to it and dismissed the claim

 

LOCUS STANDI

 

The Service Agreement between Vehicle Control Services (hereby known as VCS) and Liverpool Airport dated 08/07/2013 clearly states “for a fixed period of 24 months” (Exibit C), therefore this contract expired in July 2015.

 

It is contended that no legal contract existed between VCS and Liverpool Airport, at the time of the alleged breach of contract. 

 

7.1. Definition of “Relevant contract” from PoFA 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) authorized, 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.

 

7.2. According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44, a contract to be valid requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. The fact that no witness signatures are present means the deed has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between VCS and the motorist. And even if “no stopping” could form a contract [which it cannot], it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.

 

7.3. According to information on John Lennon Liverpool Airport website (https://www.liverpoolairport.com/ ). Peel Group/Ancala are the land owners NOT Liverpool Airport. More recently, Ancala Partners LLP, the independent infrastructure Investment Manager completed the acquisition of a 45% interest in the Airport in September 2019, with Peel and Liverpool City Council retaining 45% and 10% interests respectively. 

 

7.4. Surely VCS a company that signs innumerable contracts must be aware that no contract exists at the Liverpool Airport. Two points arise from that. 

 

7.4.1. 7.4.2. The first is that by issuing many PCNs at Liverpool Airport with knowingly not having a valid contract is bordering on fraudulent. Second, VCS in order to gain access to DVLA data VCS have averred that they have complied in their CoP that they have complied with all the legal necessities, which appears patently untrue.

 

7.5. Claimant contract contains logo of BPA (British Parking Association) which implies that VCS operates under BPA code of practice which is false. According to information on BPA website (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/bpa-approved-operators ) VCS is not a member of BPA. (Exhibit C)

 

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

 

8. After receiving the claim form I subsequently submitted my CPR 31.14 request (Exhibit D), in which I requested copies of the claimant’s planning permission for the signage at the site in question. The claimant failed to produce any, and after checking this myself, I found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.

 

8.1. Planning application for the relevant signage (ref: 15A/0657) was made on 11/03/2015 which expired on 24/08/2015, however without permission being granted this application was later withdrawn by the applicant on 16/06/2021.

 

ABUSE OF PROCESS

 

9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. 

 

9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice). 

 

9.1.1. 9.1.2. 9.1.3. Section 5.3 of the new Code of Practice states the following: “The provisions of Schedule of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relate specifically to the parking of vehicles on relevant land and the recovery of parking charges – they arose from the need to respect landowners’ interests given the introduction of the prohibition on wheelclamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle. However, this Code also applies to instances where the prohibition on stopping arises from a clear security concern e.g. within airports. Parking operators must only pursue parking charges in instances that could be interpreted as stopping if they have explicit consent to do so on evidenced security or safety grounds from their conformity assessment body, following audit of the adequacy of the signs and surface markings in place to inform drivers of the restrictions in place.” Section 7.2 of the new CoP, defines explicitly, when photographic evidence should be used to serve notice: “Care must be taken to ensure that photographic evidence from camera vehicles is only used to serve a notice of parking charge in respect of parked vehicles, not vehicles whose drivers have momentarily stopped e.g. to check directions or an address within a business park.” The Minister Neil O’Brien, who’s foreword I have attached (Exhibits E) also goes on to state “And there will be no wriggle-room for rogue companies who continue to flout the rules. If they fail to follow this Code, they will effectively be banned from issuing parking charges indefinitely”

 

9.1.4. The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation. This indicates that the new CoP should be adhered to now, where possible, but clearly VCS are choosing to ignore these new rules, and continuing to go about their business as normal, regardless of the law.

 

9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. 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. 

 

9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”

 

9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that 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 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 4^th 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 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.’’

 

 9.5. 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 HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. 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 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...'' 

 

9.6. 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 14They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  “g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs.”

 

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.

[FTMDave]

Before we go any further, when you were with Parking Fines, around the time you filed your defence,  did you or them send the fleecers a CPR request?

[Digital_2012]

@FTMDave no  i did not request any CPR and i believe that PF Ltd also not requested from fleecers

[FTMDave]

I had forgotten that the fleecers had already played a lot of their cards in the WS they made opposing your set aside application (post 12 for anyone looking in) so that means we can already tighten things up.

 

Obviously the paragraph numbering will now take one hell of a beating, but that can be sorted out later.

 

Observations in blue, changes in red.

 

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD 

 

CLAIM NO: XXXX

 

HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT)

VS

XXX (DEFENDANT)

 

Date: 3^rd May 2022

 

Witness Statement

 

1. I Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.

1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.

1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

 

INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).

 

2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).

 

3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.

 

3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?

 

3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.

 

4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.

 

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.  

 

UNFAIR TERM

 

4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.

 

5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.

 

6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not. 

 

7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.

 

NO KEEPER LIABILITY

 

5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out. 

 

The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant. 

 

Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -

 

First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.

 

The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.

 

PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.

 

LOCUS STANDI

 

You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in).

 

Adapt LFI's suggestions -

 

Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.

 

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

 

8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.

 

LFI's suggestion -

 

They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."

 

ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60?

 

9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. 

 

9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice). 

 

9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”

 

9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. 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. 

 

9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that 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 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 4^th 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 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.’’

 

 9.5. 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 HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. 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 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...'' 

 

9.6. 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.

 

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.

[Digital_2012]

@FTMDave i am attaching the photographs of the Alama park please have a look. Checking your previous post where you corrected some line and suggest some but i could not understand. Is it possible if you edit and delete irrelevant lines. 

 

I have edited little bit but not sure what to add and what to look for

 

Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.

1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.

1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

 

INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).

 

2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).

 

3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.

 

3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?

 

3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.

 

4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.

 

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.  

 

UNFAIR TERM

 

4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.

 

5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.

 

6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not. 

 

7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.

 

NO KEEPER LIABILITY

 

5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out. Where to look on PCN letter?

 

The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant. 

 

Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -

 

First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.

 

The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.

 

PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.

 

LOCUS STANDI

 

You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in). What shall i add here

 

Adapt LFI's suggestions -

 

Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.

 

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

 

8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.

 

LFI's suggestion -

 

They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."

 

ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60? ( I couldn't understand this)

 

9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. 

 

9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice). 

 

9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”

 

9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. 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. 

 

9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that 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 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 4^th 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 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.’’

 

 9.5. 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 HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. 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 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...'' 

 

9.6. 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.

 

 

Statement of Truth 

 

Alma Leisure.pdf Alma leisure centre.pdf

[FTMDave]

Don't worry, we're getting there bit by bit.

 

Tomorrow evening I'll try to deal with your questions.

 

The photos you've taken are superb - they show the signs as tiny and not illuminated.