CEL PCN ANPR Claimform - NHS Lease Car - Tenerife Buildings, Station Road, South Gosforth, Newcastle, NE3 1QD ***Claim Discontinued***

[Kplanet]

Thank you for this. I appreciate the support. I am going to work on the defence today as I am working from home. 

 I have dug out the initial PCN that was sent it was dated 14/03/2022, the offence was 28/01/2022 so 45 days. 

I have submitted my defence

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.
 
1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. The defendant denies any liability on this matter as the Claimant has failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Namely but not limited to, failing to supply the additional  documents mandated by section 14 (2) of the act.

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.
 
3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 
 
4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5. The claimant does not have the necessary permissions for their camera and signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.  Thus committing a criminal offence by having them there. 

6.The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

7. The Claimant is abusing the court process by claiming £50 legal representative's costs even though they have nominated no legal representative and indeed are representing themselves.
 
8. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any 
relief at all.

Fingers crossed they drop it but I have my doubts. 

[Kplanet]

UPDATE

Since I have submitted my defence I have heard nothing.

Is this common?

Do I get informed if they have dropped the case? 

[FTMDave]

Yes, it is common as the courts are so overworked.

Just to be sure, have a look at the status of the claim on MCOL and paste here what you see.

[dx100uk]

ideally you should read the letter the court sent 2 mts ago acking your defence.

not a good idea to vanish for 2mts either without reading  a good few 10's of pcn claimform threads already here....

cag is self help as well..

 

dx

 

[Kplanet]

I appreciate your suggestion, but just to clarify, I haven't vanished for 2 months.

I've been actively reading and staying engaged with the forum and other forums.

I value the self-help approach that CAG promotes and have been following along with various PCN claim-form threads.

Looking forward to continuing the discussions here.

However in my particular case if there is nothing to update then I see little point in putting up continuous “nothing to report” posts. 
 

 

[Nicky Boy]

Nothing to report... SIR!

[Kplanet]

Just an update to the thread! Yesterday received form N180 Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Smalls Claim Track. This was dated 11th August how slow is our postal system!  

[dx100uk]

from the court?

check mcol..

know how to respond ok... 3 copies etc?

[Kplanet]

Yes from the court. Filled in ticked no to mediation and ticked no to suitability for determination without hearing. 3 copies one for me one for court and one for their solicitor. 

MCOL states this:

Case Stay Lifted on 11/08/2023

DQ sent to you on 11/08/2023

DQ filed by claimant on 11/08/2023

Edited August 25, 2023 by Kplanet
additional info

[dx100uk]

[FTMDave]

I understand from your reported post that there have been developments in the case.

Please post here so everyone can see - and help.

[Kplanet]

Just got the golden ticket to my local County Court!

Well notification it has been transferred to my local county court .

This saga has outlasted my favourite TV series

– I half expect a popcorn vendor at the courtroom entrance.

Let the legal sitcom begin! 

[lookinforinfo]

If CEL keep on bringing  cases like yours to Court they will end up being the pop corn sellers at the door.

[Kplanet]

Ho, ho, ho!

Guess what Santa dropped off at my doorstep this Christmas Eve? Drumroll, please... the Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track!

Because nothing says "festive cheer" like legal documents, am I right?  

Thanks, legal system, you really know how to sprinkle that Christmas magic!

Now, instead of sipping hot cocoa and belting out carols, I'll be jingling all the way to craft and tweak my witness statement. It's like Santa gave me the gift of legal wrangling!

dear forum pals, if any kind soul out there wants to be my legal elf and take a peek at my masterpiece in the making,

I promise you'll be on the "Nice List" next year!

'Tis the season for small claims drama, fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la!

 

 

2023-12-19 NOA Hearing 2023-02-29.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Kplanet you have nothing to worry about as they will lose the case against you should they be stupid enough to take you to Court.

Why ? 

You are the hirer of the vehicle and CEL have totally failed to observe the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Once they received the notification that the NHS were leasing the vehicle to you CEL had to comply with the Act relating to hirers. They didn't so they cannot hold you responsible for the charge.

How they failed-

1] when they received the advice that you were hiring the vehicle they should have sent you a Notice to Hirer not a Notice to Driver. Included with the PCN there should have been a copy of the original PCN sent to the NHS; a copy of the hire agreement between you and the NHS and a copy of the contract that showed you were the driver at the time and that you had agreed to be responsible for breaches of the Law .

2] the PCN they should send to hirers gives a time allowance of 21 days to comply with the Act. They sent you the wrong PCN which gave 28 days to comply.

As they didn't comply with the Act they do not have the right to pursue you and the court will throw out the case should it get that far.

To confirm what I said above this is a copy of Schedule 4 Section 14 [2] from PoFA

"the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.

(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; 

So the Creditor cannot recover the charges from you because they didn't send you a Notice to Hirer, they didn't send you a copy of the Notice to Keeper they sent to the NHS, they didn't send you the 13[2] copied documents and they gave you 28 days not the 21 days required.

 

13[2]states

"(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

There is no way on God's earth that CEL can win with that number of mistakes.

I would have thought that on reading the above in your WS that they would cancel the Court case.

[FTMDave]

Yep, time to start work on the Witness Statement.

Obviously the regulars will be happy to help.

[Kplanet]

Thank you everyone. 

I have also discovered that they likely dont't have planning permission for the signage or the ANPR cameras. I can't find any applications dating back to 1993. I have emailed the planning dept for clarification. 

Brain a bit fried tonight. I have a good part of my witness statement done and will post in the next few days.

I keep getting concerned as I am the hirer of the vehicle.

I have tried to find a witness statement on here that is similar circumstances to mine but to no avail. 

Been collating all the paper work and I was never sent a Notice to Hirer or anything similar just a PCN letter dated 45 days after the incident date. 

back to it tomorrow thanks everyone for all the assistance 

[dx100uk]

On 20/03/2022 at 01:15, dx100uk said:

i wonder who owns that patch of land and if CEL have planning permission for their signs and poles....i bet not!!

i would also seriously doubt, that whenever planning permission was first granted for those shops, that anything other than the std 2-3hrs free parking applied and that no-one has subsequently applied for, nor been granted, by the council permission to limit the parking to 20mins.

dx

+2yrs ago then i was right then...typical CEL...

this 21 days and 28 days with regard to time limits will kill them as well.

dx

 

[Kplanet]

Hi 

This is my draft version.

Would appreciate any critique anyone may have to offer.

I haven't inserted the attachments yet and obviously the formatting needs tweaking. 

In the County Court of Newcastle upon Tyne Claim Number

Between

Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

V

XX (Defendant)

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XX

 

Introduction

1.      I, XX am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2.      In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate.

3.      I am the hirer of the vehicle in question in this case which is

4.      Sequence of events:

4.1 On January 28, 2022, at 17:35, I parked my vehicle in the "Tenerife Buildings" car park with the intention of retrieving pre-ordered food from the takeaway located on Station Road. Regrettably, due to a confusion with the order, the process took more time than expected.

4.2 Subsequently, upon my return to the car, my infant became distressed, prompting me to choose to feed my baby while inside the vehicle.

4.3 On March 3, 2022, I was notified via email by NHS Fleet Solutions that they had handled a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and subsequently shared my information with the Claimant. (Appendix 1). NHS Fleet Solutions do not keep details of PCN charges.

4.4 On March 18, 2022, I received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) by mail, dated March 14, 2022 (see Appendix 2). The PCN indicates the violation as "Maximum 20 minutes free parking" at Tenerife Buildings, Station Road NE3 1QD. According to the PCN, the vehicle in question was parked during the period from 17:35:44 to 18:07:29.

4.5 After enduring a series of intimidating letters from the Claimant spanning over 12 months, which included references to additional costs, debt collection, court proceedings, CCJs, and potential repercussions on employment, I was served with an N1 Claim Form on the 24th of April, 2023. (see Appendix 3)

POFA Schedule 4

5.      POFA Schedule 4 Section 14 [2] states:

5.1   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.

(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;

5.2   (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

5.3   It is asserted that the Creditor is precluded from seeking recovery of the charges. This is primarily due to their failure to dispatch a Notice to Hirer, neglecting to furnish a duplicate of the Notice to Keeper forwarded to the NHS, omission of the 13[2] replicated documents, and the issuance of a 28-day notice period, in contravention of the stipulated 21-day requirement. In addition to this despite the presence of ANPR cameras, the Claimant has not submitted any photographic evidence to support their case.

 

Double Recovery

6.      The Plaintiff is misusing the court proceedings by asserting a claim for £50 in legal representative's costs, despite not designating any legal representative and, in fact, representing themselves. In addition to £50 in legal costs, the Claimant pursues restitution of the initial £100 parking charge and an extra £70. No further rationale or itemised breakdown has been supplied, as mandated by Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (refer to page 33, Exhibit 06). Unless the Claimant can provide clear evidence substantiating the purported additional costs, it may be construed as an effort to seek double recovery.

7.      In previous instances related to parking charge cases, legal precedent, as established in Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, dictates that the parking charge itself encompasses the costs of recovery. The authoritative ruling in this case concluded that the specified sum (£85), or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm, is designed to cover all associated costs, including those related to an automated private parking business model. The Supreme Court emphases that a parking firm lacking possession cannot assert any part of their case in damages.

8.      Since 2019, numerous County Courts have deemed claims exceeding £100 as an abuse of process, leading to their immediate dismissal. For instance, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies (case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019), District Judge Jones-Evans explicitly warned against such claims, stating that they are unenforceable in law and constitute an abuse of process. The court's declaration specified that any claim exceeding £60 would be treated as a penalty, echoing the decision in the Supreme Court v Beavis.

9.      In landmark judgments in November 2019 (Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby), courts further reinforced the principle that claims extending beyond the parking charge itself are considered an abuse of process. Judges highlighted that any additional charge, not explicitly specified on signage and not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, constitutes an abuse of process.

10.   Moreover, the inclusion of costs not clearly specified on signage is deemed a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically violating paras 6, 10, and 14. The Defendant contends that the Claimant knowingly submitted inflated costs, and therefore, the entire claim should be struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4). The Defendant asserts that the Claimant should have been aware that claiming in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis case, the Protection of Freedoms Act, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Relief from sanctions, in this case, should be refused.

11.   The signage at the entrance (referenced in Appendix X) does not constitute a contract but rather extends an "invitation to treat." In the event the claimant asserts a breach of contract, it is imperative to invoke the Unfair Terms in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This legislation stipulates that an unfair term in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier is not legally binding on the consumer. In the context of a parking ticket, should a term be deemed unfair, the parking company may be precluded from enforcing it.

12.   Article 62(4) explicitly states that a term is unfair if, in contradiction to the principle of good faith, it results in a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Article 62 further declares that unfair terms shall not be binding on the consumer. I contend that imposing a £180 charge for an 11-minute overstay is inherently unfair and, consequently, not binding.

13.   Moreover, there exists considerable ambiguity, as the driver had the opportunity to renegotiate terms (as indicated by the signage) with the shopkeepers. The Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are not privy to, nor can they override, any conversation and agreement the driver may have had with the stores.

14.   In alignment with the guidance on writing fair contracts provided by gov.uk, contract terms and notices are generally deemed unfair if they place the customer at an unjust disadvantage.

 Signage

15.   I possess written confirmation (refer to Appendix XX) indicating that the signage within the parking area did not comply with the standards set by the local authority, rendering it unreasonable. Under the Town and Country Planning Act of 2007, obtaining planning permission is mandatory for the installation of permanent signage exceeding 0.3 square meters, as is the case in car parks. My thorough search of the local authority's planning applications register, spanning from 1986 to the present, revealed no record of applications or permissions for car park signage or the installation of ANPR cameras at the Tenerife Buildings.

16.   An email communication from the Planning Enforcement Department affirmed that these signs indeed necessitated planning permission. Notably, there are currently no approved or pending applications for such signage. According to Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, exhibiting an advertisement in violation of the Regulations constitutes a criminal offense. The photographic evidence of the signage surrounding the Tenerife Buildings (see Appendix xx) underscores that these signs are in place without proper consent, rendering them illegal advertisements.

17.   Based on the aforementioned details, I firmly believe that the Claimant should not benefit from this illicit act, aligning with the principle "ex dolo malo non oritur actio" (RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd. v. Bracewell (2015). Moreover, the absence of planning permission for said signage implies that CEL is in breach of the Code of Practice established by the BPA, which mandates adherence to all legal requirements in conducting parking operations. Consequently, this raises serious doubts about their entitlement to seek motorists' data from the DVLA.

18.    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.

 Signed: ……………………………………… Date:……………………………………………

 

[dx100uk]

ive put your docx file up as txt in your msg

docx files have all your pers details in file info/properties.

dx

 

[FTMDave]

Indeed.

As soon as I went to open the file with the cursor your real name popped up.

Well done dx.

[FTMDave]

I've had a quick look and have
  - moved some sections around to make the legal arguments flow better (thereby of course knackering the numbering)
  - cut out the stuff about there being problems with the takeaway order and with your child.  IMO that suggests you were responsible in some way.  No.  Having a  maximum stay of only 20 minutes outside a take-away restaurant is an unfair term, end of.  That's unless you intend to suggest some emergency
  - made some other suggestions in red.

In the County Court of Newcastle upon Tyne

Claim Number

Between

Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

V

XX (Defendant)

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XX

 

INTRODUCTION

1.      I, XX am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2.      In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate.

3.      I am the hirer of the vehicle in question in this case which is XXXXX.

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

4. On January 28, 2022, at 17:35, I parked my vehicle in the "Tenerife Buildings" car park with the intention of retrieving pre-ordered food from the takeaway located on Station Road.

5. On March 3, 2022, I was notified via email by NHS Fleet Solutions that they had handled a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and subsequently shared my information with the Claimant. (Appendix 1). NHS Fleet Solutions do not keep details of PCN charges.

6. On March 18, 2022, I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by mail, dated March 14, 2022 (see Appendix 2). The PCN indicates the violation as "Maximum 20 minutes free parking" at Tenerife Buildings, Station Road NE3 1QD. According to the PCN, the vehicle in question was parked during the period from 17:35:44 to 18:07:29.

7. After enduring a series of intimidating letters from the Claimant spanning over 12 months, which included references to additional costs, debt collection, court proceedings, CCJs, and potential repercussions on employment, I was served with an N1 Claim Form on the 24th of April, 2023. (see Appendix 3)

NO HIRER LIABILITY

8.      The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 14 [2] states:

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b) a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;

9. The documents required from Section 13[2] are

(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b )a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

I did not receive any of those documents nor a copy of the NTK sent to the keeper.

Instead I  received a new NTK  giving me 28 days to respond as opposed to receiving a Notice to Hirer with 21 days to respond.

10. I respectfully submit therefore that as the Creditor has failed on every point to comply with the Act that they are precluded from recovering any of their charges from the Defendant.

UNFAIR TERM

11.   The signage at the entrance (referenced in Appendix X) does not constitute a contract but rather extends an "invitation to treat." In the event the claimant asserts a breach of contract, it is imperative to invoke the Unfair Terms in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This legislation stipulates that an unfair term in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier is not legally binding on the consumer. In the context of a parking ticket, should a term be deemed unfair, the parking company may be precluded from enforcing it.

12.   Article 62(4) explicitly states that a term is unfair if, in contradiction to the principle of good faith, it results in a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Article 62 further declares that unfair terms shall not be binding on the consumer.

13.  To allow only 20 minutes' parking outside a food takeaway is an unfair term.  Anyone who has ever ordered takeaway food will have experienced delays at peak times which indeed occurred in this case.  The driver did not abuse the car park or leave the area, they only visited the takeaway restaurant.

14.  The Claimant's signs mention that the 20 minutes can be extended if motorists "register for a permit in one of the stores".  No details are given about how to apply for this permit nor were any on display in the takeaway.  Nor does it seem that obtaining this slippery, non-existent permit would have stopped the issue of a PCN anyway as PCNs are sent according to ANPR time capture.  It is ludicrous to expect someone in a queue to pick up takeaway food to be looking at their watch and then deciding at what point during the allowed 20 minutes they should stop simply waiting and instead apply for a permit from the hard-working staff.  It seems that the Claimant is not interested in sensibly managing a car park but rather in inventing unfair terms which motorists will inevitably break and so the Claimant can issue their PCNs.

15.   Moreover, there exists considerable ambiguity, as the driver had the opportunity to renegotiate terms (as indicated by the signage) with the shopkeepers. The Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are not privy to, nor can they override, any conversation and agreement the driver may have had with the stores.

16.   In alignment with the guidance on writing fair contracts provided by gov.uk, contract terms and notices are generally deemed unfair if they place the customer at an unjust disadvantage.

CONSIDERATION & GRACE PERIODS

17.  The "overstay" was 11 minutes and some seconds.

18.  The Government Code Of Practice, set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019,. states a consideration period of at least 5 minutes to read the signs and a grace period of at least 10 minutes to leave the car park.

The Code is currently being challenged on the maximum amount that parking charges can be fixed at, and regarding debt collection fees - it is not being challenged on the matter of grace and consideration periods, or on any other grounds.

The driver respected these times.  They did not overstay.

19.  A grace period is also used by the British Parking Association CoP and the International Parking Community CoP  both of which allow for a minimum of 10 minutes.  The IPC allows a consideration period of a ‘reasonable time‘ which is surely one minute.  Again the driver respected these times.  They did not overstay.

20.  The BPA, which is the Claimant's trade association, does not allow a consideration period if the motorist then parks, which is absurd as motorists need time to read the signs.  If this madness is accepted, then the overstay was one minute.

DE MINIMIS

21.  In any case, arguing about an  "overstay" of 60 seconds, which is not considered an overstay in two national Codes of Practice, but may arguably be an overstay in a third, is legally "de minimis" and a waste of the court's time.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

22.   I possess written confirmation (refer to Appendix XX) indicating that the signage within the parking area did not comply with the standards set by the local authority, rendering it unreasonable. Under the Town and Country Planning Act of 2007, obtaining planning permission is mandatory for the installation of permanent signage exceeding 0.3 square meters, as is the case in car parks. My thorough search of the local authority's planning applications register, spanning from 1986 to the present, revealed no record of applications or permissions for car park signage or the installation of ANPR cameras at the Tenerife Buildings.

23.   An email communication from the Planning Enforcement Department affirmed that these signs indeed necessitated planning permission. Notably, there are currently no approved or pending applications for such signage. According to Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, exhibiting an advertisement in violation of the Regulations constitutes a criminal offence. The photographic evidence of the signage surrounding the Tenerife Buildings (see Appendix xx) underscores that these signs are in place without proper consent, rendering them illegal advertisements.

24.   Based on the aforementioned details, I firmly believe that the Claimant should not benefit from this illicit act, aligning with the principle "ex dolo malo non oritur actio" (RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd. v. Bracewell (2015).

25.  Moreover, the absence of planning permission for said signage implies that CEL is in breach of the Code of Practice established by the BPA, which mandates adherence to all legal requirements in conducting parking operations. Consequently, this raises serious doubts about their entitlement to seek motorists' data from the DVLA.

DOUBLE RECOVERY

26.      The Claimant is misusing the court proceedings by asserting a claim for £50 in legal representative's costs, despite not designating any legal representative and, in fact, representing themselves.

27.  In addition to £50 in legal costs, the Claimant pursues restitution of the initial £100 parking charge and an extra £70. No further rationale or itemised breakdown has been supplied, as mandated by Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (refer to page 33, Exhibit 06). Unless the Claimant can provide clear evidence substantiating the purported additional costs, it may be construed as an effort to seek double recovery.

28.      In previous instances related to parking charge cases, legal precedent, as established in Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, dictates that the parking charge itself encompasses the costs of recovery. The authoritative ruling in this case concluded that the specified sum (£85), or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm, is designed to cover all associated costs, including those related to an automated private parking business model. The Supreme Court emphases that a parking firm lacking possession cannot assert any part of their case in damages.

29.      Since 2019, numerous County Courts have deemed claims exceeding £100 as an abuse of process, leading to their immediate dismissal. For instance, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies (case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019), District Judge Jones-Evans explicitly warned against such claims, stating that they are unenforceable in law and constitute an abuse of process. The court's declaration specified that any claim exceeding £60 would be treated as a penalty, echoing the decision in the Supreme Court v Beavis.

30.      In landmark judgments in November 2019 (Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby), courts further reinforced the principle that claims extending beyond the parking charge itself are considered an abuse of process. Judges highlighted that any additional charge, not explicitly specified on signage and not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, constitutes an abuse of process.

31.   Moreover, the inclusion of costs not clearly specified on signage is deemed a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically violating paras 6, 10, and 14.

32.  The Defendant contends that the Claimant knowingly submitted inflated costs, and therefore, the entire claim should be struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4). The Defendant asserts that the Claimant should have been aware that claiming in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis case, the Protection of Freedoms Act, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Relief from sanctions, in this case, should be refused.

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.

 Signed: ……………………………………… Date:……………………………………………

Edited January 11 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[Kplanet]

Thank you everyone . I will have a good read in the morning and do some adjusting . The help is so much more appreciated than you will ever know 

[FTMDave]

I've had a go with a new section Consideration & Grace Periods.

TBH I'm too knackered to do it properly now.  Fortunately the weekend will soon be upon us. 

I also think a No Locus Standi section is in order - did you send them a CPR request after you received the claim form?

[lookinforinfo]

There are a couple of details on the first part of an very good WS.

Even though you will win anyway I would still use "the driver" rather than I on 4.1

I would leave out 4.2 altogether since it indicates that the driver is more likely to be female.

5.2 is quite confusing since some of it is explaining how the keeper can be eliminated from paying. All you need is the second part of Schedule4 Section 13[2][a][b][c] which is referred to by you in 5.1

5.2 The documents required from Section 13[2] are

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

I did not receive any of those documents nor a copy of the NTK sent to the keeper.

Instead I  received a new NTK  giving me 28 days to respond as opposed to receiving a Notice to Hirer with 21 days to respond.

5.3 I respectfully submit therefore that as the Creditor has failed on every point to comply with the Act that they are precluded from recovering any of their charges from the Defendant.