PCM ANPR PCN Claimform - Overstay - Anchorwood Retail Park, Barnstaple, Devon ***Claim Dismissed + Costs***

[FTMDave]

I will read the WS later after work, but dx is right, if they don't turn up, 99.9999% chance they will lose.

[dx100uk]

make sure you upload anything in the ws exhibits we've not already seen please

 

dx

 

[FTMDave]

Even for Gladdys, that is an appalling WS.

 

They've managed to conclude that the part of your defence about double recovery was aimed at the £50 legal costs they're perfectly entitled to ask for - and not the £70 Unicorn Food Tax!

 

So now you need to prepare your WS.

 

Sequence of events - a brief description of how you ended up with their invoice.

 

No Locus Standi - they are not the landowner, the "contract" they have produced is a standard one with no names or signatures (forum regular Lookinforinfo is an expert on such things and will no doubt add more).

 

Illegal Signage - you do not believe they have PP, you have investigated this with the local council, they have refused a CPR request to produce PP,  PP is not shown in their WS, this is a criminal matter and no contract can be formed where criminality is concerned.

 

No Keeper Liability - even if a contract had been formed, it would have been with the driver of the vehicle, you were not the driver, they have not established keeper liability under POFA, both in their PCN and their WS (para 7) they specifically say they are using POFA.

 

Invalid PCN/Breach of Codes of Practice - the CoP of their trade association the iPC states (para 15.2) "A reduction of a minimum of 40% must be offered where payment is made within 14 days" yet they have offered a 0% discount on the £100 PCN.

 

Double Recovery - as this is essentially the same for all PPC claims, and given their huge mess up, I've set out what I think you should use verbatim (except the numbering of course) -

 

DOUBLE RECOVERY

 

10.  The Claimant is quite correct in their Witness Statement (paras 46-49) that they are entitled to add £50 legal costs to the claim.

 

11.  However,  the Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus the justified £50 legal costs plus an additional £70 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.

 

12.  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.

 

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

 

14.  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 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the 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.''

 

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

 

16.  The Claimant states in "The Claimant Therefore Claims" section towards the end of their Witness Statement that the Claimant's trade association allows this made-up £70 sum.  It is neither here nor there what a biased, break-away trade association considers as reasonable or lawful.  What matters is what the law in England & Wales considers as reasonable & lawful. 

 

17.  In this section the Claimant actually admits that this sum is due to instructing solicitors - for which £50 legal costs have already been added.  This is a very poor attempt to circumvent the limit of £50 legal costs allowed for this amount of claim at the small claims track.

 

18.  The Claimant's claim (para 24) that the trade association's appeals body "is completely independent of the IPC" is frankly laughable.  Both were set up in 2013 by Mr William Hurley and Mr John Davies of Gladstones Solicitors. The IPC, its appeals body the IAS and the firm of solicitors at the time most associated with parking litigation were all run by the same two people, in a blatant conflict of interest.  The Defendant would rather count on an unbiased county court, rather than a kangaroo court established by the Claimant's associates.

Edited December 14, 2022 by FTMDave
Putting the boot in more

[lookinforinfo]

I notice that they are pursuing the keeper only in their WS when it should be the driver they are pursuing since the PCN was late. Therefore the case must fail.

 

 

Is that all the paperwork you received from in their WS?   Usually they include the PCNs [which would prove there is no keeper liability] as well as a map of the car park and proof of Council permission for cameras etc.

 

You should add, not if you haven't got enough already, that by redacting the signatures on the contract there is no way to prove that the contract  is valid.Ask for strict proof of the validity of the contract.

 

[Lazy farmer]

Thanks for all this help.

There was copies of the PCN & the follow up letters attached but I didn’t have time or enough Tippex to redact all my details. I’m not very techy!

 

Would I be better to put the ‘no keeper liability’ section immediately after the introduction as the failure to send me the PCN in time for POFA to apply was the reason for ignoring all their further demands, and also my strongest argument.

 

In my previous court appearance it was clear to me that the judge had only scan read my WS and didn’t read all of it

[FTMDave]

You're absolutely right that No Keeper Liability is your strongest argument and your ace.

 

I just thought that it made a more logical legal argument "in the right order" IYSWIM, to argue -

 

1.  No contract was formed with the fleecers because it's not their land (Locus Standi).

 

2.  Again no contract was formed with the charlatans because the signage was illegal (Illegal Signage).

 

3.  If the court disagrees with the above and decides that a contract was formed with the conmerchants, then it was between them and a completely different person.  You were not the driver.  They say they are using POFA but have not respected POFA's provisions (No Keeper Liability).

 

It's just a personal preference, I'd be tempted to do things in that order but keep the Locus Standi and Illegal Signage sections pretty brief, not pages of waffle, because as you say the judge may only scan read.

 

Your call.  You're in a superb position given the spivs daren't even turn up.

 

The judge just has to accept one of your points, which the leeches won't be around to counter, and it's case over.

[Lazy farmer]

Here's a very rough first draft of my witness statement, I will get the numbering & text aligned for the final draft.

 

My Locus Standi section particularly needs some substance.

 

Do i need to counter 36 & 37 of their ws  where they are saying i have filed my defence & not denied being the driver etc?

 

WS1 Parking Control Management.pdf

Edited December 14, 2022 by FTMDave
DOC file removed

[FTMDave]

Personal details show on DOC files.  I've therefore converted it to PDF.

 

As a first draft that looks excellent.

 

I have a lot to do today, work and then of course Morocco v France ... but promise to look in and comment properly this evening.

[Nicky Boy]

Just a couple of observations that may be of use. Comments from the regulars invited...

 

Claimants WS

para 18
The claimant claims that the site plan (Exhibit reference GS3) is "evidence" of signage locations...
My 10 year old nephew could have great fun "knocking up" a site plan in a few minutes, but it wouldn't be "evidence" of anything at all!
Put claimant to strict proof of signage being installed at all locations claimed in the site plan on 28.02.2022.

 

para 22
Claimant claims that the Terms and Conditions have been audited by the IPC and BPA, yet offers no evidence to support this.
In fact, the claimant is not even accredited by the BPA!

 

para 23
States that every recipient of a PCN is afforded the opportunity of appealing...
The claimant's PCN states that appeals can be sent by post, but (presumably?) a Stamped addressed Envelope was not included with the PCN...
IPC Code of Practice states in section 19.3: Operators must not require the Motorist to submit a stamped-addressed envelope as a pre-requisite for an appeal.
(Breach of Code of Practice).

 

para 25
"The defendant did not engage in either either appeals process"...
As the claimant did not enclose a SAE as (required by their COP), no appeal was made.
As the IAS will only deal with refused internal appeals, no appeal was possible there.

para 30
"The vehicle was observed to be parked"...
No evidence shown of vehicle being "parked".
I believe the definition of parking requires the driver to actually leave the vehicle?

 

 

Also, in the OP's illegal signage section, is there any point in mentioning lack of PP for ANPR cameras?

 

 

And, we still haven't seen all of the exhibits as DX requested.

Farmer, there may be more stuff to pick holes in if you'd just upload them for the guys to take a look...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just looking at claimants WS, para 31

It states that a PCN was posted on 14th March. Wrong!

What apparently was posted was a NTK, referring to a PCN (NTD?) claimed to be issued on the 28th Feb. (upload attached to OP's 1st post).

Sooo, as the PCN was issued on 28th Feb, doesn't that put the NTK completely out of POFA time constraints?

[FTMDave]

A few comments.

 

In No Keeper Liability you could beef it up a bit and say that the PCN specifically states "this notice is given to you in line with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012" and also the Claimant in their Witness Statement (para 7) states they are using the Protection of Freedoms Act.

 

They have even admitted on the PCN that the "date this notice is given" is 16 days after the event.

 

They specifically state they are using POFA and then don't abide by its provisions.

 

In Locus Standi I wouldn't mention the CPR request because that has been superseded by the rubbish contract included in their WS.  Zero in on that.

 

In Illegal Signage add the obvious point that there is no mention of PP in the fleecers WS - because none exist.

 

I wouldn't worry about their silly points 36 & 37.  Of course you're the registered keeper.  So what?

[lookinforinfo]

Should be a complaint  as well because despite the PCN not being sent until 14 days after the alleged breach they still say that after 28 days the can transfer the liability to the keeper. They cannot and it is very wrong to say  they can.

[Lazy farmer]

Thanks all, hoping to get a 2nd draft done tomorrow night

[Lazy farmer]

I've tweeked my WS a bit, what do you guys think?

 

WS1 Parking Control Management.pdf

Edited December 18, 2022 by FTMDave
Personal details showing

[FTMDave]

I'll have a look this evening.

 

World Cup final time now

[FTMDave]

That is superb work.

 

I've converted to PDF, again, because your personal details show up on DOC files.

[Lazy farmer]

Thanks. I've done a final draft adding in all my details & exhibits which has to be sent by 4pm on 22nd Dec to the courts & the Claimants.

Do I have to send the Claimants copy to PCM or Gladstones? PCM are listed as the claimants

[FTMDave]

It depends what address is specified on the claim form.

 

Pretty sure it'll be Gladdys.

[Lazy farmer]

So my Witness Statements went off at the last possible moment.

 

Yesterday I had an email from Gladys ref my 2 cpr requests:

 

In relation to your email dated 24th September 2022, whilst the email was allocated to the file upon receipt, it appears it was overlooked for which we apologise.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the documents requested have now been provided to you as exhibits within the witness statement filed on behalf of our client, a further copy of which is provided in compliance with your request.  The only document not provided is the planning permission for the signage; this is on the basis that the signs fall within the category of Class 2A and the Claimant submits consent has already been granted pursuant to its compliance with Part 1, Schedule 3 of the Regulations.  Further, the Claimant is required to display signs pursuant to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and submits advertising consent would not be necessary on the basis of its compliance with regulatory obligations.  As a result, the requested planning permission does not exist.

 

So no planning permission sought or granted, anyone know if this Class 2A  excuse is correct?

 

Apologies for not converting to pdf - i just don't know how to.

 

[Nicky Boy]

Extract from GOV.UK document...

 

Class 2(A) permits notices or signs to be displayed on buildings or land as
a means of identification, direction or warning. These would include:
the street number or name of a dwelling-house
a field-gate sign saying ‘Please shut the gate’
a warning notice saying ‘Beware of the dog’
a private sign saying ‘No parking please’. (note: "private sign")
Advertisements in Class 2(A) must not exceed 0.3 of a square metre in area.
Illumination is not allowed.

 

So, I would say they are speaking bunkum...?

 

This extract is from here...

 

/assets/static/govuk-opengraph-image-dade2dad5775023b0568381c4c074b86318194edb36d3d68df721eea7deeac4b.png

Outdoor advertisements and signs: a guide for advertisers - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

---

This guide explains, to those wanting to display an outdoor advertisement, how the system of advertisement control works in...

 

[FTMDave]

Usual Gladdys' lies then.

 

Good that they admit "the requested planning permission does not exist".

 

As for converting to PDF, simply use one of the free sites mentioned in the upload guide, such as  https://www.ilovepdf.com/

 

[Lazy farmer]

Thanks chaps, i'll take that along to court with me later this month

[lookinforinfo]

Looking at the contract straight away we see that there is a cross against the freeholder and yet the contract is apparently signed by managing agents although the name and signature of the signee has been redacted and there is no signature at all from UKCPM rendering the contract invalid.

 

Strict proof is required as to having a valid contract with confirmation that the managing agents have the authority to sign on behalf of the freeholder.

 

One wonders why the Defendant does not have authorisation to attend the car park as his vehicle regularly attends their to deliver goods.

 

Did you have authorisation?

 

I don't know if you have seen this

Parking ticket system suspended after BBC investigation

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

A "self-ticketing" parking charge operation is put on hold following a BBC investigation.

This is the whiter than white company. And not the first time there has been skulduggery with UKPC. Might call into question their timings on the ANPR cameras in your case...................

[dx100uk]

article from 1 April 2019

this SI was from 2022

dx

[Lazy farmer]

On 05/01/2023 at 03:01, lookinforinfo said:

Looking at the contract straight away we see that there is a cross against the freeholder and yet the contract is apparently signed by managing agents although the name and signature of the signee has been redacted and there is no signature at all from UKCPM rendering the contract invalid.

 

Strict proof is required as to having a valid contract with confirmation that the managing agents have the authority to sign on behalf of the freeholder.

 

One wonders why the Defendant does not have authorisation to attend the car park as his vehicle regularly attends their to deliver goods.

 

Did you have authorisation?

 

I don't know if you have seen this

Parking ticket system suspended after BBC investigation

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

A "self-ticketing" parking charge operation is put on hold following a BBC investigation.

This is the whiter than white company. And not the first time there has been skulduggery with UKPC. Might call into question their timings on the ANPR cameras in your case...................

Hi Lookinforinfo,

Nothing to do with deliveries, have you crossed from another thread?

[Lazy farmer]

Just had an email from Gladstones saying they are now going to have a representative in court.

Their Claimants Witness statement which included a notice of Non-attendance was 'sent in error with no disrespect intended to the court'.