UKPCL ANPR PCN claimform - overstay - MCDONALDS· WAKEFIELD 2 569, DEWSBURY ROAD WAKEFIELD WF2 9BY ***Claim Discontinued***

[honeybee13]

The only legal rep would be if you hired one but you shouldn't need to. 

I don't think you have to read your WS as they will already have it, hopefully someone will confirm. 

The hearing is informal, just you, the judge and any legal rep PE might have sent. You could be asked questions and you may have your own for the other side  which we can help with. 

HB

[RyanB96]

Thanks Andy & Hb. 

 

For the reason for "no I want a hearing in person" I saw DX comment on another thread 

Suitability for determination without a hearing? no (that the issues are so complex they need to be argued orally')

That was also for an ANPR PCN - I used this same comment. 

 

For the "in the" box at the top of the page - what should go in there? There is no explanation for it, and I can't find anything on it. I assume it should be self explanatory but it definitely is not! 

[AndyOrch]

11 minutes ago, RyanB96 said:

For the "in the" box at the top of the page - what should go in there? There is no explanation for it, and I can't find anything on it. I assume it should be self explanatory but it definitely is not! 

Your named local county court as per your DQ (E1)

[dx100uk]

unless you employ a sols no and thats a total WASTE of money

you seriously need to read up!! pcn claimform threads...1000's here.

a mate acting as your legal rep or more correctly, lay rep, cannot speak for you no.

dx

[BankFodder]

Open

[RyanB96]

Hi, 

Received the notice of court hearing through the post today (2 days before Christmas, nice). 

Step 5. on the "back" PDF states "The time, date and venue of the hearing are set out in the Hearing Notice which accompanies this Order" - am I missing something?

There is no time/date of any hearing in this letter.

The only thing that came with this one is the "Instructions in Small Claims Track cases" (a general document).

Given I've had nothing for months, demanding I send a witness statement before 2nd January for a letter received 29th December, dated 22nd December, over the Xmas and New Year period, seems incredibly and deliberately harsh?

Is that really just coincidence? 

N157.pdf

[AndyOrch]

You will have to ring them Ryan inform there is no notice of hearing attached.

[FTMDave]

Is this harsh?  Yes.  But you're stuck with it.  It's a court order.  The courts are understaffed and overworked and things being done late is unfortunately par for the course.

You need to get on with your WS.  Surely you have a vague idea already after all these months.

I see Andy has beaten me to it!  They have forgotten to send the Notice of Hearing.  If you can ring Boston County Court now.

 

[RyanB96]

Hi Andy, 

I was on the phone (or trying) - as you sent this.

Finally, I have spoken to someone, who said the reason it was not attached is because the hearing date has not been decided yet, the notice of hearing not issued and she apologises for the confusing wording in the notification of allocation to small claims track. 

I am away in January; she provided me with an email and stated I should email in letting them know I wouldn't be able to attend a hearing in January if that was the day decided, I have done just that too. 

@FTMDave Indeed. I haven't started it yet, because I didn't want to get bogged down in research and effort on it, then it be struck out if the hearing fee wasn't paid anyway, or forget all of my research on the matter come the time of the hearing if they are months apart.

There still seems to be a question mark over whether the hearing fee has been paid given the notification of allocation to small track Step 6 mentions "The claimant must pay the hearing fee" - suggests it has not yet been done?

Now that things seem to be moving, I will spend some time on the WS ASAP  

Thank you both, and happy holidays!! 

[AndyOrch]

44 minutes ago, RyanB96 said:

who said the reason it was not attached is because the hearing date has not been decided yet,

Ah yes I thought that may be the case Ryan and all the best to you and yours

 

 

.

[RyanB96]

Hi

I have been reading up the past couple of days on WS's and found some useful threads.

I am very much a math-guy, and writing, understanding this stuff is not my strong suit, but here is my first draft (note, I have taken many bits from other witness statements I have seen too, I think they make sense to include) 

It seems usually by the time of writing the WS, I should have already received the WS from DCB Legal?

I have not received this. 

I know a few people previously have messaged inboxes due to embarrassment posting these, but what the hell!

 Please advise your thoughts and rip me as needed. 

 

Witness Statement of XXXXX

Introduction

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

2.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle: XXXXXX

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

4.  The claimant has failed to show a cause for action by NOT supplying documents requested in a CPR 31.14 request for documents and state that you think the claim should be summarily dismissed under CPR 16.4(4) (Unsure if this applies, they responded to the request with pictures of signs, copy of PCN, but no contract between UKPC & McDonalds or planning permission for signage) 

5. Background
Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 22nd April 2022 (Exhibit 1) following the vehicle being parked at McDonalds - Wakefield 2 - 569, WF2 9BY on 17th April 2022 which is 5 days after the contravention. The car park in question was almost empty and being used for the sole purpose of purchasing McDonalds goods. We overstayed as two friends were not feeling well, so continued to stay in McDonalds until they felt better, frequently purchasing McDonalds goods. (Is it worth adding the personal touch here, or deleting everything after "contravention"?) 

6. Contract
6.1.  No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives UK Parking Control Ltd a right to bring claims in their own name, no contract has been produced after my CPR request (Exhibit 2). A picture of a sign (Exhibit 3) stating they are acting on behalf of McDonalds is not the same as producing a contract.
 
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) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44. (

Companies Act 2006

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

---

An Act to reform company law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to companies; to make other provision relating to companies and other forms of business organisation; to make...

6.2 The PCN document sent by DCB Legal following the defendants CPR request, clearly states the arrival time of the vehicle, and the departure time of the vehicle. It does not take into account relative delays of the McDonalds site e.g. drive thru, parking, deliveries, traffic. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof the car was specifically parked for longer than the allowed duration.

7. Illegal Conduct - No Contract Formed

7.1. At the time of writing the claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself, and has provided no Witness Statement with evidence. 

7.2 The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is McDonalds) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 
The Claimant has produced no Witness Statement. 

7.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  (In another thread, this was "Town and Country Planning Act 1990 -> Is 2007 the correct one (I referred 2007 in my CPR31.14) 
7.4 Due to the failure to produce the documents in the 14-day duration following my CPR 31.14 Request dated 31/03/2023, I do not believe the claimant possesses these documents 

8. Unfair PCN
8.1. The PCN provided as part of the claim does not establish the duration in which the defendant was parked, only the arrival time of entering the site, and the departure time. 

8.2 The PCN provided as part of the claim does not establish clearly, and explicitly, what the defendant was being charged for. It is titled "Parking" Charge, and refers to staying for longer than duration allowed, this is confusing. This de facto removes any chance for the defendant to appeal as there is no clear, explicit explanation for the charge. 

8.3 The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC and never sent me a Letter Before Claim. 

8.4 It is unreasonable to delay litigation for so long to claim over a year additional in interest. 

8.5 I did not see the signage at the time, and was not aware of any parking restrictions on the McDonalds car park. The car park was being used as per its proper purpose.

8.6 The Claimant has not provided evidence the signage was in place at the time of the infringement. 

9. Double Recovery:

9.1.   As well as the original £100 parking charge and £85 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £82.24

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

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

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

9.5.   Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters.

Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.2 I am in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 2 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks' worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle. 

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

1. Should I mention anything relating to bullying tactics, using multiple brands to threaten, using key words like "Bailiff" to cause intimidation etc.?
2. Should I mention that even after my initial request to not use email, they responded to my 31.14 request by email anyway (I then requested, again, and wrote to them a second time to not use email - note they have not emailed since)?
3. Is there anything immediately obvious to add / remove? How does it look overall? 
4. Do I need to insert any sections of any further relevant law?
5. Should I mention anything specifically related to this point from my defence: 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. 

 

The "Evidence" Exhibits 

1. The PCN letter

2. My CPR 31.14 Request Letter to DCB Legal 

3. The Picture of the signage they sent in response to 31.14

Should I add any more? 

 

[FTMDave]

That's my evening activity sorted then!

[dx100uk]

you dont have to keep using @(member) 

anyone that posted on your thread automatically gets notification someone else has posted..like you do.

 

 

 

[RyanB96]

Something I haven't included, but that I do have, is transaction IDs: 

3 purchases: 

- 09:34:32

- 09:35:14

- 10:10:57 

 

I know my two friends also bought more food later on, and just before we left, but I'm not sure I could persuade them to dig deep enough to get those transaction ID timestamps. 

Are these useful at all? 

 

[FTMDave]

Firstly, to answer your questions.

All the bully boy tactics, refusing to stop using e-mail, etc., means they are arrogant, nasty pieces of work, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether you entered a contract with them that day and agreed to pay them £100.  So forget this peripheral stuff.  In fact judges appreciate concise arguments.

I don't want to knacker what you've prepared so there is another version below with answers to your points or my own suggested changes in blue.

I think your big problem is going to be that 50 minutes is a long time to overstay.  Anything that justifies that is extremely important.

You mention your friends were ill and at the start of the thread mention they were hungover.  is there any way that could be claimed as a medical emergency?  I ask as there is a legal term called Frustration of Contract which means it was impossible to respect the contract.  For example, if a car breaks down it's obviously going to stay longer than the 90 minutes but that is not the motorist's fault.

Any proof of the continual purchase of food would be good too as there is another concept of an Unfair Term.  If the signs state they are allowed to burn your house down if you stay longer than 30 seconds it is an Unfair Term as it is impossible to order & eat a meal in 30 seconds.  Ninety minutes might be fine for most customers but might be unfair for someone continually adding to the initial order.  I doubt a kid's birthday party has got be over & done with in 90 minutes for example.

 

Witness Statement of XXXXX

INTRODUCTION

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

2.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle: XXXXXX

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

4.  The claimant has failed to show a cause for action by NOT supplying documents requested in a CPR 31.14 request for documents and state that you think the claim should be summarily dismissed under CPR 16.4(4) (Unsure if this applies, they responded to the request with pictures of signs, copy of PCN, but no contract between UKPC & McDonalds or planning permission for signage)   No need for this para, you make those arguments later on

BACKGROUND

Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 22nd April 2022 (Exhibit 1) following the vehicle being parked at McDonalds - Wakefield 2 - 569, WF2 9BY on 17th April 2022 which is 5 days after the contravention. The car park in question was almost empty and being used for the sole purpose of purchasing McDonalds goods. The driver "overstayed" as two friends were not feeling well, so continued to stay in McDonalds until they felt better, frequently purchasing McDonalds goods. (Is it worth adding the personal touch here, or deleting everything after "contravention"?)  I reckon it's fine as is, you're giving good reasons for the "overstay".

LOCUS STANDI

6.1.  No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives UK Parking Control Ltd a right to bring claims in their own name, no contract has been produced after my CPR request (Exhibit 2). A picture of a sign (Exhibit 3) stating they are acting on behalf of McDonalds is not the same as producing a contract.
 
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) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44. (  If you want to quote the Act you need to do so, not include a link.

Companies Act 2006

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

---

An Act to reform company law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to companies; to make other provision relating to companies and other forms of business organisation; to make...

NO KEEPER LIABILITY

6.2 The PCN document sent by DCB Legal following the defendants CPR request, clearly states the arrival time of the vehicle, and the departure time of the vehicle. It does not take into account relative delays of the McDonalds site e.g. drive thru, parking, deliveries, traffic. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof the car was specifically parked for longer than the allowed duration.

You need to add LFI's comments here about them not respecting POFA.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

7.1. At the time of writing the claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself, and has provided no Witness Statement with evidence. 

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

The Claimant has produced no Witness Statement. 

7.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  (In another thread, this was "Town and Country Planning Act 1990 -> Is 2007 the correct one (I referred 2007 in my CPR31.14)  Not sure, see what the others say.

7.4 Due to the failure to produce the documents in the 14-day duration following my CPR 31.14 Request dated 31/03/2023, or at all, I do not believe the claimant possesses these documents 

UNFAIR PCN

I would remove lots, if not the whole of this section.  The PCN does mention 90 minutes' maximum, there was a chance to appeal, etc. 

However, Andyorch's suggestion about PAPLOC does need to go somewhere:

The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPLOC (Pre-Action Protocol).  They failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPLOC changes of the 1st October 2017.  It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPLOC.

8.1. The PCN provided as part of the claim does not establish the duration in which the defendant was parked, only the arrival time of entering the site, and the departure time. 

8.2 The PCN provided as part of the claim does not establish clearly, and explicitly, what the defendant was being charged for. It is titled "Parking" Charge, and refers to staying for longer than duration allowed, this is confusing. This de facto removes any chance for the defendant to appeal as there is no clear, explicit explanation for the charge. 

8.3 The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC and never sent me a Letter Before Claim. 

8.4 It is unreasonable to delay litigation for so long to claim over a year additional in interest. 

8.5 I did not see the signage at the time, and was not aware of any parking restrictions on the McDonalds car park. The car park was being used as per its proper purpose.

8.6 The Claimant has not provided evidence the signage was in place at the time of the infringement. 

DOUBLE RECOVERY

9.1.   As well as the original £100 parking charge and £85 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £82.24

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

9.3   The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off".  This has to go, the bloodsucking companies are legally challenging this point.

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

9.5.   Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters.

Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio.

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

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

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

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

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

IN CONCLUSION

Whole section needs to go.  It has nothing to do with you breaching a contract with them or not.

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

10.2 I am in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 2 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks' worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle. 

Statement of Truth

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

Edited December 30, 2023 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

I've just noticed the deadline of 4pm on 2 January.  Damn, that is cutting it fine. 

I for one have an easy day tomorrow with a mighty one hour of work, so can help if you can do some work on the points mentioned.

No doubt your mates will, quite rightly, want to get back on the hangover bus tomorrow night, so if before the partying you can get them to dig out proof of purchase tomorrow and also write brief witness statements that they were ill that day all that would help.

[jk2054]

just fyi 9.6 has a small typo u may want to correct

[RyanB96]

Thank you so much for the time & effort you’ve put into helping me here! - I will get to reading all your comments now and making the changes. I’ve contacted the friends but I think it is very unlikely they will be able to find time, or want to. I’ll let you know how that goes. 

[FTMDave]

A few quick things.

1.  You're a Litigant-in-Person, fighting a large company, if your WS is 24 hours late the court won't bat an eyelid.  In fact it's likely your WS will get there before UKPC's.

2.  If you can get a signature from your friends then you can do the WSs yourself.  It'd only be a couple of paragraphs about being ill.

3.  The only other thing from them you need is a photo/scan/something of the bank statements with proof of purchase after 10:10:57.

46 minutes ago, RyanB96 said:

it is very unlikely they will be able to find time, or want to

Well that's disappointing given you were helping them during illness and have ended up in court as a result.

[lookinforinfo]

You could use the fact that your friends were unwell but as you could have driven off and drunk your coffee and eaten food off the premises. It will be pretty hard to say that you didn't see the entrance sign. Although as it did not contain all the T&Cs it was not capable of forming a contract it was just an invitation to treat.

You have done a fair amount of reading for your WS but I don't think you touched on the Parking period. In Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 . Under Section 9 [2][a] it states  

(2)The notice must—

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

There is no mention of the Period Of Parking at all on the PCN. They do mention the arrival and departure times but as that includes driving to the parking space and later leaving the parking space and going to the exit there is no parking involved there. On top of that as you went through the drive through section with slow service, queueing, etc you were also not parked then either. In addition there is a five minute Consideration period and a further 10 minute Grace period which are minimum times not rigid times you would not be too far off the actual parking period stipulated on the signs.

Then you could mention one of the passengers being unwell and no planning permission from the Council which tends to give 3 hours parking not the measly 90 minutes granted by UKPC in an obviously cash making rule.

Ok it was a bit of an exaggeration that you were not far out on the overstay but the lack of a Parking period means that the PCN does not comply with PoFA so they cannot transfer the charge fro the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable.

Further down POFA in Scheule4 S9 is[2][f] "

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;"

In their original PCN the words in brackets are not included which they must be .You should ask the question if they haven't included that, the parking Period and they haven't planning permission all things that they should have, why on earth are they taking me to court for overstaying for a short period.

 

In their POC they state they are pursuing the driver or the keeper. So they are taking me to Court when they don't know who was driving . I certainly didn't tell them and Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. So they can pursue me as the keeper because I am the keeper but they cannot claim I was the driver since they have absolutely no proof. So I am putting them to strict proof that I am the driver. As they cannot do that, it means that can only pursue me , the keeper as being liable. Indeed PoFA states that if the driver has not been identified within 28 days, the parking companies can pursue the keeper.

In this case though it has already been ascertained that the Keeper is not liable because UKPC have failed to comply with the Act. I therefore humbly ask the Judge to reject Appellants claim.

Sorry I got a bit carried away in the middle saying I when I should have said you.

 

If you really wanted to put the boot in you could say that you would have put them to strict proof that their times on the ANPR cameras were properly calibrated on that day then remembered that UKPC have been banned fro using the DVLA facilities when some 140,00o PCNs were cancelled because of falsifying evidence though the Site team may think that is a bridge too far.

 

[RyanB96]

Hi all, I've collated the above comments into the below, taking your improved version too Dave. 

Notes: 

Removed: 

 4.  The claimant has failed to show a cause for action by NOT supplying documents requested in a CPR 31.14 request for documents and state that you think the claim should be summarily dismissed under CPR 16.4(4) (Unsure if this applies, they responded to the request with pictures of signs, copy of PCN, but no contract between UKPC & McDonalds or planning permission for signage)   No need for this para, you make those arguments later on 

10.X Conclusion points. 

I did get confused with the PoFA regarding driver vs keeper liable, and how to structure that, comments in colour below 

Quote

 

Witness Statement of XXXXX

INTRODUCTION

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

2.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle: XXXXXX

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

BACKGROUND

Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 22nd April 2022 (Exhibit 1) following the vehicle being parked at McDonalds - Wakefield 2 - 569, WF2 9BY on 17th April 2022 which is 5 days after the contravention. The car park in question was almost empty and being used for the sole purpose of purchasing McDonalds goods. The driver "overstayed" as two friends were not feeling well, so continued to stay in McDonalds until they felt better, frequently purchasing McDonalds goods. 

LOCUS STANDI

4.1  No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives UK Parking Control Ltd a right to bring claims in their own name, no contract has been produced after my CPR request (Exhibit 2). A picture of a sign (Exhibit 3) stating they are acting on behalf of McDonalds is not the same as producing a contract.
 
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) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44. 

44 Execution of documents

(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a)by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

(4)A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

(5)In favour of a purchaser a document is deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed in accordance with subsection (2).

A “purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.

(6)Where a document is to be signed by a person on behalf of more than one company, it is not duly signed by that person for the purposes of this section unless he signs it separately in each capacity.

(7)References in this section to a document being (or purporting to be) signed by a director or secretary are to be read, in a case where that office is held by a firm, as references to its being (or purporting to be) signed by an individual authorised by the firm to sign on its behalf.

(8)This section applies to a document that is (or purports to be) executed by a company in the name of or on behalf of another person whether or not that person is also a company.

NO KEEPER LIABILITY

4.2 The PCN document sent by DCB Legal following the defendants CPR request, clearly states the arrival time of the vehicle, and the departure time of the vehicle. It does not take into account relative delays of the McDonalds site e.g. drive thru, parking, deliveries, traffic. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof the car was specifically parked for longer than the allowed duration.

4.3 The PCN does not mention or specify the period of parking at all, only the duration of the stay defined by arrival and departure times. The duration of the stay includes driving to a space, parking, leaving the space, slow service at e.g. the drive thru, delays by traffic and is not the same as specifically the period of parking. In addition, there is a five minute consideration period and a further 10 minute Grace period which are minimum times not rigid times. 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 . Under Section 9 [2][a] it states  

(2)The notice must—

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

4.4 The lack of a Parking period means that the PCN does not comply with PoFA. and so the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is liable. 

Schedule 4 of the PoFA, Section 9 [2][f] states: 

f. warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

4.5. The claimants POC states the claimant is pursuing the driver or the keeper. Therefore the claimant has no evidence who the driver is. The claimant can pursue the defendant only as the keeper, but cannot claim the defendant is the driver as they have absolutely no proof. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time. 

4.6 As the claimant cannot prove who was driving at the time, they can only pursue the defendant as the keeper as being liable. It has already been ascertained that the Keeper is not liable because UKPC have failed to comply with the Act. I therefore humbly ask the Judge to reject Appellants claim.

Hi LFI/Dave, I wasn't entirely sure on how to word, or structure LFI's comments regarding PoFA - does the above suffice? 

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

5.1. At the time of writing the claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself, and has provided no Witness Statement with evidence. 

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

The Claimant has produced no Witness Statement. 

5.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  (In another thread, this was "Town and Country Planning Act 1990 -> Is 2007 the correct one (I referred 2007 in my CPR31.14)  Not sure, see what the others say.

5.4 Due to the failure to produce the documents in the 14-day duration following my CPR 31.14 Request dated 31/03/2023, or at all, I do not believe the claimant possesses these documents 

UNFAIR PCN

6.1 The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPLOC (Pre-Action Protocol).  They failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPLOC changes of the 1st October 2017.  It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPLOC. (should the 7.1 be here? is "7.1 Paploc" the reference, or were you referring to my 7.1) 

6.2 It is unreasonable to delay litigation for so long to claim over a year additional in interest. 

6.3 The Claimant has not provided evidence the signage was in place at the time of the infringement. 

DOUBLE RECOVERY

7.1.   As well as the original £100 parking charge and £85 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £82.24

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

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

7.5.   Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters.

Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio.

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

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

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

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

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

IN CONCLUSION

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]

Again, not wanting to knacker your version, some tweaks are below.

I've added sections UNFAIR TERM and FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT but the sections will be weak if your friends don't cooperate.

LFI, is (10) correct re POFA?

 

Witness Statement of XXXXX

INTRODUCTION

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

2.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle: XXXXXX.

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

BACKGROUND

4.  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 22nd April 2022 (Exhibit 1) following the vehicle being parked at McDonald's - Wakefield 2 - 569, WF2 9BY on 17th April 2022 which is 5 days after the contravention. The car park in question was almost empty and being used for the sole purpose of purchasing McDonald's goods. The driver "overstayed" as two friends were not feeling well, so continued to stay in McDonald's until they felt better, frequently purchasing McDonald's goods. 

LOCUS STANDI

5  There is no Locus Standi.  I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives UK Parking Control Ltd a right to bring claims in their own name, no contract has been produced after my CPR request (Exhibit 2). A picture of a sign (Exhibit 3) stating they are acting on behalf of McDonald's is not the same as producing a contract.
 
6.  The 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) authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land.

According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44. 

44 Execution of documents

(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a)by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

(4)A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

(5)In favour of a purchaser a document is deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed in accordance with subsection (2).

A “purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.

(6)Where a document is to be signed by a person on behalf of more than one company, it is not duly signed by that person for the purposes of this section unless he signs it separately in each capacity.

(7)References in this section to a document being (or purporting to be) signed by a director or secretary are to be read, in a case where that office is held by a firm, as references to its being (or purporting to be) signed by an individual authorised by the firm to sign on its behalf.

(8)This section applies to a document that is (or purports to be) executed by a company in the name of or on behalf of another person whether or not that person is also a company.

Do you really need the quote from the Companies Act?  It is designed to show when a contract is rubbish.  But they haven't produced a rubbish contract.  They've produced no contract.

NO KEEPER LIABILITY

I've cut out the first paragraph here as it was repetitive.

7.  The PCN does not mention or specify the period of parking at all, only the duration of the stay defined by arrival and departure times. The duration of the stay includes driving to a space, parking, leaving the space, slow service at e.g. the drive thru, delays by traffic and is not the same as specifically the period of parking. In addition, there is a 5-minute consideration period and a further 10-minute grace period which are minimum times not rigid times. 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 . Under Section 9 [2][a] it states  

(2)The notice must—

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

8.  The lack of a Parking Period means that the PCN does not comply with PoFA. and so the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is liable.

9.  Schedule 4 of the PoFA, Section 9 [2][f] states: 

f. warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

10.  The Claimant's PCN does not include the words in Section 9 [2][f] ii and therefore cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

11. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim state that the Claimant is pursuing the driver or the keeper. Given that the Claimant has no evidence who the driver is, the Claimant can pursue the Defendant only as the keeper, but cannot claim the Defendant is the driver as they have absolutely no proof. In this matter, the Defendant puts it to the Claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time. 

12.  As the Claimant cannot prove who was driving at the time, they can only pursue the Defendant as the keeper as being liable. It has already been ascertained that the keeper is not liable because UKPC have failed to comply with the Act.

Well done with tackling the POFA argument so well!

UNFAIR TERM

13.  Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

14.  Ninety minutes is sufficient time to eat a normal meal in a fast-food restaurant.  It would not be sufficient time, say, in which to hold a child's birthday party (during which of course purchases would be made far exceeding a normal fast food meal).

15.  In this case one member of the the driver's party made purchases at 09:34:32, 09:35:14 and 10:10:57 (Exhibit 4).  Other members made further purchases up until around 11:50.  Not one member of the party ever left McDonald's or stayed in the restaurant after consuming food.

16.  It is an unfair term to expect customers who were consuming food for nearly two and a quarter hours to only stay for one and a half hours.  They would have to consume the food before it was prepared or ordered!

FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT

17.  The reason for purchasing so much food was that two of the party were feeling unwell and it was thought that by taking in nutrition and liquid it may have helped them feel better.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

18.   At the time of writing the claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself, and has provided no Witness Statement with evidence. 

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

20.  Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Acts 1990 and 2007.  Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under these Acts and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved. 

I've hedged our bets by putting both Acts.

21.  Due to the failure to produce the documents in the 14-day duration following my CPR 31.14 Request dated 31/03/2023, or at all, I do not believe the claimant possesses these documents 

ABUSE OF PROCESS

Irrelevant bits cut out here

22.  The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPLOC (Pre-Action Protocol).  They failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPLOC changes of the 1st October 2017.  It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPLOC.

23.  The Claimant has not respected the court deadline for filing and sending a Witness Statement.  I, as a lay person, have, despite having to compile the Statement during the Christmas period.  I respectfully request that the court disallow any Witness Statement by the Claimant which may be filed after the deadline.

DOUBLE RECOVERY

24.   As well as the original £100 parking charge and £85 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.

I think the figure is £70, the other stuff is interest which is allowed.

25.   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.

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

27.   Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

28.  It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters.

29.  Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio.

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

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

31.   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.

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

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

IN CONCLUSION

34.  I respectfully request that the Court dismiss this claim.

Statement of Truth

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

Edited December 31, 2023 by FTMDave
Typos galore

[RyanB96]

Hi Dave, thank you so much - that definitely reads nicer than mine!!

You are right about the figure being £70. 

The only thing I can see not in there is about referring to the council generally being 3 hours instead of 1.5 hours, but I'm not sure if that is worth adding, or how I might structure that professionally - do you think that would be worth adding in? 

 

I'm still working on the friends, but one I know is away and won't have time to ring the bank, the other hasnt come back to me yet. 

[FTMDave]

Watch out that I left in about a million typos until a couple of minutes ago, when I've corrected them!

The problem of the 3 hours is that it was just speculation by LFI, we don't really know.  You need to see if the Council has a portal to look at planning permission, and if so look up how long was granted by the Council.

[FTMDave]

Can your mate who is away not just look at their on-line bank statement for 22 April last year?

Plus if they simply send a photo of a signature you can easily knock up a Witness Statement with them saying they were unwell.  It would be two paragraphs.