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

[RyanB96]

The latest, despite previously stating not to use email, I received an email from DCB Legal... (from a different email to the one I blocked too) 

 

Quote

Good afternoon

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

 

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

 

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.

 

If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

 

Kind Regards,  
 
Aaron Lomas 
 
DCB Legal Ltd  

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by RyanB96

[RyanB96]

Hi Honeybee,

 

I already sent them an email stating not to use email under any circumstance. I will send them a letter now too, and reply to this email again stating not to use email under any circumstance -

 

Is there any extra steps I can take? 

Is there any harm in also specifically stating the address to us for them to communicate via post? 

 

Thanks 

Edited May 4, 2023 by RyanB96

[RyanB96]

15-05-2023-Request to Settle.pdf

Latest from DCB Legal. 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by RyanB96
Further Redacting

[RyanB96]

In other threads I have read, defendants were issued a letter before claim, before the claim form came through, at which point it was time to send them a letter basically demonstrating I will give them grief.

With my case, for some reason they skipped that step.

Is it too late to send them that "stinking letter", or would now be a good time to? 

[RyanB96]

Hi, 

 

just an update - I have now received a proposed allocation to the small claims track. 
 

I’ve been reading some other posts and with particular interest to something @lookinforinfo said on this thread 

 

about loading/unloading then the parking begins…

when I infringed, I was taking a severely hungover/poorly friend to maccies to help sober them up.

It took them about 30 minutes to get out of the car for fear of throwing up if they moved.

Similarly, it took them awhile to move to get back in the car before leaving.

Would I be right in thinking I can use that to my advantage? 

finally, I misunderstood the previous comment, and reading other threads hasn’t cleared it up (there are so many!)

- is it too late to send a snotty letter since court proceedings have begun,

or is it still early enough for me to send a snotty letter that may make them think twice about paying the hearing fee? 
 

[RyanB96]

Hi, 

I have filled in the Small Claims Track Questionnaire as below: 

Mediation - No (Parking Claim) 

Small Claims - Yes

Suitability for determination without a hearing - Can I select yes to this? If I am giving a witness statement and a judge is deciding anyway this seems quite convenient? 

For nearest county court, I have used the gov website to search by postcode - I assume any "county court" is suitable so this one is fine? (This is nearest)  

Boston County Court and Family Court - Find a Court or Tribunal - GOV.UK

WWW.FIND-COURT-TRIBUNAL.SERVICE.GOV.UK

---

Boston County Court and Family Court - Find contact details, opening times, how to get to here, types of cases managed, disabled access to the building

 

Expert Evidence - No  

Witnesses - 1 (Me) 

I plan to send off today 

 

[RyanB96]

Okay - when getting to court, will I do any of the speaking myself such as reading out my witness statement or will a legal representative speak on my behalf? 

[RyanB96]

As mentioned before, I had 2 poorly mates in the car with me that needed food/water. One was particularly poorly - would it help my case if either of them were also witness? 

It is true to say I was more focused on getting in and parked as this person was likely to vomit, that I wasn't exactly looking for parking signs! But I'm not sure if that would go in my favour or against me. 

[RyanB96]

I will fight this in person then and I think you're right on the poorly friends - thats a stretch I guess.

What appropriate reasons can I give for it to "not" be suitable to be sorted without a hearing?

- since ultimately it could be

[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! 

[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

[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!! 

[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? 

 

[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? 

 

[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. 

[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.

 

 

[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. 

[RyanB96]

I've been having a look into the Wakefield mcdonalds for planning permission, and I found a search by property, so currently looking through these (

000SLGQQBU000 | Mcdonalds Restaurant Dewsbury Road Wakefield WF2 9BL

PLANNING.WAKEFIELD.GOV.UK

. Ive reached out to both friends again 

 

Well, I had a look through a lot of the McDonalds plans, drawings, cases etc. and I see nothing about UKPC or UKPC Signage. Likely because it doesn't exist right

 

1 hour ago, FTMDave said:

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.

Can this be something as simple as: 

Quote

 

1.  I, XXXXX am a Witness for 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 party to the vehicle during the infringement in this claim 

3. On 17th April 2022, the defendant drove me to McDonalds for food & liquid. I was feeling unwell and needed the hydration. I bought McDonalds goods at <TimeStamps> (Exhibit 1-Bank Statement)

Signature <Signature of Witness> 

 

 

[RyanB96]

17 hours ago, FTMDave said:

@lookinforinfo Thanks for the confirmation.

@RyanB96 Yes, that WS from your friend would be enough, it just needs the Statement of Truth and signature at the end.  Change "infringement" to "alleged infringement".

More in the morning.

Awesome, thank you. 

Quote

1.  I, XXXXX am a Witness for 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 party to the vehicle during the alleged infringement in this claim 

3. On 17th April 2022, the defendant drove me to McDonalds for food & liquid. I was feeling unwell and needed the hydration. I bought McDonalds goods at <TimeStamps> (Exhibit 1-Bank Statement)

Statement of Truth 

4. 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.

Signature <Signature of Witness> 

 

Will keep you posted on if I can get friend to get those timestamps! 

 

Hi - Happy new year!

It doesn't look like the friends will be coming through this time round. 

I am preparing the letters to send now, I've printed copies of the 4 Exhibits for both court & DCB Legal. Any final tweaks to the WS? If not, I will send first thing tomorrow 1st Class. Since this will likely arrive the day after rather than before the 4pm deadline, is it worth me also emailing it across? I have the email from discussing the lack of notice of hearing. 

Final draft: 

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

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.

NO KEEPER LIABILITY

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.

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. 

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

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.

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.

I have left the section 44 quote in, but I don't necessarily need it as you have suggested Dave, but I figured it can't necessarily hurt, and I have space for it, so have left it in - wrong decision? 

Edited January 1 by RyanB96

[RyanB96]

Perfect, all done! Sending now! 

 

Thank you so much for all of the help so far!! 

[RyanB96]

I will do! 

[RyanB96]

Hi all, 

I have just received this email from the county court as a response to me sending the WS to them: 

 

Quote

 

Good morning

The court has now received a notice of discontinuance from the Claimant, which should have also been sent to yourself. The court will not be taking any further action in this matter.

Kind regards

Alison Honour

Admin Officer

Enforcement Team | HMCTS | County Court at Lincoln | Lincoln | LN5 7PS

 

 

If I understand this correctly, UKPC / DCB Legal cancelled the claim, and its done and dusted? 

Given the WS letter was received 22 Dec (Friday), 23/24 (weekend), 25/26 (Bank Holiday), 27/28/29 (Working days), 30/31 (weekend), 1 (Bank Holiday) ... Presumably, the Judge giving only 3 working days to compile the WS and even then, they were over the Christmas period meant that they did not have enough time to do their own WS, so backed off? 

 

[RyanB96]

Amazing!!

Thank you so much for everyone's help and particularly Dave for all the hours spent helping me on that Witness Statement!! Awesome! 

A Happy New Year indeed!