Premier/BW ANPR PCN claimform - Overstay - Lldl & PureGym 20 Castle Bridge Rd Notts NG7 IGX - Help with WS ***Claim Dismissed****

[FTMDave]

OK, thanks for clarifying.  Apologies for sending comments in dribs & drabs but I'm writing in breaks from work.  I think I've gone through everything.  See what the other regulars say now.  However, new 5.4 & 5.5 -

 

5.4  Nowhere in the contract supplied by the Claimant are they given authority to bring claims under their own name.  In fact the exact opposite is stated in point 21 "legal action to recover any unpaid parking charges on behalf of the Operator and/or the Managing Agent".  This claim is not on behalf of the Operator or the Managing Agent.  The Claimant seeks to put the cash in their own pocket.

 

5.5  The contract also allows free parking up to three hours.  Both parties agree that the Defendant did not stay longer than three hours.

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[goofa316]

hey no worries, i really appreciate the help and advise. I have attached the amended WS (highlighted in red the changes and additions)

witness-puregym-v5.pdf

[brassnecked]

looking good really drives home the confusion inherent  within their witness statement as to the actual permitted time allowed, shot in foot springs to mind, the Contract also is fatal to their case if it's 3 hours and they quietly dropped it to two unilaterally.  they wasted enough time on a convoluted word salad  more than once within the WS to annoy a judge with their diatribe aimed at MSE as well.

[FTMDave]

Great work.  Well done.

 

I notice now in their "Skeleton Argument" (what that?) that, for the first time, solicitors representing a PPC have mentioned the suspension of the government's CoP.  I think we need to counter this.  New 2.14 below (so current 2.14 & 2.15 become 2.15 & 2.16) -

 

2.14  The Claimant's legal representatives in their "Skeleton Argument" point 22 mention "recent successful challenges" in June against the government Code of Practice.  If these challenges had not been made I am sure the Claimant's representatives would have acted as if the CoP didn't exist.  As far as I know the challenges have not been "successful" but are ongoing.  However, the Claimant's representative is right to state that the two challenges refer to "the reduction of the parking charge amounts and debt recovery costs".  The government CoP guidelines as to signage are not under legal challenge.

[brassnecked]

yes belt and braces on that, the £60 has still been ruled unreasonable in other cases where POFA not satisfied as it cannot be added to the claim against a keeper, the phishing for liability with Driver or keeper has to be one or the other if Keeper only original PCN can be claimed. comes under abuse of process.  The skeleton argument seeks to persuade the court to dismiss the defence on the ground its a Cut & paste from MSE,  so its best now to firm up their fatal flaws in the signage.  I'm sure LFI and FTMDave will have some other suggestions.

 

In effect the Skeleton is a plea to dismiss a Litigant In Person as being unworthy of an audience with the Judge to plead their case.

[lookinforinfo]

If I could add a few thoughts.  

Point 23 of their WS

The parking companies are constantly complaining about motorists use of the internet. They do so partly because where else can they get information and partly because the lies, half truths, perjury,  misdirection and law breaking carried on by most of the major parking companies.

Moreover how did the paralegal gain her knowledge other than by reading on the subject.  By reading information that was previously unknown is how you gain knowledge.

 

You only have to look  at the Claimants WS to observe some of the above failings.

For instance they say they can pursue me as the keeper.  If I hadn't learned about the  Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 I would have believed that. However I have found that the PCN is non compliant in at least two ways. The first way s that they  do not say who the Creditor is. The second one and more important is they have not specified the parking Period as required in Sch 4 s9 [2][a]. They have instead used the ANPR arrival and leaving times and make no mention of the period of parking which is obviously not the same as ANPR times.

 

I also would not have known about the debt recovery costs  which are unlawful under PoFA 2012 and the new CoP.  Under PoFA  Sch 4 s9 [d][1] "the total amount specified in the Notice". In the preamble to the CoP the Government Minister explains that the debt recovery costs are "a rip off"   CoP  2.24 parking period  "This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."  Nothing could be clearer yet we still have the parking rogues deliberately misleading the Courts that these unlawful charges are still to be included in the amount owed.  It matters not that the Act is under suspension it is quite clear for PoFA as well that only £100 can be charged. Without access to the internet many motorists actually pay those added amounts. And I am the one being accused of unreasonable behaviour.

 

The paralegal goes on about the maximum staying time of two hours. More misdirection as motorists are entitled to ten minutes Consideration time at the beginning of parking to read the T&Cs and a further five minutes at the end of the parking period. This is why we need the help of the internet to overcome the lies and deceit from many parking companies.

 

Lastly we move on to the fact that the signage at the entrance is insufficient to offer a contractual agreement rather there is an offer to treat especially as on the welcome notice there is no mention of the £100 cost if there is a breach of their rules. 

You will notice that there are at least two different signs in the car park. One states two hoyrs and the other three hours which is the one that the defendant chose. 

 

Premier are the ones guilty of unreasonable behaviour They have gone to Court breached the Defendants GDPR and still haven't managed to produce planning permission for the ANPR cameras nor their signs which is illegal but have the effrontery to claim that the defendant is being unreasonable! If ever there was a case of a need for exemplary costs against a Claimant this is surely it.

 

I am rather bemused by their contract. It comes at the beginning of the contract-page 2 I think but then adds further pages [with page 7 missing] where many of the T&Cs are included. Did the landowners stand in  agree to them or  did they just agree to page 1? It is an invalid contract partly for that reason but also because the signatories have not been identified nor even the company name .

 

One has to wonder at the level of comprehension of Premier and BWLS  when neither company can present a Sign to the Court that quite clearly says three hours parking then take a motorist for parking less than that time. They then further embarrass themselves by referring to the "new" CoP as a draft which has not been implement [sic] and will not come into force until 2024. The Act was passed on 7th February 2022 and this was part of the preamble-

"There will be an implementation period to allow parking operators to align with the requirements of the Code before it comes into effect. Operators will be expected to fully adhere to the new Code by the end of 2023, by which time we expect the new single appeals service to be operational."

 

No surprise that companies who do not know that their car park has a three hour stipulation are unaware that they should be complying with the new Act as far as they can rather than leaving it till the end of 2023. However Judges will have read the Act and understand it. They will expect that exhortations that extra charges cannot be levied apply now not next year. They have to observe the Law even if parking companies and their quasi legal assistants do not. The fact that the Act has been temporarily suspended does not mean that the parking rogues can turn a blind eye to it unless they want to  challenge the Courts and run the risk of being unable to obtain DVLA data. 

 

Still no sign of planning permission for the ANPR cameras and signs making them illegal [not unlawful] so neither the signs nor the cameras should be there. CoP s14 [g] "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs".

Perhaps it would be advantageous for DCBL paralegals to read a bit more on the internet rather than being guided by your principal as it will be you who would be found guilty of perjury as you signed the document .

 

 

 

 

 

Fortunately for Premier the contract does not state that it is bound by the Laws of England otherwise it would be in conflict with the discredited BPA and their Code of Practice.

 

You may have to add a supplemental WS but see what the others say.

 

[goofa316]

thanks again, I have added a supplemental bit at the end, section 7 is that ok ? The WS is due by 1600 today. Anything else I need before I email the courts and post this out to the fleecers ?

witness-puregym-v6.pdf

[FTMDave]

Hang on a minute.  LFI was quite rightly putting the boot into the PPC's disgraceful conduct but I don't know if he intended everything to go into the WS.

 

A lot of what you've written repeats points already made.  I think it would be better cut down and will, if I can, try to pop in at lunch time.

 

"Supplemental Witness Statement" has a specific meaning, it's a second WS sent to the court with new information.

Edited July 15, 2022 by FTMDave
Pressed "Send" by mistake

[brassnecked]

Its the even worse BW legal, LFI not the egregious DCBL this time

 

Looking at the supplemental Info section change Claimants Defence to Skeleton Argument on Behalf of the Claimant . asnd maybe potential perjury, or delete that bit  for "or other  attempts to mislead the court".

 

And at 7.10 change DCBL to BW Legal.

 

Otherwise looks good, FTMDave and LFI just need to have a look,  suggest some final tweaks and proof read for any spelling etc and it  will be good to go,

[goofa316]

tried to tidy it up a little, let me know what you think

witness-puregym-v7.pdf

[FTMDave]

You haven't used the offending phrase "Supplemental Witness Statement" so the title can stay.  However, i would massively cut it down -

 

Supplemental Information

7.1  In the Claimant's Witness Statement author's para 23 she complains about cutting and pasting from  the internet, as if a Litigant-in-Person is unworthy of an audience with the judge to plead their case.  I wonder how she gained her knowledge other than by reading on the subject.  If I hadn't leant about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 I would have believed that the Claimant could mix up "driver" and "keeper"; I wouldn't have known that the PCN is non-compliant in two ways;  had I not researched the government Code of Practice set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 I wouldn't have known that motorists are entitled to ten minutes consideration time at the beginning of parking to read the Terms & Conditions and a further five minutes at the end of the parking period; I also would not have known about the debt recovery costs which are unlawful under both these pieces of legislation.  Without access to the internet many motorists actually pay those added amounts.  And I am the one being accused of unreasonable behaviour!

[goofa316]

thanks... amended and attached, 

witness-puregym-v8.pdf

we good to go ?

[honeybee13]

Paragraph 7.1 line 3, is that meant to be 'learnt' and not 'leant', Dave?

 

HB

[FTMDave]

Well spotted HB!

[honeybee13]

 

[FTMDave]

Don't put "Supplemental Witness Statement"!!!  Your original title "Supplemental Information" was fine.

Edited July 15, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[goofa316]

ok, amended with the correct spelling and title,  we good to post ?

[brassnecked]

Looks good, but isn't it "learned rather than learnt?

[goofa316]

ah yes it is  thanks

[honeybee13]

It seems to be both these days, BN. I don't particularly like learnt but I'm reading it a lot in the press.

[AndyOrch]

Both versions of the word are actually correct and widely used in the English-speaking world, but there is one small difference between the two words. ‘Learned’ is the preferred way of spelling in the US and Canada, while ‘learnt’ is favored in British English.

[honeybee13]

Very erudite, Andyorch.   I assumed it was the other way round and learnt was American.

[FTMDave]

"To learn" is both a regular and irregular verb, so both forms are fine.  I know this, it's my job

[FTMDave]

Yes Goofa, good to go, e-mail the court theirs, put the claim number and the names of the parties in the subject line, request receipt.

 

Post the fleecers theirs, get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

[brassnecked]

Yes Do Not Email to the fleecer's. Snail mail with free proof of posting is fine.