IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Court Claim Form help please
Comments
-
I have printed all the previous cases that you referred to in your earlier post Coupon-mad. should i attach them as Exhibits or just take a copy to the hearing?
Everything - including medical evidence and case law and photos - as exhibits except (as bargepole pointed out) not statute law, so not the EA. But take that with you and know it inside out, because the Judge will likely not.
OK so mention that, and raise it at the hearing too.Also, the parking company has attached a 'Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement' which is supposed to be their contract with the landowner to operate on their premises??? But it's on the PC's headed paper and the weirdly, the signatory on behalf of the proprietor (and also the contractor) is just a scribbled signature and no name!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Also, you mention IPC code, but UKPCM are members of the BPA0
-
UKPCM are IPC AOS members:Also, you mention IPC code, but UKPCM are members of the BPA
https://theipc.info/aos-members/p
There is a similarly named BPA AOS member "UK Parking Control Ltd":
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Approved-Operators0 -
Aaah sorry I got confused- the PC is UKCPM.
They show the BPA logo on their signs but are members of the IPC. That is what confused me!0 -
SaveMeSomeMoney wrote: »Aaah sorry I got confused- the PC is UKCPM.
They show the BPA logo on their signs but are members of the IPC. That is what confused me!
The critical logo to check for in the context of a parking charge is the one enclosed in a roundel, not the oblong one.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Hi, here's how the WS looks like so far. I eagerly await any feedback before I sent it off tomorrow. Thank you so much
1. My name is xxxxxxx. I live at xxxx. I am the Defendant in this matter and litigant in person. I make this statement from my knowledge and personal experience.
2.I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.
3. The exhibits which I, as Defendant, intend to rely upon are as follows:
4. The facts of the case are as set out in my Statement of Defence, filed in response to the original claim and verified by a statement of truth. They do not bear further repetition here, but by this statement I now adduce evidence in order to prove my case. A copy of the statement of defence can be seen in Exhibitxxx.
5. My vehicle received a windscreen Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on xxx, PCN number xxx (Exhibit xxx). The vehicle was parked on a private road. The reason stated for the PCN was ‘No parking on Access Roads/Roadways’.
6. Exhibit??? shows the view of the sign from a car entering xxRoad (marked X on the plan). Being on the right hand side of the road and at a height, it is far from clear as to what the parking terms are when viewed from the driver’s point of view. Please refer the Parking sign in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to demonstrate clear signage capable of forming a contract.
7. I received a Formal Demand Notice dated xxx from the Claimant (Exhibit xxx) demanding a payment of £100.
8. I sent a letter dated xxx to the Claimant (Exhibit xxx) requesting landowner details and proof of their contract with the landowner.
9. I received a letter from the Claimant dated xxx (Exhibit xxx) rejecting my request for more information.
10. I received a letter from the Claimants debt recovery agents, xxx, dated xxx (Exhibit xxx) demanding payment of £xxx.
11. I received a letter from the Claimants debt recovery agents, xxx dated xxx (Exhibit xxx) demanding payment of £xxx.
12. I received a letter from Claimant’s solicitors, Gladstones Solicitors, dated xxx (Exhibit xxx) demanding payment of £xxx and threatening legal action.
13. I received a Letter Before Claim from Claimant’s solicitors, Gladstones Solicitors, dated xxx (Exhibit xxx) regarding the outstanding PCN, number xxx.
14. I sent a letter to Gladstones Solicitors dated xxx (Exhibit xxx) responding to their letter dated xxx (Exhibit xxx) with a request for further and better particulars. The request was designed to obtain the sort of information that should have been provided at the pre-action phase under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (Exhibit xxx), and which should have been contained in the Particulars of Claim - its purpose was so that I could understand the claim, try to narrow the issues, to take stock of my position and defend it appropriately. The failed to provide me with the information I requested.
15. I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors dated xxx (Exhibit xxx)
16. I am a renal patient and suffer from IgA Nephropathy which affects the kidneys. I was diagnosed in xxx (Exhibit xxx) and have only recently had a kidney transplant on xxx (Exhibits xxx).
17. Before my transplant I was undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) (Exhibit xxx) which is done either 4 times a day (CAPD - Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis) or overnight (Exhibit xxx explains what PD is)
18. On the day the PCN was issued, xxx, I was out with my family for the xxx Food and Drink Festival. It was time for me to do my dialysis fluid exchange (CAPD) and so we decided to go to a nearby restaurant where I could possibly dialyse and then have dinner with the family.
19. I drove into xxx road (where the PCN was issued) which was the closest road to where the festival was taking place and stopped my vehicle there so that we could go into the nearest restaurant there and check whether their toilets would be suitable enough for me to do my fluid exchange.
20. As soon I had made the necessary checks of the restaurant’s toilets, I returned to my vehicle to move it and saw the PCN on the windscreen (Exhibit xxx).
Equality Act 2010 Not Complied With
21. Regardless of the lack of a Blue Badge, at the time of the alleged contravention, my medical condition met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 (Exhibit xxx) and I was therefore entitled to ‘reasonable adjustments’ by law.
22. Under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) a public service provider, like the Claimant, has a ‘duty to make reasonable adjustments’ in certain circumstances (Section 29 (7) EqA 2010). Where a provision, criterion or practice of the service provider puts disabled persons generally at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, the service provider is required to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage (Section 20(3) and Schedule 2(2), EqA 2010).
The duty to make reasonable adjustments aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
When the duty arises, the service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent these obstacles.
23. The Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) Accredited Operator Scheme and has failed to comply with the ‘Reasonable Adjustments’ criteria of the EqA 2010 by not following the IPC’s Code of Practice General Terms regarding disabled motorists:
7 Disabled motorists
7.1 Under the Equality Act 2010 it is your duty to make “reasonable adjustments” to assist disabled people to use any services you provide. It is incumbent on operators to determine what is necessary on their individual sites. Adjustments could include lowered pay and display meters, lowered signage and wider parking bays marked specifically for disabled drivers.
24. According to the EqA 2010, the duty of the service provider to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ is ‘anticipatory’. This means that they cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance (and on an ongoing basis) about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need such as a mobility impairment, etc.
Mandatory Grace Periods Not Complied With
25. The PCN was issued for a 2 minute stay (Exhibit xxx). The Claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustments in allowing me, as a disabled motorist, even the normal grace period required under the IPC’s Code of Practice.
13 Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
26. In my case, the grace period should not only have made allowances for me to read the signs but also the ‘reasonable adjustment’ of checking that the restaurant where I was looking to dialyse and have a family dinner, had a toilet suitable enough for me to do a dialysis exchange. In order to quickly check the facilities, I had to park very near to the restaurant premises. I do not consider the time I was given (only 2 minutes) adequate time to find, read and assess the signage on site, particularly given my medical condition and disability and also the position of the signage on the road.
27. The Claimant has also failed to comply with the IPC’s Code Of Practice regarding using ‘predatory tactics’
14. Predatory Tactics
14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.
28. Given the timings involved (2 minutes), the balance of probability strongly suggests that the Claimant’s representative watched me park and leave my vehicle. There is anecdotal evidence of them doing exactly this. Not to warn me that leaving my vehicle would potentially incur a parking charge, in my opinion constitutes predatory tactics.
29. Chapter 5 of the Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice (Exhibit xxx) explains ‘indirect discrimination’ which may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts people sharing a protected characteristic ( such as disability) at a particular disadvantage.
30. The Claimant did not just fail to make a reasonable period of grace available on arrival, but did not take into account the possibility that any (unknown, but in fact disabled) motorist might just need a few minutes to decide whether to park there and stay, before leaping in with the predatory PCN within minutes. As already mentioned in Paragraph 24 of this Witness Statement, the service provider must take steps in advance to ensure that any arbitrary policies or practices do not place the disabled population 'at large' at a disadvantage.
No Contract Exists
31. I understand from the Claimant’s Witness Statement that their case relies upon the signage at the site (Exhibit ????) consulting a ‘contract’ between myself and the Claimant as per Parking Eye vs Beavis. The ‘breach of terms’ on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed ‘contract’ formed by this signage.
32. In ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’, on which the Claimant relies to justify this charge, it was found that a contract could exist because there was a meaningful ‘offer’ made to the Defendant (that of a licence allowing free parking for a set period of time) and that the Defendant’s agreeing not to overstay this period could constitute a ‘consideration’ in respect of this. The ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ judgement is littered with references to the disputed charge being justifiable only in the context of the ‘contractual licence to park’ being given to the Defendant, e.g. ‘They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there’.
33. The Supreme Court Judges in the Parking Eye vs Beavis case also said (at Paragraph 107) (Exhibit xxx) ''in our opinion the term imposing the £85 charge was not unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute''. But in this case, the imposition of a fine IS unfair and DOES breach 'general law or statute' that is the Equality Act 2010.
34.There is no such ‘offer’ made by the signage in this case, no ‘contractual licence’, no ‘benefit of free parking‘ and no conceivable way I could have benefitted from this alleged ‘contract’ without breaching its terms.
35. The parking contract in ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ case was judged to be ‘objectively reasonable’ partly because ‘motorists generally’ did accept it (Exhibit xxx) (Paragraph 108). The landowner wanted as many people as possible to use the car park in question so the contractual arrangements were designed to be attractive to the average motorist. This is the complete antithesis of the supposed ‘contract’ in this case which is designed to actively discourage motorists from parking at the site. The terms of this ‘contract’ are not ‘objectively reasonable’, but deliberately designed to be so heinous that no one in their right mind would agree to them. It follows that this is not a ‘contract’ but a prohibitory notice masquerading as such.
36. If the wording of the signage forbids parking, then there is no offer to park and therefore no contract. This is clear from several cases in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were ‘authorised’ to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not ‘authorised’ to park.
*In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016] (Exhibit xxx) , residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company. District Judge Glen at High Wycombe dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that:
“If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”
*In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
37. The IPC Code of Practice Section B.2.1, B.2.2 (Exhibit RN23) gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that must be used to form contracts. It says: ''It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge.''
38. I believe it is also relevant to note here the “Red Hand Rule”, as set out in the leading judgment in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3 (Exhibit xxx) which was an English contract law case on exclusion clauses and bailment. In his judgement Lord Justice Denning stated: “I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient”.
39. In the Parking Eye vs Beavis case (Exhibit xxx) the Supreme Court Judges reiterated the requirement for fair and open dealing, at paragraph 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”
40. The court must consider the fairness of a term, where it is not 'prominent and transparent’. At the roadway where the PCN was issued, it was not transparent that anyone was agreeing to some sort of contract to pay £100 to park under some sort of licence. In this case, the unfair terms include the penalty fine itself and also the added 'costs' bolted onto this claim from thin air which are unfair and breach Part 2 'Unfair Contract Terms' of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).
Unfair and additional costs
41. The original PCN (Exhibit RN7) posted by the Claimant states a charge of £100.00 (Discounted to £60.00 if paid within 14 days) however the Claimant's legal firm now inflates these sums, in a deliberate or negligent attempt at more than double recovery:
1. £160.00 Principal debt
2. Legal representative’s costs £50.00
3. Interest £13.30
4. Court fee £25.00
5. Outstanding balance to pay now £248.30
42. The charged claimed include £148.30 over and above the original ‘parking charge’. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimant’s somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a ‘contract’ into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.
43. The Particulars of Claim include £50 for ‘solicitors costs’ yet all I have received from the Claimant’s solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these ‘solicitors costs’ are justified.
Landowner Authority
44. Despite being asked, the Claimant has not provided any indication that they are authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have they authority to do this, and that the terms and conditions of parking they impose at the site are in line with what they have been authorised to do.
45. The ‘Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement’ that the Claimant has provided a copy of with their Witness Statement is on their own headed paper. The signatories for both The Proprietor of the relevant land and The Contractor (UKCPM) have not been named on the agreement - the signatures are redacted and no name is shown This appears to be a recent piece of paper run off by UKCPM and shows no evidence at all as to who purportedly signed on behalf of the ‘Proprietor’ in 2015.
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.0 -
28. leave out the words in my opinion.
They reduce the impact of the sentence... in my opinion.
0 -
I also really want to mention to the Judge the stress caused by all this and the time and effort that has gone into the defence of this stupid PCN. The wife has had to prepare all the paperwork, etc while at the same time looking after 3 young children and being my carer !0
-
Yes you can mention that too, no reason why not.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Numbering is a little inconsistent:13 Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards