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 issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

135

Comments

  • Here is a second draft, all suggestions inputted. Point 15 now has some snark in it. Please advise if it should be removed.




    IN THE xxx Civil And Family Justice Centre




    CLAIM NO: XXXXXXXX


    Link Parking Limited

    (CLAIMANT)

    -AND-


    Mr xxx

    (DEFENDANT)


    ____________________________________





    WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxx


    ____________________________________





    I am the defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the claimant may do, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

    In this witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.


    Exhibited to this Witness Statement are following documents upon which I wish to rely:


    (several bits of evidence here, including the beavis sign).

    1. On the material day in question, 6 November 2016, it is admitted that I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle when the parking charge was issued by Link Parking.

    2. The day the parking charge was issued was also the very first time I had ever entered/used this car park. Upon entering the car park, I noticed signage placed at various points around the car park, which I believed to be referring to purported terms and conditions for parking. It is not claimed, nor has it ever been claimed, that I did not see the signage.

    3. After exiting my vehicle, I walked across the car park to inspect one of these signs. I was immediately confused, as the signage explicitly states that in order to park here, one must be in possession of a permit, and be parked within the confines of a marked bay. (See Exhibit 1)

    4. I was confused because the "marked bays" alluded to by this sign was nowhere to be seen. At the time the parking charge was issued, the so-called car park was an undeveloped piece of waste ground, mostly comprised of gravel. (See Exhibit 2)

    5. As recently as 20 May 2017, this so-called car park is still undeveloped, with no marked bays in sight.

    6. Upon looking around the car park for the existence of these purported marked bays, I spotted another sign, mounted on the side of a decrepit-looking building. This sign looked visibly older (scuffed, dusty, dirty, etc) which piqued my interest. (See Exhibit 4)

    7. I went over to inspect this sign. I was then further confused, as it was evident that this sign was different from the first one that I had studied. This older sign stated clearly that one would be allowed to park here, if one purchased a pay and display ticket. (See Exhibit 5)

    8. Upon learning of this information, I looked around the car park for the implied pay and display infrastructure, such as a ticket machine. Yet no such provision for pay-and-display existed. (See Exhibits 2, 3 and 6)

    9. This deepened my confusion. It was evident that there were two sets of terms and conditions at this car park. One insisted on parking within the confines of marked bays that didn't exist, while the other implied the availability of a pay and display system, which also didn't exist. There was also no indication as to which set of terms and conditions was to take precedence.

    10. At this point I decided to enquire with my friend, Mr John X, who I was visiting on the day in question. Mr X was, at the time, a tenant of one of the flats to which this car park appeared to serve.

    11. Upon entering Mr X's flat I made enquiries regarding the management of the top part to which he was unable to answer. However a mutual friend, Mr Jerry Y, who was also visiting on that day, confidently stated that the nonexistence of the bay markings rendered the terms and conditions and unenforceable. (See witness statements for Mr X and Mr Y)

    12. I took this statement to be true in good faith, backed up by my own knowledge/confusion of the signage in the car park. Hence I left my car parked. Unfortunately, this resulted in a parking charge being issued by Link parking.

    13. As per the procedure laid out by the parking charge document (which was stuck to my car windscreen) I appealed to Link Parking via an email on 19 November 2016. (See Exhibit 7)

    14. I received a response to my appeal from Link Parking on 27 November 2016. My appeal was rejected, however I firmly believe that the particulars of my appeal were not considered or studied at all by Link Parking and the rejection email I received was a standard form rejection, simply stating that my vehicle was not showing a valid permit. (See Exhibit 8)



    15. I took no further action at this point as I genuinely believe the ambiguity of two different sets of signage and lack of marked bays at the site meant that there was no enforceable contract. I also believed that the so-called “operator” of this car park, Link Parking, were also aware of this deficiency in their signage, and would not pursue a charge on such a baseless claim. Nevertheless, I received a notice to keeper from Link Parking on 30 December 2016, And then a letter before claim from LPs solicitors, Gladstones solicitors, on 1 March 2017. (See Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10).

    16. The letter before claim offered me an opportunity to correspond with Gladstones Solicitors, to acknowledge receipt of the letter and to give an account of the circumstances which led to a parking charge being issued. I of course took this opportunity to explain why I owed nothing and responded to the letter before claim with in the stipulated time limit of 14 days. (See Exhibit 11)

    17. My response requested that Gladstone solicitors reply within 14 days. Gladstones Solicitors response took just over 4 weeks to arrive (arriving on 13 April 2017), breaching Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol requirements. The letter is a rejection of my claim that I owe nothing. (See Exhibit 12)

    18. Again, I believe that this letter (see Exhibit 12) is a standard form response by Gladstone solicitors, as there is no reference to any of the particulars I stipulated in my letter to them. For example, the letter from Gladstones states that their "client will reject any arguments that I did not see the sign". A rather redundant statement as my letter to them clearly states that I did see the sign(age) and that I would be not denying that any way (see Exhibit 11). I am therefore led to believe that my letter was not considered or studied in the slightest, and was in the claimant’s/Gladstones Solicitors eyes, merely worthy of an automatic response.

    19. As a result, I received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre, issued on 11 May 2017. The particulars of claim stated within are extremely lacking in detail, merely stating that I "incurred the parking charges on 06/11/2016 for breaching the terms of parking...". As I obviously required more detail in order to file a suitable defence I sent a part 18 request to Link Parking for further and better particulars on 24 May 2017. I also requested any documentation and relevant contracts between Link Parking and the landowner in order to establish LPs legitimacy issue parking charges. (See Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 14)



    20. This request was not responded to, and at the time of writing I have received no correspondence at all from Link Parking regarding this request.

    21. I believe that the circumstances and associated evidence shows that it is impossible for any user of the car park in question to meet the terms and conditions stipulated by either set of signage, namely it is impossible to park in a marked bay when such a marked bay does not exist. Therefore, any contract purported to exist by Link Parking does not.

    22. I also believe that Link Parking have shown themselves to be less than responsible for putting up signage outright implying the existence of a pay and display provision, and yet failing to provide such a provision (E.g. a ticket machine), or alternatively changing the sign to one that would better match the circumstances of the car park. A sign which Link Parking clearly have available seeing as that same signage is also installed at the car park in question.

    23. I believe the lacklustre responses (see points #14 and #18) I received to my appeal/correspondence to the claimant and their representatives, and the vague Particulars of Claim, shows that this entire affair is by design merely to scare me into paying an inflated parking charge.



    24. As a result of this entire affair, I have felt extremely anxious and rather upset that I should be pursued in this way by an organisation that doesn't even appear to read any correspondence I send. I have been given the impression that this affair will, regardless of any action I take, be concluded at a court hearing; a concept which gives me no small amount of stress, due to me never having set foot in a courthouse before and having no experience or knowledge of proper procedure. Or indeed, any legal matters whatsoever.

    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.




    Could I fit in Bargepole's frustration doctrine somewhere here?
  • This needs to go in tomorrow (will be handing in a copy to the court, and emailing a copy to gladstones). Just to confirm, the WS isn't where I cite cases, no? I can see other WS's and they appear to be citing cases.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,624
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Technically the WS is not where you cite cases/legal arguments, it's just the facts and all your evidence and exhibits you intend to rely upon (which does include the case transcripts mentioned in your defence).

    But it's only small claims and you are not expected to be an expert, just an honest witness Defendant.
    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 THREAD
  • Take a prepared and proofed list of your expenses to court including loss of earnings.

    Can I take it on the day? I read somewhere I have to serve it (to both sides or just the court?) 24 hours in advance.
  • Lamilad
    Lamilad Posts: 1,412
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Ideally you would file and serve it with your WS or SA but you can take it on the day.

    As CM says - this is small claims.
  • I'm having real trouble finding the transcripts for cases listed in my defence.

    Link Parking Ltd -v- Cowles - Chippenham County Court 24-11- 2015 ref B5GF95H3

    ParkingEye v Beavis - specifically the bit relating to minimum standard for signage

    The case number for this one:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/pcmuk-youve-been-gladstoned.html?m=1

    And theone involving Judge Anson at Preston.

    Do you think providing a copy of CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3 - 7.5 as an exhibit would be enough?
  • You shoudlnt need to, the court have access to law. You dont need to exhibit it, to my knowledge.
  • Lamilad
    Lamilad Posts: 1,412
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    As above you, technically, don't need to adduce anything that is law but, in my experience, judges are generally pleased when you do (easier for them).

    Bear in mind that, other cases are not necessarily "case law" unless the were heard in the higher courts, but they can still be persuasive (depending on the judge).

    Are you sure transcripts exist for the cases you've listed? Beavis certainly does but you don't need to adduce all of it - just the relevant bits.
  • No, I'm not sure. The one I'm really after is Link Parking v Cowles but the only info on that is a ParkingPrankster blog post. After searching for such a long time I don't think a transcript exists, which is a shame because it's the only case that comes somewhat close the circumstances in my case.

    You would have thought that cases with "no marked bays" would have come up before, bit I've had no luck finding any yet.

    Or maybe (hopefully) this is such a simple case that it can argued simply on the law, doctrine, etc and not require any "case law". I mean, I thought contracts were supposed to be these exquisitely crafted documents (or signs!) that were clear and unambiguous, not nonsense signs where half the terms and conditions are impossible to fulfill (because, again, no marked bays, no pay and display provision, two sets of signs, etc).

    For Beavis, I'm after the bit that, I think, marks the "Beavis" sign as the minimum acceptable standard (which the signs in my case definitely don't meet). I'll have to read the transcript again cos I didn't find it.
  • Called the court, Link's WS has been received. I haven't got anything yet but the order was for the WSs to be sent by the 14th of September, so it'll probably turn up soon.


    Can I get some help with drafting a skeleton argument? The only legal doctrine I'm aware of, that I could possibly rely on, is consensus ad idem (meeting of the minds), but I'll probably need more to convince the judge.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards