Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 15th Jul 17, 8:24 PM
    • 27Posts
    • 5Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Court Claim Form help please
    • #1
    • 15th Jul 17, 8:24 PM
    Court Claim Form help please 15th Jul 17 at 8:24 PM
    Hi to everyone,
    I'm a newbie and need some help please. I have read the newbies thread but still need some advice specific to our case.
    The Registered Keeper received a parking ticket last year for parking in a retail park with a "No Parking On Roadways At Any Time" sign for 2 minutes. We did not pay the fine as we thought it was an extortionate amount for parking there for 2 minutes on a Sunday.
    We wrote to UK CPM once, after receiving a Final Demand and to Gladstones Solicitors once too upon receiving a Letter Before Claim from them. But they sent us Court Claim Papers asking for £248.30 in total costs.

    Basically, the driver parked there because she/he is a renal patient and was on PD at the time (a type of dialysis). the driver was due to do a dialysis exchange at that time and parked there so he could check if the restaurant nearby that they were due to have a family dinner in had a toilet suitable enough for him/her to do an exchange. So they all had just parked up and walked into the restaurant and when he/she came out to move the car after checking, there was a ticket on the windscreen.
    Because the driver was hoping to ignore the parking charge notice and hoped to not hear from the parking company again- he/she did not think it necessary to disclose their medical condition and the circumstances to the parking firm.
    So i just wanted to ask if we should state this in our defence as RK or if we can use any orher points in our defence.
    This has caused the RK so much unwanted stress - we just want this finished and over and done with. But we are not willing to pay a single penny to these daylight robbers
    Thank you for taking the time to help us out.
Page 2
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 12th Sep 17, 11:10 AM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Thank you for your response to my query Coupon-mad. I really appreciate it.

    I just wanted to ask if it would be possible to change the Court hearing date in case of an emergency? The Defendant is on the transplant register for a kidney and also has a possible donor so will hopefully receive his transplant within the next few months. so we just wondered if it would be possible to change the date of the hearing if we had to?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 2:20 PM
    • 1,483 Posts
    • 1,608 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    OK you need to be quicker at responding. 2 weeks is a LONG time!

    On your N180 state your reasons why you may need to request a new hearing. earlier you do it the better. then wehen you get a court hearing date from the allocated court, it could be worth ringing them directly and saying it again, so they are aware.

    You can only ask for a new hearing date, as I understand it, you cannot require it. However it would be odd of the court to deny such a request.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 1st Jan 18, 3:25 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Happy New Year everyone! Wish you all the best for the coming year.

    We now have a hearing date and we have to file our witness statement.
    The defence statement we sent is in one of the previous posts. We have received the Claimant's witness statement, etc. We'd really appreciate some help in writing ours based on our defence statement. (how can i post photos of the claimant's paperwork here?)

    I will be including the following documents with our witness statement:
    - Letter from defendant's hospital confirming his illness
    - document explaining what exactly Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) is
    -copy of credit card bill showing that we dined at the restaurant where the defendant went to do his PD
    - photographs of the location where the pcn was issued showing signage (they also show that the road is wide enough and our vehicle was not causing any obstruction)

    what else can we include please? thank you
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 1st Jan 18, 3:34 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    I also wanted to add that the defendant has since had his transplant and is currently recovering from the surgery. he had the transplant five days before christmas and our court hearing is in 18 days time! we're a bit worried about his appearance in court in such a condition so soon after his surgery.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 1st Jan 18, 4:03 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    thank you so much for your assistance and patience nosferatu 1001.
    I have added the other details as you suggested and the defence now looks like this:

    1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and when the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

    2. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver when the alleged incident took place.

    Background

    3. The Defendant suffers from IgA Nephropathy, a critical kidney disease. and was undergoing a type of dialysis called Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) at the time of the alleged incident. Peritoneal Dialysis involves fluid bag exchanges four times a day, every day (Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis, CAPD).

    4. The day of the alleged incident was a Sunday and the Defendant was out with his family. As it was time for him to do his scheduled fluid exchange, they decided to look for a restaurant where he could do the same and also where they could have dinner. So he parked up at the spot to quickly go and check whether the restaurant’s disabled toilet was suitable for him to do the fluid exchange.

    5. Having made the necessary enquiries, the Defendant returned to the vehicle to move it to a suitable parking spot but there was already a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the windscreen, issued within the few minutes he was gone.

    Preliminary Matters

    6. The Claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

    1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

    7. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

    8. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

    1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    (1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
    (2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    (3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

    9. On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

    Mandatory Grace Periods Not Complied With

    10. The PCN was issued for a 2 minute stay. The Claimant, who is the member of the British Parking Association (BPA), has failed to comply withe Claus 13 of the BPA’s Code Of Practice’s General Condition with regards to grace periods:

    13 Grace periods

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

    Equality Act 2010 Not Complied With

    11. The Claimant has failed to follow the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 which states:

    Progressive Conditions: A progressive condition is one that gets worse over time. People with progressive conditions can be classed as disabled.

    12. The Defendant does not have a blue badge but clearly has a medical problem which is a recognised disability under the Equality Act 2010. This therefore falls under the ‘reasonable adjustments’ criteria of the Act:

    16 Disabled motorists

    16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

    16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.

    13. The Claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustment in allowing disabled motorists even the normal grace period required under the ATA’s Code of Practice.

    No Contract Offered

    14. It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage. The signage on site (which is scattered and inadequate) states “No parking on roadways at any time” which is a prohibitive instruction, not a contractual offer of any parking licence. Hence, there was no breach of terms as there was no offer of parking and therefore there was no contract - it was at most a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied).

    15. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that under the circumstances explained in Points 5 and 6 above, a charge is unconscionable as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.

    No Obstruction Caused by the vehicle

    16. The Defendant would also like to provide photographic evidence to show that the roadway on which the PCN was issued is a wide roadway and the vehicle in question was not causing any obstruction to other traffic on the day of the incident.

    Proof of Contract not supplied by Claimant

    17. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same, in the form of an unreacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

    18. The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with details of the landowner even upon the Defendant’s written request. Hence, the Defendant has been unable to contact the landowners to explain the circumstances to them and to request a cancellation of the PCN.

    Double Recovery

    19. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £248.30. i submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; any additional charges were not stated on the parking signs and these figures have been plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. further, Gladstones Solicitor appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

    20. I require the Claimant to provide strict proof that these charges were
    a) detailed in the purported contract
    b) invoiced, and
    c) actually paid

    21. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
    Originally posted by SaveMeSomeMoney
    This was our defence statement.
    Since this was submitted, the defendant has acquired a Disabled Parking Badge - we weren't aware before that he would be eligible for one.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jan 18, 6:10 PM
    • 52,767 Posts
    • 66,291 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    He would have been eligible from the very point of diagnosis, and therefore was immediately a person who is considered to meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.

    And as such, regardless of lack of Blue Badge (an on-street Council scheme ONLY, routinely hijacked by PPCs as an excuse to issue more PCNs whilst paying lip service to the EA, and no more) the was at the time of parking, a person with protected characteristics who is entitled to 'reasonable adjustments' by law.

    You also need with the WS:

    - WS from the others who were with him, confirming they only took the time to read the signs while he checked there were toilets, then the car was moved.

    - printouts from the IPC Code that talk about making allowances for disability, or allowing time for disabled people to read the terms and decide whether to stay, which in his case meant not only reading the signs but also the 'reasonable adjustment' of checking that the place where the party were due to have a family dinner, had a toilet suitable enough for him to do an exchange (dialysis). To quickly check the facilities, he had to be very near to the premises.

    - printout from the IPC code about 'Grace Periods' before PCN enforcement.

    - printout from the IPC CoP about 'not using predatory tactics' (e.g. hiding then slapping a PCN on in 2 minutes flat).

    - printouts from the Equality Act 'duty to make reasonable adjustments' and steer yourself well away from talking about disabled bays. This is not about physical adjustments, it's about allowing a 'reasonable adjustment' of a short period of 2/3 minutes for a person on dialysis to decide whether to stay or go, at a site.

    - a printout from the 'EA Code of Practice for Service Providers' (which is not 'guidance' but is in fact statutory law - failure to follow it can mean a fine for service providers like PPCs!). Find it on the EHRC website or Google it then search the applicable EA CoP for information about INDIRECT discrimination, which is where a 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. i.e. You must have it clear to argue that a PPC (or any public-facing service provider) cannot use the excuse that they 'didn't KNOW because the car wasn't displaying a Blue Badge...waaaah...no-one told us he was on dialysis...poor us, we couldn't have known...' That's only an excuse for an allegation of DIRECT discrimination. This situation is not that, it's a failure to make a reasonable period of grace available on arrival, to allow for 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 predatory PCNs within minutes.

    - a printed version (from the Parking Prankster's case law) of the transcript of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016). It's a case about wholly forbidding signage (no contract offered to park) where 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.

    - and how about the “Red Hand Rule”, as set out in the leading judgment in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3, where Denning MR stated: “The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient”. I think that transcript is hosted on the BMPA website and if it's not, you can ask them for it.

    - Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which 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.'' Use their own CoP against them.

    - and how about a page from the ParkingEye v Beavis case, where 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.”

    - and the Supreme Court Judges in Beavis also said at 107 ''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' (The EA). So have those quotes printed out too.

    - Any court MUST consider the fairness of a term, where it is not 'prominent and transparent' (which is was not at this roadway, transparent that anyone was agreeing to some sort of contract to pay £100 to park under some sort of licence). Unfair terms here include the penalty fine itself and also the added 'costs' bolted onto this claim from thin air, are unfair and breach Part 2 'Unfair Contract Terms' of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA).

    Have this up your sleeve in a skeleton argument before the hearing:

    - The CRA was enacted after the Beavis case final hearing, and remains untested in the context of unfair parking penalty charges.

    - This legislation requires that key terms of a contract, including price, must be assessed for fairness by a court, where those terms are not both 'prominent and transparent' (which the Defendant avers they are not). Examples of terms that may be unfair under the Consumer Rights Act include: charges hidden in small print; added costs not specified prominently and clearly in the contract, and disproportionate default charges.

    - The CRA (at para 71 - have it printed out in case the Judge reckons he/she doesn't have to consider fairness) sets out the duty of court to consider fairness of a consumer contract term: ''(2) The court must consider whether the term is fair even if none of the parties to the proceedings has raised that issue or indicated that it intends to raise it''.

    - Say in your skeleton argument that the Court's attention is drawn to the CRA at SCHEDULE 2, a non-exhaustive list of 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair'.

    - Breach of the EA is of course, indisputably and inherently unfair - no question about it. But be clear on the argument that this is INdirect discrimination against 'the disabled population at large' (unfairness being proved by the predatory nature of this matter, and not under any lawful excuse mitigated by a PPC ''not knowing'' or ''not seeing any Blue Badge displayed'', both of which are simply not relevant when indirect discrimination against disabled patrons 'at large/in general' is concerned).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 01-01-2018 at 6:35 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 1st Jan 18, 8:13 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Thank you so much for taking time out and helping us Coupon-mad. I will draft the witness statement based on your excellent points and post it here very soon.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 2nd Jan 18, 10:08 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    In one of our letters to the parking company we mentioned the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 when asking for landowner details so that we could contact them directly to ask them to cancel the charge.
    What parts of that regulation should we attach as our exhibit please?
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 2nd Jan 18, 10:32 PM
    • 2,190 Posts
    • 6,329 Thanks
    bargepole
    In one of our letters to the parking company we mentioned the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 when asking for landowner details so that we could contact them directly to ask them to cancel the charge.
    What parts of that regulation should we attach as our exhibit please?
    Originally posted by SaveMeSomeMoney
    None of them.

    The argument that the signage does not comply with the CCR 2013 has been tried in a number of previous cases, and Judges have uniformly ruled that it has no relevance to a private parking scenario.

    Your WS should focus on relevant facts and arguments, and not include irrelevant waffle.

    Coupon-Mad's advice about including extracts of statute law is incorrect; you do not include statutory legislation as an exhibit in a WS, just the reference to it.

    By all means take along a printed copy to the hearing, just in case you get a Judge who can't be bothered to refer to it in his books or on the court computer system.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 30. Lost 9.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Jan 18, 11:42 PM
    • 52,767 Posts
    • 66,291 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    By all means take along a printed copy to the hearing, just in case you get a Judge who can't be bothered to refer to it in his books or on the court computer system.
    Yes, we've heard of such Judges!

    And (to the OP) you do need to understand the EA, because otherwise I can tell you for sure that any PPC would try the excuse I mentioned, that they 'didn't know' and 'couldn't have known' due to the lack of Blue Badge displayed.

    And a Judge might swallow that excuse, not knowing the difference between direct and indirect discrimination. One is where the service provider knows about the circumstances but the latter is NOT, but still imposes a clear general duty.

    So the Defendant will need to be able to point to the right parts of the statute, IMHO, and to the point about making allowances of time, as clearly mentioned in a paragraph about 'tours' in the Statutory CoP for Service Providers (I am not talking about the BPA or IPC CoP, I mean the one on the EHRC website, all about the EA).

    IMHO, no Judge will look that up and I doubt a Judge will know the difference between the 2 types of disability discrimination.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 02-01-2018 at 11:46 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 3rd Jan 18, 12:12 AM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Thank you bargepole and Coupon-mad.
    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?
    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!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jan 18, 12:13 AM
    • 52,767 Posts
    • 66,291 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    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.

    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!
    OK so mention that, and raise it at the hearing too.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 3rd Jan 18, 1:57 AM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Also, you mention IPC code, but UKPCM are members of the BPA
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 3rd Jan 18, 4:51 AM
    • 449 Posts
    • 473 Thanks
    claxtome
    Also, you mention IPC code, but UKPCM are members of the BPA
    UKPCM are IPC AOS members:
    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-Operators
    Last edited by claxtome; 03-01-2018 at 4:55 AM.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 3rd Jan 18, 12:01 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    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!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 3rd Jan 18, 12:08 PM
    • 16,293 Posts
    • 25,362 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    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!
    Originally posted by SaveMeSomeMoney
    The critical logo to check for in the context of a parking charge is the one enclosed in a roundel, not the oblong one.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 3rd Jan 18, 4:11 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Draft WS
    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.
    Last edited by SaveMeSomeMoney; 03-01-2018 at 9:25 PM. Reason: font size
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 3rd Jan 18, 4:27 PM
    • 5,100 Posts
    • 3,563 Thanks
    KeithP
    28. leave out the words in my opinion.

    They reduce the impact of the sentence... in my opinion.
    .
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 3rd Jan 18, 10:17 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    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 !
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jan 18, 10:34 PM
    • 52,767 Posts
    • 66,291 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you can mention that too, no reason why not.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

144Posts Today

1,810Users online

Martin's Twitter