ES Parking Enforcement

Redx

the CCBC is just a government office staffed by civil servants, it is not a "court"

google their address and the Northampton County Court and they are totally different postcodes

ie:- it was always going to be the local county court of the defendant

billinghamn

My wife has just had an email through from Gladstones with an attached notice of discontinuance!

FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CASE!

I can't believe the level of incompetence. Must be an additional data protection issue here. Might be worth raising in court me thinks...

Umkomaas

Check with the court that your case hasn't also been discontinued. Another 'admin error' by Gladstones.

Complain to the SRA - add to the mountain of complaints already with them about Gladstones.

claxtome

When you contacted the court did you find your case had been discontinued?

billinghamn

claxtome wrote: »

When you contacted the court did you find your case had been discontinued?

As far as I know, it hasn't been discontinued. I would have thought that due to us counter-claiming it probably isn't as easy to discontinue perhaps? Not sure.

Coupon-mad

Ah, you will need to contact the court to ask if the Claimant has tried to discontinue their claim and (if so) remind the court of the counter-claim, and offer to pay the hearing fee to force your counter-claim to a hearing.

What was your counter claim for? Not costs we hope, if so, not worth a hearing fee.

billinghamn

Guys - need some advice. We hadn't heard anything for quite a while, so I asked my wife to ring the court to find out what was going on. They advised they had set a date (in July), but we haven't received anything in the post to confirm any court date.


The court official didn't seem to care that they have no checks in place to confirm court communications have been received, and consequently I suspect we have missed our deadline for exchanging witness statements.


I'm going to draft a letter that my wife can send to the court highlighting what's happened. Can I ask the court to allow us time to send in witness statements etc?

Redx

if the court case is in july then I dont see why you cannot submit witness statements and evidence , plus a costs schedule, as you usually have up to maybe a fortnight before , so I suggest this is started immediately and submitted within the next week or two


see the newbies faq sticky thread, post #2


bargepole and LOC123 have both written timelines for these matters, so you have no excuse if you havent read them



and read other recent court case threads too

billinghamn

I am in the process of pulling together WS, Evidence and Cost Schedule. Will post draft as soon as I think it hangs together. It's all numbered and evidence clearly itemized and referenced in the text.

Remember that I am preparing this on behalf of my wife, as the Defendant!

Couple of questions:

1. On the basis that we have submitted a counter-claim, does my wife's WS need to refer to the justification for a counter-claim in the same WS? Rather than in a separate document.
2. Should I include two summary statements (at the end) asking the court to (i) find in favour of the Defendant for the original claim (i.e. quash the parking charge) and (ii) find in favour of the Defendant for the counter-claim?
3. Is the cost schedule supposed to be in a separate document? Or should it be included in the WS? I found an example of a post-court letter claiming costs, but that's not quite what I am doing in submitting a cost schedule before the court appearance.
4. Since my wife didn't receive any notification about a court date being set, or any deadlines for exchanging statements etc, should I include a statement to explain the late submission of the WS, or just ignore it?

Thanks in anticipation of your help guys.

billinghamn

First draft of WS:

Witness Statement of [Name]

I, [Name], of [Address] WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:


1. I am the Defendant in this matter. I am an unrepresented consumer who is not experienced at attending county court. In this statement, I will refer to clearly labelled exhibits which appear in this bundle.

Parking Events

2. On the [Date] I parked my [Car], registered number [Reg] on land at Winwick Street, Warrington, WA2 7TT, walked to the nearest pay and display machine, purchased a ticket for the day and I displayed it on the dashboard of my car. I am careful with parking tickets to ensure they are displayed correctly. I retained the ticket that I had "paid and displayed" (in good faith) as evidence, if required in the future (Exhibit 1).

3. I have produced a map of the car park (Exhibit 2) which shows the entrance A where I entered the car park, position B where I parked and the location of the ticket machine used as C on the map.

4. I have included a number of photos of the parking signs displayed around the car park (Exhibit 3).

5. At the end of the day, I found a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) attached to my windscreen from ES Parking Enforcement (ES) (Exhibit 4).



Communications with the Claimant

6. On [Date], I responded to the PCN (Exhibit 5), requesting information in order to make an informed decision about how to respond or appeal, recommended the use of a completely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service and advised the Claimant not to send debt collection letters, nor to add any costs or surcharges.

7. On [Date], I received a Notice to Keeper (NTK) letter, reaffirming the Claimant's claim (Exhibit 6). The purported debt was now £100. The Claimant failed to acknowledge or answer any of the specific points I raised in my previous response.

8. On [Date], I resent my response (dated [Date]) (Exhibit 7), assuming the Claimant had not had time to address the specific points I had raised.

9. On [Date], I received a second NTK letter, reaffirming the Claimant's claim (Exhibit 8). The purported debt was now £125. Again, the Claimant failed to acknowledge or answer any of the specific points I raised in my previous response.

10. Between [Date] and [Date], I received two Debt Collection Letters (Exhibit 9 and 10) and two Letters of Claim (Exhibit 11 and 12). The purported debt in these letters increased to £185 and then to £221. I did not respond to these letters since they held no basis for action, and the Claimant had demonstrated that they did not respond to any points that I raised in previous communications. These letters included demands with increased amounts owing with no explanation for the increased amounts and these letters threatened me with further debt recovery. No figure for additional charges was agreed, or communicated to me, nor could it have formed part of the ‘alleged’ contract because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the Claimant’s signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print, when they were not. See photos of the parking signs displayed around the car park (Exhibit 3).

11. After a gap of 16 months, on [Date], I received a Letter Before Claim from the Claimant (Exhibit 13). The purported debt had now reduced to £160, possibly due to the Claimant realising the previous scare tactics of increasing demands were not justifiable.

12. In a response on [Date] (Exhibit 14), I provided a copy of the ticket displayed on the day providing the Claimant with clear evidence that the Driver acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and condition (“T&C”) - as far as they were understood.

13. On [Date], I received a second Letter Before Claim from the Claimant (Exhibit 15).

14. In a response on [Date] (Exhibit 16), I reaffirmed the position I included in my response on [Date].

15. On [Date], I received a third Letter Before Claim from the Claimant (Exhibit 17). Enclosed in this letter, the Claimant provided some earlier letters and photos of the car and dashboard, apparently demonstrating that a valid ticket was not displayed.

16. In a response on [Date] (Exhibit 18), I reaffirmed the position I included in my response on [Date].

17. I then received a Claim Form on [Date] (Exhibit 19). The Particulars of Claim set out in the Claim Form do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies what the terms of the alleged contract were, or how they were breached. The Particulars are not “clear and concise” as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication on what basis the claim is brought. The claimant also failed to provide a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A).


Evidence of the Parking Ticket on the Dashboard

18. The Claimant has provided photos taken when they attached the PCN to my vehicle. In these photos there seems to be evidence of a ticket on the dashboard, but in none of these photos are the ticket details clearly visible. It is therefore inconclusive as to whether the ticket was upside down, or the correct way around. It is therefore not conclusive that the Driver failed to display a parking ticket such that it was visible, and therefore the Claimant has no cause for action.

19. The Claimant’s evidence of a specimen sign (Contract) states “A valid ticket must be purchased to park on this site and be displayed clearly in your front windscreen”. This from the Claimant’s own evidence was clearly adhered to. Any breach (which, for avoidance of doubt, is denied) was de minimis. This sign is also included in Exhibit 3.


Flimsiness of the Parking Ticket – Fluttering Tickets

20. If you look closely at the parking ticket (Exhibit 1) you can see it is made of a flimsy piece of paper with no sticky part to it so that it could be fixed in place on the dashboard or windscreen. I would be interested to know how many PCNs for similar circumstance occur for this car park.

21. If the parking ticket flipped over, (for which there is no conclusive evidence), I have no knowledge of the point at which this happened or why. I made all reasonable endeavours and complied by conduct.

22. On the day in question I had every intention to pay for parking, and I did so, and I genuinely thought I had complied with the terms of parking in the car park (and was justified in that belief). There must either have been a gust of wind when I closed the door or one of the windows may have been slightly open and it may have flipped over when I was away from the car, and this small human error comes under the de minimis principle, particularly as the ticket has a serial/reference number on the back.

23. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours and takes reasonable steps to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach outside of their control.

24. Fluttering tickets are routinely accepted as a valid defence to Council PCNs and whilst contractual principles are not applied to such notices, it is indicative of the fact that circumstances out of your control, and where the driver has clearly paid for the parking, are deemed to be a good reason for those notices to be cancelled.

25. I include the views of Council Adjudicators regarding the well-known issue of 'flimsy fluttering tickets' because the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal Judges) in Beavis were happy to draw similarities with Council PCNs:

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/3259/joint_report_of_the_parking_adjudicators_for_england_and_wales_2006

• ‘In DB05057D the adjudicator said: “…having seen the original ticket I note that it is made of rather thin paper which is likely to be dislodged when a car door is shut. It may be that the Council would argue that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the ticket is on display when the vehicle is left, but on the other hand if it chooses to issue pay and display tickets made of such thin paper it must expect that now and again this type of situation will arise.”

• In DB05035M the appellant bought a ticket. It fell from the dash when she closed the door so she picked it up and replaced it. She then opened the back door to remove some items and found the Pay & Display on the foot well on her return. The adjudicator had the opportunity to examine the original ticket. It was made of flimsy paper with no adhesive mechanism.''

• In HV05040D the adjudicator accepted the appellant’s evidence that she had displayed the ticket on the dash and checked after closing the door that it was still there. He said: “The Council contend that the onus is on the motorist to ensure that the ticket is properly displayed but except for using Sellotape or Blutack, which some motorists do, I do not know what else she could have done. Such measures may be an answer to the problem but it is a problem created by the Council’s decision to use non-sticky tickets. I am not aware of any signs in the car park suggesting the use of adhesives by motorists when parking their cars.

Claimant and Solicitor Reputation

26. The Claimant and their solicitor are known to be serial litigants and issuers of speculative claims, using “template” particulars of claim, with no due diligence. Research indicated they are the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Gladstones were referred to in a recent debate in the House of Commons, in respect to proposed Legislation: Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (2nd reading). It was said that Gladstones (amongst other solicitors), operate a ‘robo-claim’ system. The link between the International Parking Committee (IPC) and Gladstones was mentioned, as was the changing of names of directors to try and hide this relationship.

27. At no point did the Claimant acknowledge or respond to my requests for information, nor did they acknowledge the existence of a purchased parking ticket. In fact, in exchanging court case documentation, it has become clear that the Claimant would not have upheld an appeal if a purchased parking ticket had been provided as part of an appeal.

28. The Claimant and their solicitor have used scare tactics to "encourage" me into settling the debt as early as possible. Hence the rapid increase in the purported debt from £100 to £185 to £221. When I did not respond to these, and the Claimant decided to formalise their claim, this debt reduced to £160. This has caused me great distress, sleepless nights and a desire for this issue to be resolved as early as possible.


Claimant's Costs

29. I dispute that the Claimant has incurred £50 Solicitors costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable. The claimant has described the charge of £50 as ‘legal representative’s costs’ not ‘contractual costs’ CPR 31.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.

30. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum claimed has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to the £160 now sought.

31. Under Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (amended) A parking operator needs to have Advertising Consent for signs displayed in the car park. The only relevant Advertising Planning Consent found for the car park in question has now lapsed (Exhibit X). I therefore hold to strict proof that they have Claimant has advertising consent for signage.

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

Signed: [Name]
Date: