£860 Private Parking County Claim - Urgent Help!

Jonathon365

I have set up a google sharing folder that includes the lancaster signage, my WS and the lancaster policy. Please can you add your comments for me to amend on the WS:

GOOGLE DRIVE REMOVED

Thank you

Jonathon365

bump, again I reiterate I need urgent support

Jonathon365

@RedX @Lamilad @Coupon-mad : Please can you review the latest version on my shared link and add any comments.


Since you have not responded, I am assuming it is ok? Just let me know and if so I'll go ahead and print.

Coupon-mad

I'm not around right now, can't post here.

Jonathon365

@Coupon-mad understood and thank you.


@RedX and @Lamilad please can you help me? I am seriously in need of support and will be losing this case without your expertise. Up until this last hour everyone has been so responsive.

Jonathon365

bump, please can anybody help me?

Jonathon365

GOOGLE DRIVE REMOVED

I have provided all necessary files in the above shared drive. Please can somebody review my Witness Statement.

Jonathon365

UPDATE 16/10/2017:

This is my final draft. I appreciate @Coupon-Mad is away, who has been my principle support but this is the best I could do and I would love feedback from other regular posters on this forum: It's been a long time coming and I just can't wait to get the hearing out of the way now.

Between

(Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, (NAME AND ADDRESS) am the defendant in this case.

1.0. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2.0. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at at all and this is my Witness Statement.

3.0. The claim relates to 5 alleged parking events from vehicle (REG) for allegedly ‘parking’ on Lancaster University Pendle Avenue (referenced as a. below) and Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue (referenced as b, c, d and e. below) on the following dates:
07/03/2016 - Lancaster University Pendle Avenue
04/04/2016 - Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue
26/04/2016 - Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue
04/05/2016 - Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue
09/05/2016 - Lancaster University Grizedale Avenue
f1rst Parking Limited are claiming that I have breached the Lancaster University Parking Policy 2015/2016 that they were supposedly enforcing.

4.0. Firstly, I have never been presented with a contract showing the authority of F1rst Parking Limited to issue tickets on behalf of Lancaster University. I suspect any "contract" that is shown during the hearing will be self-authorisation, where F1rst Parking have written to themselves saying they have authority to issue tickets. I challenge F1rst Parking to prove they have genuine authorisation from the occupier Lancaster University and not just a self-generated approval.

5.0. For each parking event, I did drive vehicle (REG) onto Lancaster University campus and stopped my vehicle for a short duration. Whilst I cannot remember the particulars of each case, the intention of stopping was so that I could collect and then load bulky books and other documents from the University Library and adjacent Lancaster University Management School into my vehicle.

5.1. The vehicle was stopped on both Pendle Avenue and Grizedale Avenue on all occasions, because these roads were the closest in proximity to both the Lancaster University Library and Management School, where space was widely available for a vehicle to be stopped. The dates of each parking event runs from March - May, which is the primary exam and revision term at Lancaster University and supports my statement that I was stopping to collect and then load books to support my revision.

5.2. On each occasion, I walked to either the Lancaster University Library or Management School to collect books and other documents before, returning to my vehicle (REG) in under 10 minutes. I then proceeded to load these books and documents into the vehicle, before again leaving the vehicle and returning to the Library or Management School to collect further books and documents. Each time, I was only away from the vehicle for a maximum of 10 minutes before I’d be back attending the vehicle and loading again.

5.3. The Lancaster University Parking Policy at Point 20 (Exhibit A), specifically states: “Where vehicles are being loaded or unloaded in other areas, including car parking areas, vehicles must not be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time. This includes moving students belongings in and out of Campus accommodation’.

5.4. Therefore, by attending my vehicle every 10 minutes to load the bulky books and other documents required to complete my revision I was complying with the Lancaster University Parking Policy 2015/2016 (Exhibit A). I challenge F1rst Parking to prove the vehicle was left in contravention to such policy (Exhibit A).

5.5. Moreover, in support of my case, the distinction between ‘Parking’ and ‘Loading’ was held by HHJ Charles Harris in Jopson V Homeguard (2016) (Exhibit , who determined it was possible to draw a real distinction between stopping to enable awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving the car for some significant duration of time. HHJ Charles Harris provided a very detailed definition of 'parking' as opposed to a few minutes 'loading' and held: ''The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture”.

6.0. The claim is being made for a total of £800.00 of charges, or £160.00 for each parking event. This is despite the original charges set out in the Notice To Keeper being £75.00 for each parking event and a total of £375.00. The difference in these sums is a total of £425 in additional charges that are not included nor quantified on either The Lancaster University Signage (Exhibit C) or The Lancaster University Parking Policy 2015/2016 (Exhibit A).

6.1. Add-ons and additional charges were not applied in the complex case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis (2015) (Exhibit D) . In this case, only the £85.00 value of the original ticket and no additional charges were pursued by Parking Eye. The attempt made by F1rst Parking is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims cost rules.

6.2. In the Beavis case (Exhibit D), the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background, where the signs were ‘unusually clear’. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges. As for the Lancaster University Parking Signage (Exhibit C), this is certainly not the case, where the £75 original charge is in a very small font size and the £160 that F1rst Parking is claiming, is most definitely not stated.

6.3. I also wish to reference the Aziz test (as my case is different to that of Beavis v ParkingEye) in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.” And as for whether average consumers 'would have agreed' to pay £75 had there been negotiations in advance, the answer here is a definitive no. One could have parked free on road at this time of night (from 6pm-8am). There would have been no justification or negotiation that could have possibly have persuaded an average consumer to pay £75 to F1rst Parking to purely load their vehicle with books required for study.

7.0. 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 Witness Statement are true.

Lamilad

The letter states that the hearing will take place in early November and requests the claimant pays a court trial fee of £80.00 by the 10th October.

Have to rung the court to check that they've paid the trial fee?

Lamilad

2.0. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at at all [strike]and this is my Witness Statement.[/strike]

In 4.0 you say you have not seen the contract between FP and the LU but what about the parking policy can they prove you have been given a copy? If not that should def be in there too. You cannot be held to account over a parking policy that you knew nothing about. They have to prove they made you aware.

The point you need to make here is that the claimant has not produced a contract or any evidence that they have a contract or a chain of contracts connecting them with the landowner granting them authority to enforce parking, or issue charges at the site, or to sue people in their own name. In the absence of the claimant producing a full unredacted contract of such the defence asserts that they had no authority and only the landowner would be allowed to take action in this case, and then only for trespass.

You haven't mentioned any breach of pre action protocols which is pertinent if they have not shown you the contract or policy to which you are supposedly being held to account on.

What did the particulars of claim state? I bet they were vague and didn't fully explain why they were claiming against you. If so that's another breach of pre action protocols and needs to be attacked.

in 5.2 and 5.4 you suggest you were away from your vehicle for perhaps as long as 10 mins... why? You don't know that you were and, in any case, it's up to them to prove that? why hand it to them on a plate. Policy states your vehicle should not be unattended for anymore than 10 mins when loading/unloading. It does not say that you vehicle can only be stopped for 10 mins -

in fact it makes no ref to how long the vehicle can be stopped as long as it's not left unattended for more than 10 mins. so you refer to #20 and deny any breach of this as you vehicle was not at any point unattended for a period of 10 mins and the claimant is put to strict proof otherwise

The policy also makes no mention of charges for breaching the policy only that you may get a "CPN" so this cannot form any contract where you agree to pay parking charges (which it can't anyway if you were never made aware of the policy). This forces them to rely on signage to form the contract.... but you haven't even mentioned signage in your WS.... Why?

The signage is poor, and I think you mentioned earlier that there was only one sign in place? That is entirely inadequate and fails the Beavis test as not being ample and prominent. The text is, mainly, small and difficult to read - impossible to read by a driver driving past it. It does not even say there "will" be a charge for breaching terms, it only says "may". It is white text on a black background - the opposite of what BPA recommend as a good example of highly visible signage.

The signage does state any terms or make any offer to someone who is loading/unloading, only people who are parked which you were not. By their own definition, as per #20 of their policy you were loading/unloading. therefore no contract was even offered to you, there was no offer, consideration or acceptance.... Add this to you points about distinction between parking and stopping.

I presume all the parking charges are being dealt with in one claim? Mui that despite their being 5 parking events the whole thing is dealt with as one claim and if one aspect of it fails, the whole thing fails.... So, the ticket that was issued after only 2 mins is clearly unenforceable (how can you be offered, fully consider and accept a contract in 2 mins). It fails grace periods and obviously isn't enough time to read the signs.

So regardless of what merit is given to 4 of the 5 charges (none in my view) if one fails the claim fails.