help with pcn at directions questionnaire stage

Quentin

Your OP still reveals who was driving!

daverimmo

again thanks for your help and yes its gladstones who is acting for ne parking so if i tick yes to c1 and put my local court in d1 with a special note stating i oppose their request for a paper hearing and wish to proceed with a oral hearing at my local court once more thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

As long as you are filling in the N180 the court sent you, not the N159 Gladstones waved at you to mislead you.

daverimmo

hello there yes i am only filling in the n180 form and will be sending the form by post to both the court and to gladstones i have asked gladstones for photographic evidence no reply as yet

daverimmo

i have a beginning draft of my witness statement bear in mind this is only a draft and will be amended just want to get ahead of the process so i am ready, hear goes
Dear Sir/Madam,

This is my witness statement for the parking charge notice that I have no recollection and proof of this ever being on my vehicle I am the registered owner of the vehicle and am the defendant in this case.
1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.

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. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. However due to the long passage of time since the alleged contraventions, I am unable to recall whether I was the driver.

4. I recall receiving some letters in the post from the claimant and I ignored them as I believed them to be scam letters due to the excessive amounts being claimed. I felt vindicated in that decision when I received no further letters or contact of any kind from the claimant on this matter.

5. I was then surprised to receive a letter before claim from the claimants representatives. I did some research into why I may have received this and it seems the claimant and similar parking companies are submitting masses of court claims for old “parking charges” and are inappropriately using the court system as a form of debt collection.

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

a. 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 a Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:!
8. Ne Parking Limited are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
9. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
c) The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
d) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
e) The time it took for the ticket to be issued, there is no possible chance of a contract to be agreed in 60 seconds.
10. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
a) ) The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
11. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as Parking Eye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.
12. There appears to be no markings on the pavement that are indicating this is a car park it just looks to be a pavement owned by the local council.
13. The date of the issued ticket is Feb at 18.24 the evening would be dusk/dark and no lighting above or around the signs not allowing judgment to be made as to parking in the alleged area.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signed……………………..



Dated………………………

daverimmo

hello there sorry to be a pest i have a draft of my witness statement would you have a check to see if im on the right lines again apologies for my lack of knowledge on the matter