Parking Charge Notice - myparkingcharge.co.uk

Redx

Bear in mind tomorrow is Saturday , in which case you may have to hand deliver on monday !!

Check the court website and your court order to see the what and why , plus you must let the claimant have copies of everything too the same as they must give you copies of their submissions to the court

So every entity receives copies of everything

Coupon-mad

Just crack on with it...email it to the LOCAL COURT (not CCBC) and to the C's solicitors (the ones who filed the claim...surely that WASN'T Elms, was it?) along with your costs assessment as you see on every single claim thread that's reached WS stage - there are thousands here.

There are examples of WS and evidence in the NEWBIES thread and on the threads by people like @Staatsgrenze and @Chefdave (he threw his together in one evening).  Don't forget the new statement of truth that the NEWBIES thread shouts about.

Have you received the WS & evidence from the other side, yet?

Remind us which version of your defence went in...I recall you panicked and wanted to change it (you can't) but what DID it say?  Build upon it with your WS.

Plantlover66

Thank you all for your responses. I'm kicking myself for leaving everything last minute but have just been up to the car park after work to take photos of where I was parked, signage etc. I've checked the courts opening times but they won't be open tomorrow and unsure if they have a postbox outside so will definitely email them and claimants solicitors tonight once completed. I'm going to work my way through the information regarding the WS in the newbies section now 

Coupon-mad said:

Just crack on with it...email it to the LOCAL COURT (not CCBC) and to the C's solicitors (the ones who filed the claim...surely that WASN'T Elms, was it?) along with your costs assessment as you see on every single claim thread that's reached WS stage - there are thousands here.

There are examples of WS and evidence in the NEWBIES thread and on the threads by people like @Staatsgrenze and @Chefdave (he threw his together in one evening).  Don't forget the new statement of truth that the NEWBIES thread shouts about.

Have you received the WS & evidence from the other side, yet?

Remind us which version of your defence went in...I recall you panicked and wanted to change it (you can't) but what DID it say?  Build upon it with your WS.

I believe it was in fact ELMS legal that filed the claim as it has their details on the claim forms for me to send any documents to. 

I haven't received a thing from the other side yet. Just that silly letter from the ELMS yesterday but no witness statement etc. This is the version I ended up sending. After reading my defence again, I'm going to go into more detail about the inadequate signage, the huge fact that all signage has now been amended since the incident and no longer says anything against parking in those bays and also the extra £60 they've stuck on. 

Plantlover66 said:

Thanks for directing me to the 'abuse of process' thread @Le_Kirk  it really helped me to push the point about the fake costs they added onto the £100. Here's a final look at my defence, which I'm about to email now. 

EDIT: Sorry not sure what's happened to the numbers, but this is showing correctly on my word document. 

DEFENCE

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Claimant: Vehicle Control Services Ltd 

Defendant: Miss XXXXXXXX

 

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the incident on the 22nd December 2017.  
   
   
2. The claim relates to an alleged debt which has come about due to an alleged breach of contract set on private land within the Crown Street Car Park, Leeds. The Claimant is accusing the defendant of parking without a valid ticket.
   
   
3. A valid ‘pay & display’ ticket was purchased and displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle covering all time spent within the car park on the above date.
   
   
4. There was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Driver, whose car was parked in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and was certainly not 'unauthorised'.

 

1. The particulars of claim state that the driver of the vehicle parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage. 
   
   
2. It is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms and conditions in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. 
   
   
3. There is no clear signage displayed within the arches where the defendant was parked and supposedly breached the claimant’s terms. Signage within the car park was not situated adequately and was of a height that could not be viewed from a small passing vehicle such as the defendant’s, especially since the contractual terms were set out in an inadequate and tiny font. 

 

1. Signage within the car park has been amended since the date of the incident and currently states that the private land where the Defendant allegedly breached the terms and conditions is now being used as ‘extra spaces’ for ‘valid pay & display ticket holders’ as well as ‘permit holders’.

 

1. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that this must have been the landowner's intention for that area all along; thus there is an absence of the compelling commercial justification and/or legitimate interest that saved the parking charge in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, for being struck out as offending against the penalty rule.

 

1. Even if the Claimant is able to show that the above contention was not the case, the claim still fails because the signs and lines were not prominent and transparent enough to show drivers that certain bays were apparently not 'pay & display' within this (advertised on the entrance signs and other notices) primarily pay & display car park. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation of badly marked bays which most favours the consumer must prevail, and under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 this means that these bay markings (or lack of) would be interpreted as unfair 'terms' and/or 'notices’.

 

1. No authority from the landowner to the Claimant has been sent to the Defendant confirming the legality of the claim and charges. In the absence of strict proof of the landowner’s authority I submit that the Claimant has no grounds for a case at all and invite the court to strike out the claim.

 

1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 

 

1. The Defendant strongly believes that the claim contains multiple substantial charges, additional to the parking charge, which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. The additional £60 charge, is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 (5), which states the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper.

 

1. Furthermore, the Civil Procedure Rules 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

 

1. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) the Defendant does not believe that the Claimant has incurred any legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

 

1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are most definitely disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

 

1. Furthermore, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant's claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

 

1. Considering all of the statements above, I therefore respectfully ask the court to dismiss all action against the defendant and strike out the claim of its own initiative, using it’s case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
   
   I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
   Name
   Signature
   17/02/2020

 

 

Coupon-mad

OK, so when you've read the examples I pointed out to you above, you'll see it's actually quite easy to copy.

Plantlover66

Just a quick update regarding this...I managed to get my witness statement sent off on Friday evening along with my evidence bundle. After reading through other examples I also sent a supplementary witness statement, cover email and draft order. However, I forgot to take out a section which didn't relate to my case - as the claimant hasn't sent me their witness statement so the bit in the draft order relating to their witness statement is void. 

What an idiot! Serves me right for leaving it so last minute and doing it tired on a Friday night. My question is should I email the courts and claimants representation again asking them to ignore the draft order I sent or do I just wait to see if they discontinue the hearing and if not I just explain myself during the hearing for the confusion. 

nosferatu1001

Its merely a draft order. Thats it. You udnerstand its DRAFT and also not an "order" unless the court makes it. So just leave it for now. 

Plantlover66

So I've finally received evidence and a witness statement from ELMS legal on behalf of Jake Burgess at VCS Ltd. There is so much paperwork, I literally have no idea where to start or how to approach everything they've mentioned during my hearing this Friday. Can anyone give any advice on how I get myself fully prepared for my telephone hearing as even after reading I'm still not sure what to expect during this hearing? I'm happy to post either of the Ws if required. 

Coupon-mad

Please just read other VCS witness statement threads.

You were surely expecting this template and we aren't going to need to see it yet again unless you have something unusual in it never seen before (i.e., when you compare it to all the dozens of other cases exactly the same where the VCS WS has been torn apart. chewed up and spat out by posters). 

Surely you searched 'Jake Burgess witness statement' or a surname of one of the tedious case law citations that they always, predictably, use?  Stick a CASE LAW surname into the forum search...please don't list the boring cases they mention!  We have no time to do this again and again.

Why do people think the stupid pile of papers they receive are unique?  They are not.

Plantlover66

Good new guys...I WON! Honestly thank you so much for the knowledge you guys share on this forum, you're doing such a great thing for people. 

It was a really short hearing (around 35 minutes) and started with ELMS legal lawyer basically reading off JB's witness statement. The judge questioned him about the following:
How was the contract formed?
The quality and trustworthiness of the photos.
What paragraph did the NTD relate to due to the time it was sent to myself?
The solicitor was unable to answer any of these questions. I believe the judge had already made her mind up by the time it was time for me to talk due to their solicitor being so ill prepared. His response to the above were to the effect of "I don't know, I'm just going off JB's WS"

Their solicitor advised that they did not have a copy of my WS, SWS or evidence but was happy to proceed without. It then came to light that the judge only had my defence and also didn't have the other documents. They also didn't push for the additional £60 so the judge did not need to hear my argument against this. 

The judge dismissed the case on the following points:
The claimant was unable to advise how the contract was made. The judge advised something about the sign being "past consideration" and the fact it was impossible for me to form a contract
The fact that the photos were poor and not time stamped.
The solicitor could not say under what paragraph the NTD was sent. 
The general poor quality of the evidence against me as the defendant. 

The case was dismissed and I was awarded for a half day off work based on the maximum amount of £95. I now wish I had pushed for more including prep time and everything else that I included on my schedule of costs but was just so happy it had been dismissed. I can't believe I managed to win without the additional documents, but it just shows how ill prepared and uninformed the legal rep was. 

Thanks again for all of your help.

Le_Kirk

Well done on the win and costs.  You would have been unlikely to have got more unless you could have proved unreasonable behaviour and that is a high bar to cross ............. apparently.