6 year old pcn county claim form received

Bookbug123

Forgive my ignorance and what is probably another stupid question but how is what I am producing (ring binder with WS and all accompanying evidence) now different from the Trial Bundle?
I've reread the letter from the court and WS has to be in Monday but the trial bundle not until 7days before. The way they describe the trial bundle sounds very like what I am trying to produce now.

Coupon-mad

how is what I am producing (ring binder with WS and all accompanying evidence) now different from the Trial Bundle?
I've reread the letter from the court and WS has to be in Monday but the trial bundle not until 7days before.

Aha, that's quite unusual, your Judge doesn't want all the evidence with the WS, but has split them across two dates. So you have more time to take the ring binder to the court!

So, in your case, you CAN email your WS because it won't be bulky with attachments like we normally see. Make sure the WS refers to the evidence you will be filing (presumably the Judge says 'not later than 7 days before'...not '7 days before'?).

Bookbug123

Yes, that's right. Es now and all Doc's no later oooooothan 7 days before. Phew, I'm still in with a chance then!

Coupon-mad

OK, so email the court and the claimant's solicitor with the WS once you are happy with it after getting comments over the weekend.

Bookbug123

ok, so now I have...

WITNESS STATEMENT
___________________

I, XXXXXXX of XXXX am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

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. The claimant has waited until two days before any alleged ‘debt’ is Statute Barred under the conditions of the Limitations Act 1980 to file a claim. The passage of time (six years) is such that I cannot recall the exact details of the day and location in question.


4. The Particulars of Claim filed on XXXX 2018 are extremely sparse and fail to disclose any cause of action or sufficient detail about an event alleged to have occurred six years ago. The claim form itself states only that ‘a valid ticket was not displayed’ and gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

6. At the time of the alleged parking offence I recall receiving what looked like a scam/junk mail letter impersonating a parking ticket, which arrived weeks after any alleged parking event in 2012 and too late to make any informed decision as to who was driving, not that the keeper is under any obligation to provide information on request or demand. As keeper there was no requirement for me to respond to the brightly coloured alarmist notices that appeared to be junk mail in 2012. This was not an offence or fine from an Authority like a council, and there was no reason or obligation as registered keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law. A registered keeper could not in any way be legally liable as the law stood at that time. No adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter.

7. I assert that I was the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question in this case. As this event has been resurrected from more than six years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving at the time of the alleged contravention. I assert under ‘statement of truth’ that given the passage of time I cannot recall who was the driver on this occasion. This will be repeated in court should this claim proceed to a hearing.

8. The claimant has produced no evidence of who was driving. I put Excel to strict proof that any contract exists between the Claimant and I.

9. The claimant cannot “presume” that I and RK was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. There is no law that allow them to do this.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. It can be seen the date of the alleged contravention is 28/01/2012 which predates the enactment of PoFA 2012. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced.

11. With no route in law to transfer liability for any alleged contravention, by a driver - to the RK, this claim is null and void. There is no case to answer. The claimant must prove who was driving then take the matter up separately with that person.

12. I refer to the case of Excel Parking Services v Smith (appeal) Stockport, 08/06/2017 C0DP9C4E and C1DP0C8E. Appeal M17X062. In which it was found that a person is not generally liable in law for the actions of somebody they have allowed somebody else to use. If they were, then there would have been no need for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, which can be used to artificially transfer liability from driver to keeper in some situations. The hire car industry would also not be able to exist, as they would be liable for the actions of anyone using their cars (See Evidence A).

11. The keeper is not obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed by Henry Greenslade, the ‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ (“POPLA”) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015. This is an independent appeals service offered by the British Parking Assosciation (“BPA”) and Excel was under that Trade Body at the time of the alleged contravention. I adduce as evidence (Evidence B: PoFA Schedule 4) Mr Greenslade’s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies.

12. The claimant is known to use Elliot Vs Loake (1982) as part of their defence. The claimant may seek to persuade the court that this case created a precedent which amounts to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver, with no evidence or admission to prove its allegations. The POFA Schedule 4 was enacted in 2012 to overcome the issue cited by the BPA, that parking companies were unable to pursue drivers who were not identified. This Claimant cannot dispense with the statute and instead cite an older, irrelevant criminal case of Elliott v Loake, which turned on compelling forensic evidence and made no assumption whatsoever, that a keeper was the driver (See Evidence C). Elliot vs Loake was also a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter.

I refer to Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 at Stockport 31/10/2016. In this case the judge recognised that Elliot vs Loake was completely irrelevant. In dismissing the claim the judge stated amongst his reasons for doing so that - Excel did not adduce evidence of the driver, and - Elliott v Loake is not persuasive, and can be distinguished. (Exhibit 4: Excel V Mr C)

13. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016. The Judge was critical of the claimant’s attempts to hold the keeper liable. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated “I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. (Evidence Excel Vs
Lamoureux ).

15. As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) in 2012, this Claimant was banned by the DVLA for several months for 'a significant breach' of the Code of Practice. This ban was reported by the DVLA in a Freedom of Information reply in the public domain, as relating to unacceptable and misleading wording on their signs, which attempted to suggest a registered keeper could be liable, before the POFA was enacted. Implying that a keeper could be liable or responsible for the actions of a driver was identified by the DVLA as so serious a matter that Excel was banned from obtaining registered keeper data for three months. From their action in my case it is clear they have not changed their tactics. They are attempting to hold me liable as they RK when, in law, they can do no such thing. (Evidence E DVLA Freedom of information Request Regarding Excel 2012 Ban).

16. The location in question (XXXXXXXX) is a site which in 2012 was criticised in national media and by local MPs for inadequate and unclear signage leading to the cancellation of a number of notices against motorists by the Claimant (Evidence F: BBC article.

17. It is contended that the signs that were in place at the location were unclear and wordy, yet with the actual terms and 'parking charge' buried in small print, thus being incapable of forming a contract, as was found in many cases involving Excel signs at and around that time. In reference to the British Parking Association Code of Practice, in which it states under appendix B, entrance signage “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead…There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"

18. It cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park in 2012 - when Excel used particularly crowded and illegible wording on all their signage (Evidence G: Signage example)- was aware of or agreed to any 'parking charge' terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver (an unidentified party) saw, read and agreed to a contract upon which the claimant is relying.

19. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA(CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case. a. In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question ( See Evidence H).

20. This claimant is known for incoherent and sparse signage, incapable of forming a contract. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v M R Cutts at Stockport County Court in 2011, claim 1SE02795, DDJ Lateef dismissed the claim by Excel and ordered the company to pay Mr Cutts' £53.50 costs. The Judge personally visited the site to view the signs in situ and found that the key issue was that Excel had not taken reasonable steps to draw to Mr Cutts’ attention to the terms and conditions of using the car park. The signs were found inadequate and the claim was thrown out. It is contended that the signs here were of a similar low, incoherent standard of overly wordy terms in a blue and yellow design (See Evidence G)

21. It is expected that this Claimant may try to counter that article about these signs but it is worth noting that Mr Cutts manages the Plain Language Commission and is the author of Lucid Law, the Plain English Lexicon and the Oxford Guide to Plain English, so he is something of an authority on clear, legible terms. And the Judge agreed with him.

22. No evidence has been provided that a valid ticket was not purchased the Claimant's. No photographic evidence of the vehicle without a valid ticket being displayed has been shared. The Claimant is suggesting that no ticket was purchased and displayed in the prescribed manner, this is denied, no evidence has been offered that any action by the driver at the time has led to a breach of this purported condition. In order to demonstrate that the driver failed to pay & display, the Claimant has the burden to have evidenced that, with photos and readings from that day from the machines, which are known to be unreliable.

23. There is no evidence provided in relation to the alleged claim which gives a representation of whether or not the machines and keypads within the car park were in fully working order on the particular day in question. This is an essential area in providing validity of the pay and display system which the car park uses. As these machines are prone to regular faults and mistakes, I feel that the corresponding data from the machines on the particular day is extremely relevant as evidence to whether or not a ticket was purchased. I recall that ANPR photos only shared by the Claimant only show the images of a car driving in and out, which is a completely separate system from the pay/display machines.

24. I refer to the case of Excel v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 (Peel Centre ticket failure) in that it was found it was through no fault of the defendant that this ticket displayed the letters instead of her registration number. She obtained a ticket. She made the payment to obtain that. She displayed that ticket. It shows the relevant time of entry. It shows the amount that she has paid and it shows the registration number that the ticket machine produced. It would have been unreasonable to expect the defendant to do anything further beyond that as far as I am concerned. The registration number is not accurately reflected but that is through no fault on the part of the defendant and I find on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had inputted the correct registration number and she had then displayed the ticket that was issued and so to all intents and purposes had fully complied with the terms and conditions applicable to this car park. (See Evidence I).

25. I received a Letter of Claim in XXXX 2017. The letter informed me that I was being pursued for a charge in the amount of XX rising to estimated total of XXX, a ludicrous inflation of the alleged parking charge. In the Beavis case, it was held that the £85 ‘parking charge’ was significantly inflated for profit and that there were no damages or losses/incidentals that a parking firm not in possession, could lawfully claim.

26. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) the added 'contractual costs' of £54 and the £50 legal representative's costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant. I have not been shown any evidence that the deliberately indistinct, almost illegible and unlit signs in the car park refer to these amounts.

27. The amount claimed includes charges that the Claimant has charged without any explanation as to how it has been calculated. There is a discrepancy between the charge for breaching the claimant’s terms and the amount claimed on the particulars of this claim.

28. I refer to the case Parking Eye vs Cargius, November 2014 in which the judge dismissed the claim, The charge of £100 far exceeded the cost of the overstay (£2) and subsequent costs. Commercial justification did not apply because the car park generated substantial revenue and therefore it was not necessary to charge large amounts for transgressions to make management commercially viable (See Evidence J).


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

Bookbug123

Oops, please ignore that the numbering goes awry after point 12. I had meant to take out the paragraph about excel vs Mr C (can't find this transcript) and re-number.

Bookbug123

Ok. Have tidied up a bit and have this as a final draft. It must go tomorrow so any last minute thoughts or advice would be very much appreciated...

___________________

WITNESS STATEMENT
___________________

I, xx of xxxxxxx am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

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. The claimant has waited until two days before any alleged ‘debt’ is Statute Barred under the conditions of the Limitations Act 1980 to file a claim. The passage of time (six years) is such that I cannot recall the exact details of the day and location in question.


4. The Particulars of Claim filed on XX January 2018 are extremely sparse and fail to disclose any cause of action or sufficient detail about an event alleged to have occurred six years ago. The claim form itself gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible opportunity, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

6. At the time of the alleged parking offence I recall receiving what looked like a scam/junk mail letter impersonating a parking ticket, which arrived weeks after any alleged parking event in 2012.This was not an offence or fine from an Authority like a council, and there was no reason or obligation as registered keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law. A registered keeper could not in any way be legally liable as the law stood at that time. No adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter.

7. I assert that I was the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question in this case. As this event has been resurrected from more than six years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving at the time of the alleged contravention. I assert under ‘statement of truth’ that given the passage of time I cannot recall who was the driver on this occasion. This will be repeated in court should this claim proceed to a hearing.

8. The claimant cannot “presume” that I as RK was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. There is no law that allow them to do this. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable (Evidence A: Copy of Schedule 4 of the PoFA). The date of the alleged contravention is 28/01/2012 which predates the enactment of PoFA 2012. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced.

9. The claimant has produced no evidence of who was driving. I put the Claimant to strict proof that any contract exists between the Claimant and I.

10. With no route in law to transfer liability for any alleged contravention by a driver to the RK, this claim is null and void. There is no case to answer. The claimant must prove who was driving then take the matter up separately with that person.

11. I refer to the case of Excel Parking Services v Smith (appeal) Stockport, 08/06/2017 C0DP9C4E and C1DP0C8E. Appeal M17X062. In which it was found that a person is not generally liable in law for the actions of somebody else in a car they have allowed somebody else to use. If they were, then there would have been no need for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, which can be used to artificially transfer liability from driver to keeper in some situations. The hire car industry would also not be able to exist, as they would be liable for the actions of anyone using their cars (Evidence B: Excel Vs Smith).

12. The keeper is not obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed by Henry Greenslade, the ‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ (“POPLA”) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015. This is an independent appeals service offered by the British Parking Association (BPA) and Excel was under that Trade Body at the time of the alleged contravention. I adduce as evidence (Evidence C: POPLA Report 2015, Page 12-13) Mr Greenslade’s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies.

13. The claimant is known to use Elliot Vs Loake (1982) as part of their defence. The claimant may seek to persuade the court that this case created a precedent which amounts to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver, with no evidence or admission to prove its allegations. The POFA Schedule 4 was enacted in 2012 to overcome the issue cited by the BPA, that parking companies were unable to pursue drivers who were not identified. This Claimant cannot dispense with the statute and instead cite an older, irrelevant criminal case of Elliott v Loake, which turned on compelling forensic evidence and made no assumption whatsoever, that a keeper was the driver. Elliot vs Loake was also a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter.

14. I also refer to the case of Excel v Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016. The Judge was critical of the claimant’s attempts to hold the keeper liable. The Judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated “I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. (Evidence Excel Vs
Lamoureux).

15. As a member of the BPA in 2012, this Claimant was banned by the DVLA for several months for 'a significant breach' of the Code of Practice. This ban was reported by the DVLA in a Freedom of Information reply in the public domain (Evidence E: DVLA Freedom of information Request Regarding Excel 2012 Ban) as relating to unacceptable and misleading wording on their signs, which attempted to suggest a registered keeper could be liable, before the POFA was enacted. Implying that a keeper could be liable or responsible for the actions of a driver was identified by the DVLA as so serious a matter that Excel was banned from obtaining registered keeper data for three months. From their action in my case it is clear they have not changed their tactics. They are attempting to hold me liable as they RK when, in law, they can do no such thing.

16. The location in question (XXXXXXX) is a site which in 2012 was criticised in national media and by local MPs for inadequate and unclear signage leading to the cancellation of a number of notices against motorists by the Claimant (Evidence F: BBC article).

17. It is contended that the signs that were in place at the location were unclear and wordy, yet with the actual terms and 'parking charge' buried in small print, thus being incapable of forming a contract. The same was found in many cases involving Excel signs at and around that time. In reference to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), in which it states under Appendix B, Entrance Signage “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead…There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision" (see Evidence G: BPA Code of Practice 2012)

18. It cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park in 2012 - when Excel used particularly crowded and illegible wording on all their signage (Evidence H: XXX signage example) was aware of or agreed to any 'parking charge' terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver (an unidentified party) saw, read and agreed to a contract upon which the claimant is relying.

19. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA(CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case. a. In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question (Evidence I: ParkingEye v Beavis).

20. This claimant is known for incoherent and sparse signage, incapable of forming a contract. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v M R Cutts 1SE02795 at Stockport County Court in 2011 (Evidence J: Excel Parking Services Ltd v M R Cutts), DDJ Lateef dismissed the claim by Excel and ordered the company to pay Mr Cutts' £53.50 costs. The Judge personally visited the site to view the signs in situ and found that the key issue was that Excel had not taken reasonable steps to draw to Mr Cutts’ attention to the terms and conditions of using the car park. The signs were found inadequate and the claim was thrown out. It is contended that the signs here were of a similar low, incoherent standard of overly wordy terms in a blue and yellow design (See Evidence H).

21. It is expected that this Claimant may try to counter that article about these signs but it is worth noting that Mr Cutts manages the Plain Language Commission and is the author of Lucid Law, the Plain English Lexicon and the Oxford Guide to Plain English, so he is something of an authority on clear, legible terms. And the Judge agreed with him.

22. No evidence has been provided that a valid ticket was not purchased. No photographic evidence of the vehicle without a valid ticket being displayed has been shared. The Claimant is suggesting that no ticket was purchased and displayed in the prescribed manner, this is denied, no evidence has been offered that any action by the driver at the time has led to a breach of this purported condition. In order to demonstrate that the driver failed to pay & display, the Claimant has the burden to have evidenced that, with photos and readings from that day from the machines, which are known to be unreliable.

23. There is no evidence provided in relation to the alleged claim which gives a representation of whether or not the machines and keypads within the car park were in fully working order on the particular day in question. This is an essential area in providing validity of the pay and display system which the car park uses. As these machines are prone to regular faults and mistakes, I feel that the corresponding data from the machines on the particular day is extremely relevant as evidence to whether or not a ticket was purchased. I recall that ANPR photos shared by the Claimant only show the images of a car driving in and out, which is a completely separate system from the pay/display machines.

24. I refer to the case of Excel v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 (Peel Centre ticket failure) in that it was found that through no fault of the defendant the ticket displayed letters instead of her registration number. She obtained a ticket. She made the payment to obtain that. She displayed that ticket. It shows the relevant time of entry. It shows the amount that she has paid and it shows the registration number that the ticket machine produced. It would have been unreasonable to expect the defendant to do anything further beyond that. It was found that the registration number was not accurately reflected but that this was through no fault on the part of the defendant and on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had inputted the correct registration number and she had then displayed the ticket that was issued and so to all intents and purposes had fully complied with the terms and conditions applicable to this car park. (See Evidence K: Excel Parking Services Ltd v Mrs S).

25. I received a Letter of Claim in October 2017. The letter informed me that I was being pursued for a charge in the amount of £90 rising to estimated total of £260.27, a ludicrous inflation of the alleged parking charge. In the Beavis case, it was held that the £85 ‘parking charge’ was significantly inflated for profit and that there were no damages or losses/incidentals that a parking firm not in possession, could lawfully claim.

26. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) the added 'contractual costs' of £54 and the £50 legal representative's costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant. I have not been shown any evidence that the deliberately indistinct, almost illegible and unlit signs in the car park refer to these amounts.

27. The amount claimed includes charges that the Claimant has charged without any explanation as to how it has been calculated. There is a discrepancy between the charge for breaching the claimant’s terms and the amount claimed on the particulars of this claim.

28. I refer to the case Parking Eye vs Cargius, November 2014 in which the judge dismissed the claim, The charge of £100 far exceeded the cost of the overstay (£2) and subsequent costs. Commercial justification did not apply because the car park generated substantial revenue and therefore it was not necessary to charge large amounts for transgressions to make management commercially viable (See Evidence L: Parking Eye vs Cargius).


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

Signed
Date

Evidence
A: Copy of Schedule 4 of the PoFA
B: Excel Vs Smith
C: POPLA Report 2015, Page 12-13
Excel Vs Lamoureux
E: DVLA Freedom of information Request Regarding Excel 2012 Ban
F: BBC article
G: BPA Code of Practice 2012
H: The Walk signage example
I: ParkingEye v Beavis
J: Excel Parking Services Ltd v M R Cutts
K: Excel Parking Services Ltd v Mrs S
L: Parking Eye vs Cargius

Coupon-mad

9. The claimant has produced no evidence of who was driving. I put the Claimant to strict proof that any contract exists between the Claimant and me. [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE].

13. The claimant is known to use Elliot Vs Loake (1982) as part of their standard meritless argument [STRIKE]defence[/STRIKE].

Changes as above, not least because the claimant's claim is not a 'defence'!

Don't put the Beavis case in as evidence, all Judges will know about that one and it would be enormous to print out, and you do not need it.

Apart from those small tweaks, good work, get it emailed to the Court & solicitors.

Bookbug123

Thank you Coupon-mad. Will do!

nosferatu1001

Email SIGNED