Ukcpm ignoring my appeal what to do?

Veed3779

Do you think she’d be too upset? [/QUOTE]

no comment!
:laugh::D

Veed3779

So weddings out the way honeymoon done, came home to letter from court with a date set in September, had another letter that says my witness statement needs to be done by 5th July seems quite early more than two months in advance? anyway I will write up my first attempt this week and will post up for some advice when done.

Veed3779

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXX

CLAIM No. XXXXX


Between:

(Claimant)

- and -

Mr XXXXX (Defendant)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT – MrXXXXX
__________________________________________________ __________________________________

1. I, XXXXX, of XXXXX was the driver in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1.2 Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked DS 1 DS2 etc., to which I will refer.

1.3 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.

1.4 The claim refers to a parking incident involving vehicle XXXXX on date xxxxt at xxxxxxxxxx

1.5 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 already submitted.

2. Sequence of Events

2.1 On (date) I parked my vehicle XXXXX on what appeared to be a public road (rd name)
2.2 The vehicle was parked in an area commonly used for parking, behind another parked car which you can see in the photo from UK Car Park Management, The vehicle was in no way contravening any Highway Regulations, and was parked safely without obstructing or obscuring any vehicular traffic. As such, I believe that I parked my vehicle responsibly and legitimately.
2.3 I was parked here for approx 10-15 mins in which time I visited 2 shops, on return to my car there was no ticket on windscreen.

2.4 About 3 weeks later I received a parking charge notice from CPM (dated XXXX) On xxx date I posted my appeal letter with proof postage see document DS 1.

2.5 I recieved no reply to my appeal and nearly 6 weeks later a formal demand arrived telling me the charge is overdue and has increased to £100

2.6 After a further 3 months with no reply to my appeal I received a letter from a debt collection agency and charge increased to £160. The distinctly threatening and aggressive correspondence continued 3 letters sent in 1 month see example DS2. The Claimant has pursued an entirely unreasonable and vexatious process designed to deny any reasonable opportunity for explanation or appeal process, which has led to the Court action now. I respectfully suggest that parking companies using the Small Claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demand against motorists is not something the Court should be seen to support.

2.7 I believe the £60 added by debt collection agency to be an abuse of process I refer to case heard by District Judge Taylor in Southampton court on 10th June 2019 Claim number F0DP201T.
The Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the my position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

2.8 Further to this I believe the claimant to have signed a statement of truth with an added on £60 cost with no legal basis to do so.

3 Parking

3.1 On entering xxxx rd, I looked for a suitable place to park down my left hand side I noticed numbered bays which I believed to be private and for residents of adjacent flats and I parked my car on the opposite side of the road behind another vehicle. I identified the area in question as suitable for parking based on the points listed below.

3.2 There are no road markings, such as yellow lines, adjacent to this area to indicate this is not a parking bay. See document DS 3

3.3 The vehicle was away from the junction with main road and not causing an obstruction and allowed a clear path for emergency vehicles.
3.4 The area in question looked to be in common usage as a parking area and i parked behind another vehicle.

3.5 The area gave the impression of a public highway and I had no reason to believe that it was in anyway a private road.


4. Inadequate Signage

4.1 On entering xxxx rd , I did not see any signage from my vehicle clearly indicating the parking restrictions. When I parked my car there were no signs adjacent to the space, or in the vicinity that could possibly be read from my vehicle as it was dark and there was insufficient lighting. Notice in exhibit DS that the photo taken by the parking company has required a flash to try to illuminate the poorly lit sign due to the improper lighting. I believe that in the case of “Vine vs London Borough of Waltham Forest” the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they have not seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no signage directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle when parking, as in the case here.

4.2 The signage in place at xxxxxxx is difficult to read. A key factor in the case of “ParkingEye vs Beavis” was that the relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. See document DS5

4.3 The sign is forbidding which I was unable to comply with because unless you already have a permit you cannot park anywhere.

4.4 The defendant refers the Court to the persuasive case of PACE Recovery and Storage v Lengyel. C7GF6E3R in which District Judge Iyer concluded as parking required a permit, and as the driver did not and could not have a permit, the contract in any case failed by the doctrine of impossibility. As many other judges have found with this type of signage, this would mean no contract could be in place and the driver would be a trespasser. As the claim did not argue trespass, it was therefore bound to fail.

4.5 The consequence of this is that any contract between UK Car Park Management and the myself required me to do something which I simply could not do, that is, display a permit. My inability to do this was not caused by any act or omission by myself but by a state of affairs over which i had no control. Indeed, it must have been obvious to the UK Car Park Management that if it erected a sign that it was a term of the contract that the driver of any parked vehicle displays a permit, it must have known in advance that many drivers would simply be unable to do this. Therefore, insofar as there was any contract between the parties, it was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance.”
The fee is not a parking fee but a penalty for breaching terms I have never been able to comply with (clearly expressed "breach of these terms"
I would argue that UK Car Park Management are using predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.

4.6 Upon later investigation, I believe the signage and operating practice of the Claimant in use at xxxxxxx fails the Claimant’s own accredited parking operator scheme (The Independent Parking Committee (IPC), on the basis that the signage on entering the site “should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land” and include a very large “P” to alert the motorist to the fact that the signage relates to parking restrictions. There is a very small p on a small sign that states no unauthorised parking which would lead you to believe they are referring to the private car parks and bays owned by the flats. See Exhibit DS 6 This sign not only small but is also very poorly lit and unreadable from a moving vehicle at night.

4.7 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage ‘should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’ The text on the signage, particularly that which refers to ‘contractual terms’ and a ‘parking charge’ is very small. This, coupled with the fact that the sign is mounted at least 7ft off the ground, makes it very hard to read and impossible to read from a vehicle especially at night in poorly lit areas.

4.8 The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. The fact that there is no offer of a contract at this time of night to non residents and signage around this area does not make this clear and that it is known that other motorists use this area as a legitimate parking area , I would question that the Claimant is deliberately obscuring this fact to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices solely for financial gain.

5 Declaration

I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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


Signature

- [ ]

Veed3779

This is my attempt at my witness statement does this look ok or am I miles off?

Coupon-mad

Your defence had a heading telling us the claimant was UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD, yet this WS says in 2.2. ''you can see in the photo from UKPC'' (a BPA member!).

This is not the right full name; the IPC changed it years ago:

Independent Parking Committee (IPC)

And why after all the advice given earlier, are you not filing PACE v Lengyel?

beamerguy

2.6 After a further 3 months with no reply to my appeal I received a letter from a debt collection agency and charge increased to £160

You do realise that the fake add-on by the debt collector is an added scam on the claim.

Gladstones is scamming the court with abuse of process
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75929156#Comment_75929156

You must point this out to the court quoting case numbers and decisions of Judges.

Added to this, Gladstones will have signed to say that their claim is a statement of truth, just as you did.
BUT, how can they claim this is the truth with a fake £60 claim ?

Veed3779

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Your defence had a heading telling us the claimant was UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD, yet this WS says in 2.2. ''you can see in the photo from UKPC'' (a BPA member!).

This is not the right full name; the IPC changed it years ago:


That was an error I don't know why it came out as ukpc either it auto corrected it for some reason or I got confused with the abbreviation and typed it wrong have edited it now and can confirm it is UK Car Park Management CPM.

I am looking to include more and am looking into adding something regarding that case as I do remember it being pointed out when discussing my defence, I just wanted to get a WS posted first so I can then edited as I go as I am running out of time and just wanted to make sure I was along the right lines with it.

Coupon-mad

You are on the right lines but re-read what Johnersh (a solicitor) told you about Pace v Lengyel and arguing that any contract was void for impossibility.

Veed3779

Have edited the WS and added in some points advised in sections 2and 4

Veed3779

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXX

CLAIM No. XXXXX


Between:

(Claimant)

- and -

Mr XXXXX (Defendant)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT – MrXXXXX
__________________________________________________ __________________________________

1. I, XXXXX, of XXXXX was the driver in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1.2 Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked DS 1 DS2 etc., to which I will refer.

1.3 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.

1.4 The claim refers to a parking incident involving vehicle XXXXX on date xxxxt at xxxxxxxxxx

1.5 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 already submitted.

2. Sequence of Events

2.1 On (date) I parked my vehicle XXXXX on what appeared to be a public road (rd name)
2.2 The vehicle was parked in an area commonly used for parking, behind another parked car which you can see in the photo from UK Car Park Management, The vehicle was in no way contravening any Highway Regulations, and was parked safely without obstructing or obscuring any vehicular traffic. As such, I believe that I parked my vehicle responsibly and legitimately.
2.3 I was parked here for approx 10-15 mins in which time I visited 2 shops, on return to my car there was no ticket on windscreen.

2.4 About 3 weeks later I received a parking charge notice from CPM (dated XXXX) On xxx date I posted my appeal letter with proof postage see document DS 1.

2.5 I received no reply to my appeal and nearly 6 weeks later a formal demand arrived telling me the charge is overdue and has increased to £100

2.6 After a further 3 months with no reply to my appeal I received a letter from a debt collection agency and charge increased to £160. The distinctly threatening and aggressive correspondence continued 3 letters sent in 1 month see example DS2. The Claimant has pursued an entirely unreasonable and vexatious process designed to deny any reasonable opportunity for explanation or appeal process, which has led to the Court action now. I respectfully suggest that parking companies using the Small Claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demand against motorists is not something the Court should be seen to support.

2.7 I believe the £60 added by debt collection agency to be an abuse of process I refer to case heard by District Judge Grand in Newport County Court on 21st February 2019 see document DS X
The Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the my position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

2.8 Further to this I believe the claimant to have signed a statement of truth with an added on £60 cost with no legal basis to do so.

3 Parking

3.1 On entering xxxx rd, I looked for a suitable place to park down my left hand side I noticed numbered bays which I believed to be private and for residents of adjacent flats and I parked my car on the opposite side of the road behind another vehicle. I identified the area in question as suitable for parking based on the points listed below.

3.2 There are no road markings, such as yellow lines, adjacent to this area to indicate this is not a parking bay. See document DS 3

3.3 The vehicle was away from the junction with main road and not causing an obstruction and allowed a clear path for emergency vehicles.
3.4 The area in question looked to be in common usage as a parking area and i parked behind another vehicle.

3.5 The area gave the impression of a public highway and I had no reason to believe that it was in anyway a private road.


4. Inadequate Signage

4.1 On entering xxxx rd , I did not see any signage from my vehicle clearly indicating the parking restrictions. When I parked my car there were no signs adjacent to the space, or in the vicinity that could possibly be read from my vehicle as it was dark and there was insufficient lighting. Notice in exhibit DS that the photo taken by the parking company has required a flash to try to illuminate the poorly lit sign due to the improper lighting. I believe that in the case of “Vine vs London Borough of Waltham Forest” the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they have not seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no signage directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle when parking, as in the case here.

4.2 The signage in place at xxxxxxx is difficult to read. A key factor in the case of “ParkingEye vs Beavis” was that the relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. See document DS5

4.3 The sign is forbidding which I was unable to comply with because unless you already have a permit you cannot park anywhere.

4.4 The defendant refers the Court to the persuasive case of PACE Recovery and Storage v Lengyel. C7GF6E3R in which District Judge Iyer concluded as parking required a permit, and as the driver did not and could not have a permit, the contract in any case failed by the doctrine of impossibility. As many other judges have found with this type of signage, this would mean no contract could be in place and the driver would be a trespasser. As the claim did not argue trespass, it was therefore bound to fail.

4.5 The consequence of this is that any contract between UK Car Park Management and the myself required me to do something which I simply could not do, that is, display a permit. My inability to do this was not caused by any act or omission by myself but by a state of affairs over which i had no control. Indeed, it must have been obvious to the UK Car Park Management that if it erected a sign that it was a term of the contract that the driver of any parked vehicle displays a permit, it must have known in advance that many drivers would simply be unable to do this. Therefore, insofar as there was any contract between the parties, it was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance.”
The fee is not a parking fee but a penalty for breaching terms I have never been able to comply with (clearly expressed "breach of these terms"
I would argue that UK Car Park Management are using predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.

4.6 Upon later investigation, I believe the signage and operating practice of the Claimant in use at xxxxxxx fails the Claimant’s own accredited parking operator scheme (The Independent Parking Committee (IPC), on the basis that the signage on entering the site “should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land” and include a very large “P” to alert the motorist to the fact that the signage relates to parking restrictions. There is a very small p on a small sign that states no unauthorised parking which would lead you to believe they are referring to the private car parks and bays owned by the flats. See Exhibit DS 6 This sign not only small but is also very poorly lit and unreadable from a moving vehicle at night.

4.7 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage ‘should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’ The text on the signage, particularly that which refers to ‘contractual terms’ and a ‘parking charge’ is very small. This, coupled with the fact that the sign is mounted at least 7ft off the ground, makes it very hard to read and impossible to read from a vehicle especially at night in poorly lit areas.

4.8 The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. The fact that there is no offer of a contract at this time of night to non residents and signage around this area does not make this clear and that it is known that other motorists use this area as a legitimate parking area , I would question that the Claimant is deliberately obscuring this fact to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices solely for financial gain.

5 Declaration

I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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


Signature