Letter Before Claim - UKPPO

Elmo111

Hi all,

Just putting some finishing touches up on my WS - going through some old email correspondence with UKPPO, there is an email with a 'reminder letter' that was sent as an attachment. I would assume this is what they mean to be an NtK, however didn't state this in their emails.

Could somebody confirm if this is a POFA compliant NtK?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YfJgaFxuLJVZQn2xwqFGeHKB4G-8W0V5/view?usp=sharing

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Yes it is, but they can't add a random £50 for the same letters that create the business model for £100 charge. Double recovery - not allowed in law.

The £100 already covers the cost of letters (the Beavis case said so, and that PCN was £85).

Elmo111

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes it is, but they can't add a random £50 for the same letters that create the business model for £100 charge. Double recovery - not allowed in law.

The £100 already covers the cost of letters (the Beavis case said so, and that PCN was £85).

Thanks Coupon-Mad,

Here is my first WS draft (albeit incomplete).

Each block of X letters represents a piece of evidence that I have organised and ready. However knowing that the NtK is compliant kind of mutes some of my points.

I'd love some feedback, or at least something to confirm I'm on the right lines.
____________________________________

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

UK PARKING PATROL OFFICE LTD
(Claimant)

-and-


XXXXXXX
(Defendant)

___________________________________________________________________________

WITNESS
___________________________________________________________________________

I, XXXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked XX1 to which I will refer.

The Claimant asserts that I had incurred 4 parking charges between the dates of 14.07.2017 and 09.09.2017. After disputing receiving any form of NtK (Notice to Keeper) or any correspondence prior to the LBC, UKPPO have failed to identify the driver of the vehicle and are still holding me accountable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle.
(a) UKPPO have not supplied evidence to comply with the requirements of POFA 2012 Section 4, (X) to transfer liability from driver to keeper.

In correspondence with Karen, from the UKPPO legal department, she states how she struggles to understand how 24 supposedly sent letters to me would go astray, and under the balance of probabilities assumes the letters were delivered. (XX) However, after asking UKPPO to follow section 5.2 of Pre-Action Protocol guidelines they had suggested I use going forward, UKPPO are unable to supply evidence of the POFA compliant NtK (Notice-to-Keeper) letters existing, or proof of postage to show that said letters were actually sent. (XXX)

On the 3rd April 2018, I had received an A4 sized packaged letter, which was to be from UKPPO, detailing their actions going forward with a Letter Before Claim. (XXXX). The error-ridden LBC stated that I had 30 days to pay their charges or they would commence legal action. Granted, this letter was dated on the 20th of March 2018, so already, I was cut 14 days short of finding a solution to a problem in which I was already filled with scepticism..

Immediately emailing UKPPO from the address on their website, no less than 24 hours later I received a reply from Karen, stating that 4 ‘reminder’ letters were sent addressed to myself at my parents address, where the car was registered, and where I regularly visited, followed with my reply stating I had not received any kind of correspondence regarding the supposed contraventions.

Part of the Pre-action Protocol stipulates that any information I’d requested should be delivered within 30 days, or an explanation as to why it is not available. (XXXXX) Karen had mentioned that delivery of the documents where protected ‘Under The Interpretations Act 1978’, however this is only the case if proof of postings are available. (XXXXXX)

After lengthy emails with Karen from UKPPO, it almost felt as though my questions and comments where being evaded, being informed that if I had not received the letters sent, I should get in touch with my postal service. Attached to this are 4 digital Parking Charge Notices copies, and one digital PDF document of the contractual signage. (XXXXXXX).

As the tenant of the property at the time, I was aware that the property did not come with a parking space. This was known at the time of signing the tenancy agreement and had previously documented all possible options to park, including a single yellow main road directly adjacent to the apartment block, just around the corner on Tame Street, or a small patch of available spaces near to the nearest Metrolink Tram Stop. (XXXXXXXX) It is noted that on Every Street, highlighted in black was later changed to a double yellow zone in October 2018.

At this point I’d asked if the Parking Charge Notices are an acceptable form of Notice to Keeper, and Karen had simply given me the definition of what a Notice to Keeper was, including where they had acquired my address, from the DVLA. To me, this is not answering my question, and almost delivering a political style response, evading the question without an answer.

Karen had then also once again mentioned another act, the Protections of Freedom Act, 2012. For UKPPO to rely on POFA 2012, and my understanding of the Pre-action Protocol, they must be able to provide me with a POFA compliant NtK if they are to rely on this in a court of law. POFA 2012 also stipulates that the keeper does not need to name the driver of the vehicle.

The 19th April was the last day for payment required by UKPPO. It was at this point that I decided to do some digging myself and get in touch with the owner of the land and ask for CCTV footage from the dates of the supposed contraventions. After responses from UrbanBubble, the landowner, they stated that they only hold their CCTV for 4 weeks.

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

_________________________________



They are of course numbered paragraphs, but the formatting from Google Docs messes up the copy/paste into here!

Thank you all for your help this far,

Elmo111

So I've realised that because of the one POFA compliant NtK that UKPPO had sent to me, at least 3/4 of my WS points become invalid, or maybe slightly usable with some tweaking.

@Coupon-Mad, how would I fit in the 'double recovery'? Would this in theory interrupt the compliant nature of the NtK?

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

Karen had mentioned that delivery of the documents where protected ‘Under The Interpretations Act 1978’, however this is only the case if proof of postings are available. (XXXXXX)

I am not sure that's right but I see Castle posted about it last year on your thread.

My understanding is that a letter sent by ordinary 1st class post IS deemed delivered by the second working day, unless the contrary is proved. AFAIK there is no requirement for proof of posting, and IamEmanresu (now an archived user) confirmed this in post #34, and he is legally qualified. He said:

''To ask for proof of posting just marks you out as ripe for picking.''

I agree. DO NOT go there!

Your WS looks too waffly to me and provides no case to support your defence.

One of the main points for me, would be that UKPPO confirmed that ''the signs clearly state: “Parking Is Restricted To Vehicles Displaying A Valid Permit Only”,'' thus they are admitting that they offer consideration in the form of a parking licence ONLY to one specific type of driver. Any other driver is not bound by the signs and for a non-permit holder, the alleged 'contract' is void for impossibility and attempts to twist trespass to dress it up as if it's a contractual agreement.

You need to adduce as exhibits:

PACE v Lengyel (decided by the lovely DJ Iyers at MANCHESTER - your court?!)

and

PCM v Bull & Others

and

Jopson v Homeguard

Go read those transcripts, hosted in the Parking Prankster's case law pages.

You can then argue (although this is more of a legal point for a skeleton argument (see NEWBIES thread for examples!) leading from the findings in PACE v Lengyel and PCM v Bull & Ors, that there was no 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' for a NON permit holder to possibly be bound by.

The signs are forbidding, and offer nothing of value to a non permit holder:

http://!!!!!!/UKPPOJuly2013Signage

It could be a matter of trespass only - but that's not what the Claimant has pleaded, and the binding Supreme Court ParkingEye v Beavis case held that a third party parking firm not in possession of the land, cannot pursue a driver under the tort of trespass, because they have no loss or damages and if ParkingEye had pleaded their case that way, they as a non landowner, would have failed.

As for Jopson v Homeguard, the reasons I reckon you need to adduce that one, is firstly that it is a residential parking case heard ON APPEAL (higher level Judge, and persuasive on the lower courts).

Secondly, I bet the photos of the car only show it there for two minutes or so each time? Hence, you can argue that the Claimant's photo evidence is minimal and merely shows a car briefly stopped, which is likely to have been times when a driver was loading or unloading possessions into or out of the adjacent flat.

You need to say this honestly at the hearing, that this is LIKELY to have been the case. Can you do that, perhaps with recollections of furniture or other large or heavy or unwieldy items that were purchased and moved in at that time? It's particularly compelling if you explain that Summer was when you moved in or out...?

Then you can point to the persuasive Appeal case of Jopson, heard by a Senior Circuit Judge, where he held that life on a block of flats would be 'unworkable' if residents could not briefly stop a vehicle to unload, or to take children or elderly relatives upstairs/in, or if all delivery drivers were held to have 'parked' and issued with penalties every time a car stops for a 'minor vicissitude' (Judge's words).

Not 'parked'...

At your hearing, PROMISE us you will NOT say that you accept the PCNs and would have paid them. You need to get into another mindset here completely.

As for arguing about costs, you MUST! They cannot add sixty quid a pop! In fact looking at the claim form:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1df5E3x07htz2kt18rZh54eg_agmndGyV/view

By presumably 'ghost ticketing' (putting PCNs on a car for a photo, then removing them so a driver can't appeal and knows nothing about them...) they have escalated what would have been £60 PCNs x 4 (a £240 liability had the driver seen them) into an eye-watering £729.58!

That is clearly an abuse of process and around TRIPLE recovery being attempted for four PCNs that were never left on the car at all, for incidents that were momentary and (I hope you can argue this...?) times when the car was likely to be just being loaded/unloaded, or child/elderly/disabled passengers were being escorted to the flat...

You did mention ghost ticketing in an earlier post but you haven't alleged it in your WS. I would certainly have this in your WS, as as far as I could see, you haven't explained why you asked Urban Bubble for that CCTV:

I've also asked the land owners if they have functioning CCTV of the car park in question, to see if the tickets where removed from the vehicle before I actually had a chance to see them - again, just because UKPPO can show they where affixed to the vehicle, doesn't mean that I physically saw/acknowledged them - which I didn't.

Have they supplied photos of the car & sign in the same image or dated photos of the signs in situ at the location in 2017?

Finally, why are you saying stuff like this (remove it):

As the tenant of the property at the time, I was aware that the property did not come with a parking space. This was known at the time of signing the tenancy agreement and had previously documented all possible options to park, including a single yellow main road directly adjacent to the apartment block, just around the corner on Tame Street, or a small patch of available spaces near to the nearest Metrolink Tram Stop. (XXXXXXXX) It is noted that on Every Street, highlighted in black was later changed to a double yellow zone in October 2018.

I don't see how that helps at all!

Why are you not adducing a copy of your tenancy agreement as proof that you were a resident and that the car was only used to deliver/load/unload (or is that an impossible standpoint to argue?).

Drop the argument that you were not driving and write with knowledge as the driver, who was a resident but having a permit was impossible, yet this does not preclude stopping to load goods or passengers... etc.

Elmo111

Coupon-Mad, that is incredibly detailed and I'm massively grateful.

Before you replied I'd been making some changes this evening, I have indeed adduced the tenancy agreement and included that a friend of mine had moved in with me and my girlfriend for the last 6 months of the tenancy, who also had access to the vehicle.

Seeing the depth and angle in which I can protect myself here is absolutely changing my mindset.

After reading your reply a few times, it's given me tonnes of information to work with, so going into the weekend I'll have a second draft with the necessary details in.

''To ask for proof of posting just marks you out as ripe for picking.'

You're right, and I've removed this after some further research.

One of the main points for me, would be that UKPPO confirmed that ''the signs clearly state: “Parking Is Restricted To Vehicles Displaying A Valid Permit Only”,'' thus they are admitting that they offer consideration in the form of a parking licence ONLY to one specific type of driver. Any other driver is not bound by the signs and for a non-permit holder, the alleged 'contract' is void for impossibility and attempts to twist trespass to dress it up as if it's a contractual agreement.

This is interesting and will absolutely be used going forwards.

It could be a matter of trespass only - but that's not what the Claimant has pleaded, and the binding Supreme Court ParkingEye v Beavis case held that a third party parking firm not in possession of the land, cannot pursue a driver under the tort of trespass, because they have no loss or damages and if ParkingEye had pleaded their case that way, they as a non landowner, would have failed.

I was originally going to consider mentioning something similar to this after reading my defence statement, however you've delivered it in a way that makes it both understandable and relevant, so thank you!

Secondly, I bet the photos of the car only show it there for two minutes or so each time? Hence, you can argue that the Claimant's photo evidence is minimal and merely shows a car briefly stopped, which is likely to have been times when a driver was loading or unloading possessions into or out of the adjacent flat.

I've received 8 pictures in total, 2 from each supposed contravention, with 2 of the pictures showing only a 7 second observation time and no signage...

By presumably 'ghost ticketing' (putting PCNs on a car for a photo, then removing them so a driver can't appeal and knows nothing about them...) they have escalated what would have been £60 PCNs x 4 (a £240 liability had the driver seen them) into an eye-watering £729.58!

On my newest draft I have included ghost-ticketing, and the continued negligence of Urban Bubble around the shutters not functioning for sometimes months at a time, coincidentally, right around the time of the supposed contraventions. So it's good to know that I'm kinda heading in the right direction...

That is clearly an abuse of process and around TRIPLE recovery being attempted for four PCNs that were never left on the car at all, for incidents that were momentary and (I hope you can argue this...?) times when the car was likely to be just being loaded/unloaded, or child/elderly/disabled passengers were being escorted to the flat...

Would I mentioned abuse of process as black and white as that? Assuming the driver did not see the PCNs, I suppose this would indeed be the case.

Have they supplied photos of the car & sign in the same image or dated photos of the signs in situ at the location in 2017?

There is a slight confusion between the location, on the PoC the car park they mention is different to the 'Statement of Outstanding Balances' car park. (a document that UKPPO sent me along with the set of 8 images). I've mentioned in my WS that the PoC is either inaccurate or incorrect, based on there being no thru access to the other car park.

Finally, why are you saying stuff like this (remove it):

I mentioned this to show that there was absolutely no incentive to park inside the building knowing the availability of parking outside the premises was so large and easy to access.

I'm really just trying to piece together the foundations of a strong WS, and MSE and yourself have been absolutely nothing but generous to me.

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

I've received 8 pictures in total, 2 from each supposed contravention, with 2 of the pictures showing only a 7 second observation time and no signage...

Bingo!

Surely the friend who had moved in with you and your girlfriend for the last 6 months of the tenancy, who also had access to the vehicle, COULD have been unloading or loading belongings in that minute when the parking scammer pounced each time?

I think you can and must adduce Jopson and suggest that was the case (you or the friend or your girlfriend must have gone food shopping sometimes or brought things to the flat by car briefly, to make it manageable to take up/into the flat?)

Jopson is an appeal case (persuasive and higher level, unlike the other two) that confirms that brief stopping to unload or load or deliver people or bags or whatever to a flat, is OK for tenants to undertake, and is NOT 'parking' and is NOT subject to the signs...

Would I mentioned abuse of process as black and white as that?

Yes. But be clear that the 'abuse of the court process' is not to do with what happened as such, but the fact they are trying for triple recovery (and appear to have been ghost ticketing, denying the driver any knowledge of the PCNs and swooping in for more before the keeper could possibly have known or had a chance to think about paying sixty quid).

I mentioned this to show that there was absolutely no incentive to park inside the building knowing the availability of parking outside the premises was so large and easy to access.

Ah, so explain it that way, and it supports even more that these brief moments in time were snapshots of loading, and Jopson (if the Judge is persuaded by it) kills the claim.

You need to clearly say there'd never be a reason to LEAVE the car parked there because there were places to park and so it cannot have been a case of parking & leaving the vehicle for any length of time.

Elmo111

Hi all,

Please see my second WS draft. Each of the pieces of evidence I am to exhibit are marked (XX) in brackets.

WITNESS STATEMENT
___________________________________________________________________________

I, XXXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked XX1 to which I will refer.

1. The Claimant asserts that I had incurred 4 parking charges between the dates of 14.07.2017 and 09.09.2017. After disputing receiving any form of NtK (Notice to Keeper) or any correspondence prior to the LBC, UKPPO have failed to identify the driver of the vehicle and are still holding me accountable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle.
(a) UKPPO confirmed that ''the signs clearly state: “Parking Is Restricted To Vehicles Displaying A Valid Permit Only”,'' thus they are admitting that they offer consideration in the form of a parking licence ONLY to one specific type of driver. Any other driver is not bound by the signs and for a non-permit holder, the alleged 'contract' is void for impossibility and attempts to twist trespass to dress it up as if it's a contractual agreement.
(b) The claimant is not pleading trespass, and the binding Supreme Court ParkingEye v Beavis case held that a third party parking firm not in possession of the land, cannot pursue a driver under the tort of trespass, because they have no loss or damages and if ParkingEye had pleaded their case that way, they as a non landowner, would have failed. (X1)

2. On the 3rd April 2018, I had received an A4 sized packaged letter, which was to be from UKPPO, detailing their actions going forward with a Letter Before Claim. (X2). The error-ridden LBC stated that I had 30 days to pay their charges or they would commence legal action. Granted, this letter was dated on the 20th of March 2018, so already, I was cut 14 days short of finding a solution to a problem in which I was already filled with scepticism. Might I also add that earlier on that day I had found out of the passing of my terminally ill Aunty, so receiving the LBC on top of that caused added unnecessary distress.

3. Immediately emailing UKPPO from the address on their website, no less than 24 hours later I received a reply from Karen, stating that 4 ‘reminder’ letters were sent addressed to myself at my parents address, where the car was registered, and where I regularly visited, followed with my reply stating I had not received any kind of correspondence regarding the supposed contraventions.

4. In correspondence with Karen, from the UKPPO legal department, she states how she struggles to understand how 24 supposedly sent letters to me would go astray, and under the balance of probabilities assumes the letters were delivered. The 24 letters also include 20 of which belonging to a debt collection agency. (X3) After a long 4 days wait from Karen, she stated that at this point I contact the unknown debt recovery company.

5. After lengthy emails with Karen from UKPPO, I felt as though my questions and comments where being evaded, being informed that if I had not received the letters sent, I should get in touch this time with my postal service. Attached to this where 4 digital Parking Charge Notices copies, and one digital PDF document of the signage. (X4). According to the timestamps on one supposed contravention, the vehicle was observed for 7 seconds, and with no signage on display in the photographs. This evidence is minimal and merely shows the vehicle stopped for a snapshot in time. Likewise, the other 3 sets of images show less than 60 seconds of observation time. These appear to be momentary snapshots of a stopped vehicle, that could’ve been unloading or loading. This has been deemed not unreasonable by the persuasive appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard, In which a Senior Circuit Judge stated that life on a block of flats would be 'unworkable' if residents could not briefly stop a vehicle to unload, or to take children or elderly relatives upstairs/in, or if all delivery drivers were held to have 'parked' and issued with penalties every time a car stops for a 'minor vicissitude'. (X5)

6. As the tenant of the property at the time, I was aware that the property did not come with a parking space. I had documented all possible options to park, including a single yellow main road directly adjacent to the apartment block, just around the corner on Tame Street, or a small patch of available spaces near to the nearest Metrolink Tram Stop. (X6) It is noted that on Every Street, highlighted in black was later changed to a double yellow zone in October 2018. As I work in the centre of Manchester and would happily endure the 20 minute walk to work, I would keep the vehicle in one of the available free parking areas nearby. There was absolutely no incentive to park inside the building knowing the availability of parking outside the premises was so readily available and convenient.

7. I lived at Advent 2/3 from November 2016 till November 2017 with my girlfriend of the time. We both had a set of keys, fob access including access to all of the necessary parts of the apartment block. (X7) At roughly the 6 month mark, a friend moved in and made use of the second bedroom till the end of the tenancy. We had an extra set of keys cut and a fob coded prior to his arrival. As stated earlier, living and working close to the centre enabled me to leave the keys for the vehicle at home.

8. At this point I’d asked if a Parking Charge Notice is an acceptable form of Notice to Keeper, and Karen had simply given me the definition of what a Notice to Keeper was, including where they had acquired my address, from the DVLA. To me, this is not answering my question, and almost delivering a response that once again evades the question without an answer - receiving roughly 1 email every other day from Karen, this could seem an unreasonable tactic in delaying evidence being sent/received, giving the impending deadline already cut short due to the method in which the LBC was sent.

9. Karen had then also once again mentioned another act, the Protections of Freedom Act, 2012. For UKPPO to rely on POFA 2012, and my understanding of the Pre-action Protocol, they must be able to provide me with a POFA compliant NtK if they are to rely on this in a court of law. POFA 2012 also stipulates that the keeper does not need to name the driver of the vehicle.

10. The 19th April was the last day for payment required by UKPPO. It was at this point that I decided to do some digging myself and get in touch with the owner of the land (UrbanBubble) and ask for CCTV footage from the dates of the supposed contraventions. I had come across a phenomenon known as ‘Ghost ticketing’, where incentivised ticketers would affix a ticket to a vehicle, take a picture prior to removing the tickets, eliminating the chance for the driver to challenge the PCN. After responses from UrbanBubble, they stated that they only hold their CCTV for 4 weeks and are unable to confirm that the tickets affixed to the vehicle where removed, or if they existed.

11. During my time at Advent 2/3 there were many occasions where shutters, leading to the underground spaces and giving direct access to the apartments, where sometimes unable to close, forced open, or damaged awaiting repair. Along with this, there are many reports of vandalism, stolen items, break-ins and a general negligence and disdain from the landowner, Urbanbubble, including many unwelcome guests to the underground car park, which is one door away from direct access to the rest of the Apartments at Advent 2/3. I recall many times seeing homeless people rummaging through the bins and loitering around vehicles. This in itself was more than enough of a reason to never wanting to leave the vehicle there for any length of time. (X8)

12. Along with this, if ‘ghost ticketing’ was in fact present in the area, denying the driver any knowledge of the ticket, the total claimed amount on the Claim Form deduces almost triple recovery and is an abuse of the court process. If indeed the tickets existed, what could’ve simply been 4 lots of £60 for the driver, now sits at £729.58.

13. The sparse Particulars of Claim do not state the dates in which the supposed contraventions took place. On the ‘Statement of outstanding balance’ received from UKPPO regarding the dates of the tickets, I noticed the supposed location is ‘Private Road and underground carpark at Advent Way’, whereas the Particulars of Claim state the contraventions took place at ‘Private Road and underground carparks at Advent 1 2 and 3 Isaac Way Manchester’. Highlighted on (X9) there is no direct access for a vehicle from the Advent Way carpark, into Isaac Way carpark as these are 2 separate car parks.

14. After further looking at the photographic evidence displaying the vehicle stopped, they do not include an exact location of where the supposed contraventions took place, especially given there are 2 individual car parks, with no through access. Adding to this, the signage in the pictures is anything but legible. In the digital signage that UKPPO have sent to me, one would argue that this is not an actual photograph of the signage on display in the scene of any photographs taken. Once the tenancy had ended and the keys and fob returned, I no longer had access to the car parks in order to facilitate my own evidence search. (X10)

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


Any thoughts and comments are welcome,

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

I think you need less about Karen, and nothing about the 24 letters that 'went astray', as that is hard for YOU (not them) to explain, on top of alleged ghost ticketing and could work against you.

Were you a tenant and can you provide the first item I suggest in red?

I think you need to paint the picture more like this:

WITNESS STATEMENT
___________________________________________________________________________

1. I, XXXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, will say as follows:

2. I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked XX1 to which I will refer.

3. This claim relates to a location where I shared a flat in 2017, and where I can confirm that I have never parked my vehicle, because suitable long-term parking was provided very close by for residents' cars and we were at all times respectful of the rules of our tenancy (X1 - copy of positive reference from the landlord).

4. I lived at Advent 2/3 from November 2016 till November 2017 with my girlfriend of the time. We both had a set of keys, fob access including access to all of the necessary parts of the apartment block. (X1). At roughly the 6 month mark, a friend moved in and made use of the second bedroom till the end of the tenancy. We had an extra set of keys cut and a fob coded prior to his arrival. Living and working close to the centre enabled me to leave the keys for the vehicle at home.

5. As the tenant of the property at the time, I was aware that the property did not come with a parking space. I had documented all possible options to park, including a single yellow main road directly adjacent to the apartment block, just around the corner on Tame Street, or a small patch of available spaces near to the nearest Metrolink Tram Stop. (X6) It is noted that on Every Street, highlighted in black was later changed to a double yellow zone in October 2018. As I work in the centre of Manchester and would happily endure the 20 minute walk to work, I would keep the vehicle in one of the available free parking areas nearby. There was absolutely no incentive to park inside the building knowing the availability of parking outside the premises was so readily available and convenient.

6. It is not denied that the Claimant's photographs show my car for a minute or two, however it is contended that this was when the car was stopped very briefly to drop off or loading/unloading belongings or furniture as part of normal daily life as flat-sharers. Necessary loading/unloading was not disallowed by the freeholder or by any terms on signage, otherwise residents would have been unable to move furniture and belongings in/out.

7. Vehicular access and rights of way were certainly implied by grant or easement and some users were issued permits, and we all had key fobs for access, so as tenants, we were de facto authorised users of the communal outside spaces. Also, services as deliveries, taxis, etc. were not forbidden, and nor was unloading and no permit was required for those brief activities. My car was never left parked there for any 'period of parking' by any driver, but as mentioned above, my good friend became the third sharer (and third car driver) and he moved in that Summer.

8. The Claimant asserts that I had incurred four parking charge notices (PCNs) between the dates of 14.07.2017 and 09.09.2017, however no PCNs were left on the vehicle, to my knowledge, and I received no letters about the matter until a pre-action letter arrived out of the blue in 2018 demanding over £665. I replied to the Claimant via e-mail, stating that this is the absolute first I had heard about the purported four PCNs.

9. I was told by this Claimant to dispute the letters with a company I had never heard of, called 'Debt Recovery Plus' (DRP), which was futile and the Claimant will have known that contact with that firm merely results in intimidatory demands for money and there is no 'dispute' possible. I have since discovered that DRP operate for parking firms on a no-collection, no fee basis (X2 - screenshot from DRP's website)* . This exposes as an untruth, the Claimant's extortionate claim total which has now reached a wholly unjustified figure seemingly plucked from thin air, inexplicably totalling £729.58 (conveniently taking the claim above the line for High Court Enforcement, had I not defended in time). It includes what has been variously described by them as 'debt collection costs' or contractual/indemnity fees. No such fees were paid or incurred and the Claim total represents double recovery, including sums which a parking firm is not entitled to add. This is surely a gross abuse of process.

10. The Claimant's evidence demonstrates predatory ticketing, a complete lack of grace period before draconian enforcement, and probable 'ghost ticketing' by whoever took the very minimal photo evidence. All such rogue conduct is expressly forbidden by the International Parking Community Code of Practice (IPC CoP), and I am aware that private parking CoP rules were described by the Supreme Court in 2015 as effectively regulatory, given that member firms cannot obtain DVLA data unless they comply with and sign up to their Trade Body CoP.

11. Ghost ticketing is, I have discovered to my horror, a well-known rogue practice that more than one 'Approved Operator' member has been caught doing - namely placing a yellow envelope on a car for a quick photo opportunity only, then removing it and uploading the photos to the parking firm, unbeknown to the car driver.

12. This involves using often untrained self-ticketing individuals who are not directly employed by or trained by the parking firm, but who are paid a 'bounty' for each PCN issued. This not only incentivises unfair PCNs but means that such ticketers are untrained in the law and rules relating to consumer contracts and parking (as opposed to unloading) on private land, and often rush their photos, even forgetting to fully capture the dashboard, numberplate and/or signage in the background.

13. This is indeed the case in the photos relied upon by this Claimant, who has produced a mere eight pictures in total, just two from each supposed contravention, with two of the pictures showing nothing but a seven second 'observation' time and no signage. This evidence is minimal and merely shows the vehicle stopped for a snapshot in time. Likewise, the other three sets of images show less than 60 seconds of observation time.

14. I believe the conduct of the photographer (I will not call them a ticketer, as there were no PCNs) was unreasonable and vexatious and fails to even show any 'period of parking' for which enforcement was appropriate. I wish to question that person at the hearing, or will question the Claimant's representative to explain whether the photographer was a permanent employee of their company, or a new/untrained employee, or a self ticketer, and to evidence that the person was trained in the relevant rules and laws, including the DVLA KADOE rules, the IPC CoP (grace periods, predatory ticketing and self-ticketing sections), the POFA 2012 and the Data Protection Act, given that they were processing my personal data as registered keeper of that VRN.

15. Private PCNs such as these at residential car parks when vehicles are merely unloading have been deemed unreasonable and unrecoverable by the Appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, in which a Senior Circuit Judge sitting at Oxford Court corrected the earlier error from the first trial. His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC took time to define 'parking' and differentiate it from the rights of way or easements allowing unloading (of furniture, in that case) which are nowadays an implied if not express right for residents living at locations where vehicular access is allowed even if actual parking bays are allocated elsewhere. The Judge held that life on a block of flats would be 'unworkable' if residents could not briefly stop a vehicle to unload, or if all delivery drivers were held to have 'parked' and issued with penalties every time a car stopped for what the Judge described as a 'minor vicissitude'. That case transcript is adduced in evidence and being an Appeal case, Jopson is persuasive on cases of similar facts. (X3)

16. Further, the Claimant has failed to identify the driver in pre-action communications or in their evidence, and on the balance of probabilities it was not me because at the material time in 2017 the car was insured with three possible drivers (myself and my two very trustworthy flat sharers).

17. Given the fact that no PCN nor postal Notices to Keeper (NTKs) were properly served, and the first I knew of these issues was in 2018, it is indisputable that the Claimant has failed to meet the deadlines for mandatory service of specifically-worded documents as set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012 (the POFA). As such, I cannot be held liable under Schedule 4 of the POFA because liability cannot pass to a registered keeper without full compliance (X4 - Schedule 4 - the relevant paragraphs being 1 - 9).

18. Whether the Claimant was using an incorrect or old address, or simply did not post NTKs to me at all for these 'ghost ticketing' events, I do not know, but the requirements of Schedule 4 include set rules, deadlines and wording for PCNs and NTKs, as well as the existence of 'adequate' signage and a 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' and a 'period of parking'. None of this exists based upon the Claimant's shaky evidence of two photos per alleged PCN, taken over a period of mere seconds, not minutes or hours.

19. Further and in the alternative, UKPPO confirmed that ''the signs state: “Parking Is Restricted To Vehicles Displaying A Valid Permit Only”, thus they are admitting that they offer 'restricted' consideration in the form of a parking licence ONLY to one specific type of driver. Any other driver is not bound by the signs and for a non-permit holder, the alleged 'contract' is void for impossibility and attempts to twist trespass to dress it up as if it's a contractual agreement. The relevant parking case of similar facts here, is PACE Recovery and Storage Ltd vs. Zoltan Lengyel (C7GF6E3R) where District Judge Iyer, sitting at Manchester Court, dismissed the claim which had alleged that an agreed contractual relationship had existed with a non-permit holder. (X5 - transcript)**.

20. A car parked without permission is not bound by any licence or contract, given the drafting of this Claimant's signs, and a non-permit holding driver (if parked, which is denied) could only be pursued by the landowner for nominal damages under the tort of trespass. The Claimant is not pleading trespass, and the binding Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]UKSC 67 held that a third party parking firm not in possession of the land, cannot pursue a driver under the tort of trespass, because they have no loss or damages and if ParkingEye had pleaded their case that way, they as a non landowner, would have failed. (X6)

21. The 19th April 2019 was the last day for payment required by UKPPO in their pre-action demand. It was at this point that I decided to do some digging myself and get in touch with the owner of the land (UrbanBubble) and ask for CCTV footage from the dates of the supposed contraventions. After responses from UrbanBubble, they stated that they only hold their CCTV for four weeks and are unable to confirm that the tickets affixed to the vehicle where removed, or if they existed.

22. During my time at Advent 2/3 there were many occasions where shutters, leading to the underground spaces and giving direct access to the apartments, where sometimes unable to close, forced open, or damaged awaiting repair. Along with this, there are many reports of vandalism, stolen items, break-ins and a general negligence and disdain from the landowner, Urbanbubble, including many unwelcome guests to the underground car park, which is one door away from direct access to the rest of the Apartments at Advent 2/3. I recall many times seeing homeless people rummaging through the bins and loitering around vehicles. This in itself was more than enough of a reason to never wanting to leave the vehicle there for any length of time. (X7)

23. I noticed that the sparse Particulars of Claim do not state the dates in which the supposed contraventions took place. On the ‘Statement of outstanding balance’ received from UKPPO regarding the dates of the tickets, I noticed the supposed location is ‘Private Road and underground car park at Advent Way’, whereas the Particulars of Claim state the contraventions took place at ‘Private Road and underground car parks at Advent 1 2 and 3 Isaac Way Manchester’. Highlighted on (X8) there is no direct access for a vehicle from the Advent Way car park, into Isaac Way car park, as these are two separate car parks.

24. After further looking at the photographic evidence displaying the vehicle stopped, they do not include an exact location of where the supposed contraventions took place, especially given there are two individual car parks, with no through access. Adding to this, the signage in the pictures is anything but legible. In the digital signage that UKPPO have sent to me, one would argue that this is not an actual photograph of the signage on display in the scene of any photographs taken. Once the tenancy had ended and the keys and fob returned, I no longer had access to the car parks in order to facilitate my own evidence search. (X9)

25. In conclusion I would say that the claim neither demonstrates a cause of action, nor has the Claimant established 'keeper liability' under the POFA, nor have they proved the occurrence of any actual parking events beyond a few seconds exercising our rights of access to our flat. The claim fails to meet the high bar set in the Beavis case in terms of clear signage, a relevant obligation/contract and a legitimate commercial interest, and it (plus the unjustified sums added) must fail in their entirety.

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

*
https://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pcn-collection/

''We offer a ‘no collection, no fee service’, therefore our growth has been achieved by making successful collections, not by charging upfront fees.''

** PACE v LENGYEL
http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Download it here if the link fails:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

Elmo111

Coupon-Mad... you are far too kind.

Studying example witness statements, particularly those who've posted theirs and had winning outcomes, acknowledging the tactics that private parking companies use, honing in on the legalities behind it all, I really wanted to see if it would be possible for just a simpleton like myself to gather my thoughts, devote time and energy to the cause and apply what I've learnt to create my own witness statement.

I'm massively thankful for your assistance in the draft that you've sent - and with some very minor doctoring and of course adducing the exhibits in the correct way (which you've also kinda done for me!), I'm hoping to get this finished way before the deadline whilst eagerly awaiting the WS from UKPPO.

Were you a tenant and can you provide the first item I suggest in red?

I should be able to get a positive reference from the letting agent, yes!

I'm annoyed at myself for many reasons during this whole journey, but you have given me lots of hope, now it's time to lock down what I've learnt and study my witness statement.

Thank you!