Court Date Change

Glenprk

Thank you for the above information. I will give a Chronology of Events, followed by the Defence submitted, then my WS.



Chronology of events

Family Residential Car Park. Site management under Crabtree Property Management.

Moved in on Freehold late 2007 with Land Registry Rights to park one vehicle anywhere on site

08/2016


A family member was assisting with driving duties using Keeper’s vehicle. He was not resident at the address. Permit in a plastic cover fell on the floor in the car and driver did not notice.

Got windscreen invoice “for Not Displaying a Valid Permit”

As family, wrote Crabtree Property Management “as Principal” kindly requesting that they direct UKCPM to cancel invoice and they neither accepted nor denied they had contracted the latter and instead directed the family later at some point to “Property Directors”

10/16 Unsuccessful appeal to IPC

03/17 Driver death.


Ignored a myriad of Debt Collection letters after disputing that Keeper was liable.


09/17 Received LBA.


09/17 Named Driver in letters to Gladstones and UKCPM and where death was registered and that they could get information from a named Coroner’s Office.


11/17 Second LBA which ignored the contents of the first one. Paid Parking Cowboys #19 requesting for assistance on how to respond in the event that driver was deceased. Got requests for info that I had already sent and never heard again


12/17 Festive season – Court Papers


01/18 Request for further info to both on details of their claim. Directed by UKPCM to their solicitors. No response from solicitors.


01/18 DVLA Release of Information – DVLA confirmed that no request for details on the vehicle had ever been made during my keepership


02/18 As Defendant requested the case to be transferred to the Defendant's home court in DQ. An oral hearing was requested for.


04/18 Defence submitted

05/18 Court Date for mid July

Glenprk

Defence as submitted earlier this year


[FONT=&quot]In the COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Claim Number:

---

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Between:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED v

---

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Preliminary[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.1 The Claimant!!!8217;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. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.2 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.1 The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.2 The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charge in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute, including what was described by the Claimant as an 'independent' review by the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). There is no scrutiny board and IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice and shift the burden to the consumer to prove matters outside of their knowledge and evidence, causing a significant imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.3 The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant's Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently. They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the IAS. This was also confirmed in the House of Commons by [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Stephen Doughty[/FONT][FONT=&quot] MP of Cardiff South and Penarth on 2 February, 2018, whilst discussing Parking Code of Practice Bill when he stated !!!8220;It is clear from Companies House Information that there are clear links between the individual directors of Gladstones and the IPC, which goes under United Trade and Industry Ltd, and that there has been a repeated changing of names and addresses in an attempt to cover up these links!!!8221;.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.4 The Defendant now submits that the IAS 'decision' should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). It is unsurprising then, given the relationship between the parties, that the IAS rejected the Defendant's appeal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.5 Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Background[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark

---

which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with

---

with 2 of named drivers permitted to use it as well as any other driver on their insurance.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. It is admitted that on

---

, 2016 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at

---

.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. By a letter dated --- September, 2017 the Defendant advised Claimant, in writing, of the name of the driver of the vehicle, Mr

---

who died on

---

and requested for a compliant Letter Before Action should the decision be to still pursue the Defendant as Registered Keeper. By a second Letter Before Action dated -- November, 2017 the Claimant failed to acknowledge receipt of the Defendant!!!8217;s letter identifying the driver, neither was there confirmation as to whether Claimant will continue pursuing Defendant as keeper. The Defendant!!!8217;s request for a Compliant Letter Before Action was not addressed by the Claimant. Since the second Letter Before Action that the Defendant received from the Claimant is quite clearly a generic template letter, the Defendant can only assume that the Claimant has approved the form and content of that letter and is pursuing the Defendant as Registered Keeper. Nevertheless, the Defendant refers the Claimant to The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifically Sched 4, Paras 2 and 5. Legislation provides that in order to pursue the Registered Keeper, Claimant must be unable to take steps to enforce against the driver because it does not know the name of the driver and a current address for service. This means that Defendant discharged obligations under POFA 2012 and, as court action had not yet been started at that date, Claimant no longer has any legal grounds to pursue legal proceedings against Defendant, as the Registered Keeper.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Claimant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.2.1. there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.4. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act sets out the third statutory condition which must be met in order for the !!!8216;creditor!!!8217; (the parking company) to benefit from !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217;, that (a) the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) has made an application for the keeper!!!8217;s details in relation to the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate; (b) the application was made during the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) (where a notice to driver has been given) or 9(4) (where no notice to driver has been given); (c)the information sought by the application is provided by the Secretary of State to the applicant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant notes DVLA confirmation that no access to the Registered Keeper!!!8217;s data has been requested during Defendant!!!8217;s Keepership. A copy of the DVLA Release of Information letter will be provided to the Court.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.5 It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of the vehicle in question were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and freeholder of

---

, whose freehold agreement permits the parking of a vehicle on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the freehold, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The freehold terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the !!!8220;TP1 Land Registry Transfer of Title!!!8221; in the name of the Defendant will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the freehold. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Accordingly it is denied that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7.1 the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7.3 - any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to the Defendant!!!8217;s primary defence above, inadequate for the driver.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.3 The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been parking in that space for years and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]STATEMENT OF TRUTH[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Signed Date[/FONT]

Glenprk

Please help with Witness Statement.


[FONT=&quot]In the County Court at

---

Case/Claim No. [ ][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Between:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD [Claimant][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-and-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

---

[Defendant[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]____________________________[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]____________________________[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I !!!8211;Name, Surname --- of---ADDRESS

---

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]am the Defendant in this matter, 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. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 2. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 3. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On --[/FONT][FONT=&quot]/09/17, in response to their Letter Before claim (LBC) of --/09/17, I sent a letter to Claimant (Exhibit 01) naming the driver who sadly had been deceased months after the Parking Event.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 5. I enclose proof of death ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 02- Certificate of Fact of Death and Coroner!!!8217;s Announcement of Hearing and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot]03 !!!8211; Receipt settled in Defendant!!!8217;s name with ---- Funeral Directors).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 6. I requested them to delete this charge and my personal details from their files and send a notice of cancellation of the charge I requested as keeper, that should they continue to do so, they should provide a LBC which complies with the requirements of Annex A, Paragraph 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit 04 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Letter to Gladstones)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On 17/11/17 I received a second LBC in which the Claimant did not make reference to my correspondence regarding the driver!!!8217;s name, neither did they respond to my request for a compliant letter (Exhibit 05).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 8. Even after naming the driver to the Claimant, I received a Court Claim with an issue date of[/FONT][FONT=&quot] --/01//18[/FONT][FONT=&quot], I received a Court Claim. The Particulars of Claim are vague as to the allegation, stating that the Defendant was driving and / or is the Keeper of the Vehicle, making the position as Defendant keeper who was not driving, almost impossible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 9. The claimant has produced no evidence of who was driving and is put to strict proof. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. I am not the only person insured to drive the car in question. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s 06 & 07 - copy of Insurance showing other named driver, Insurance copy of me being a named driver on another policy). The driver at the time of the alleged contravention, who was not familiar with the site, was driving on his own policy with the Policyholder!!!8217;s permission.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. The claimant does not rely on Pofa 2012 and therefore cannot hold a registered keeper liable.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12. The claimant cannot !!!8220;presume!!!8221; that I the defendant and Registered Keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13. There is no law that allows them to do this.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14. I assert under !!!8216;statement of truth!!!8217; that I was not the driver on this occasion, having already named the driver to the Claimant. This will be repeated in court should this claim proceed to a hearing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15. With no route in law to transfer liability for any alleged contravention, by a driver - to the Registered Keeper, this claim is null and void. There is no case to answer. The claimant must prove who was driving.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the !!!8216;Parking on Private Land Appeals!!!8217; (!!!8220;POPLA!!!8221;) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 !!!8211; 2015. This is an independent appeals service offered by the British Parking Association (!!!8220;BPA!!!8221;) and UK Car Park Management Limited used to be under that Trade Body. I adduce as Mr Greenslade!!!8217;s opinion in the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]POPLA Annual Report 2015 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 08 - Popla 2015, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pp12-13[/FONT][FONT=&quot])[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17. The Claimant claims no right to pursue myself the Defendant as the registered keeper as they have failed to meet the conditions of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4. I the keeper could only be held liable if the claimant had fully complied with the strict requirements. Whilst preparing my Defence, I contacted DVLA, who confirmed in a letter dated 24/01/18 that there was never any request for information on the vehicle throughout my keepership. The Claimant did not request for access to details of my vehicle ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 09 !!!8211; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DVLA Release of Information)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016. The Judge was critical of the claimant!!!8217;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 !!!8220;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!!!8221;.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19. The claimant cannot cite Elliot Vs Loake (1983) as a basis of their claim to assume the keeper was also the driver, as this is a criminal case with forensic evidence, whereby the keeper of the vehicle was also proved to be the driver at the time of an offence (road traffic accident) and thus has no basis upon this case or contract law.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20. The agreement for parking at the property lies with the landlords and not UK Car Park Management Limited or Crabtree Property Management Ltd as the Landlords !!!8216;own!!!8217; the parking space as part of the freehold for the property. I am a freeholder of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]--ADDRESS-[/FONT][FONT=&quot] having bought the Property !!!8220;Off-Plan!!!8221; as a !!!8220;New Build!!!8221; in 2007 attracted by permission to Park a vehicle on site without Restrictions. There is no mention of the need for a permit in the HM Land Registry Document ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 10). I therefore have Primacy of Contract.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21. I have reasonable belief that the claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name as they failed to adequately respond to my request made on [/FONT][FONT=&quot]--/01/18[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for relevant information. The claimant is put to strict proof that there is a chain of contracts leading from!!!8221; the landowner!!!8221; to UK Car Park Management Limited. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 11 - Letter sent)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22. I will further rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.Also in Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park. Furthermore In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23. The Claimant!!!8217;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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]24. A publicly televised debate held in the House of Commons (Parking Code of Practice Bill!!!8211; in the House of Commons at 12:43 pm on 2nd February 2018.) discussed the unreasonable circumstances of repeated issuing of fines to individuals parking in their own parking space outside their property with the Claimant!!!8217;s solicitors Gladstones being involved in many such cases. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 12)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]25. The publicly televised debate also linked the former Directors of Gladstones solicitors to the IPC. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant is a member of the IPC, an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimants trade body, the IPC. The IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors John Davies, and William Hurley who until recently also ran Gladstones Solicitors. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 13 & 14 Companies House [/FONT][FONT=&quot]08248531 and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]07535449[/FONT][FONT=&quot]). This indicates a conflict of interest.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]26. The signage on and around the site at the time of the Parking Event did not meet the mandatory requirements of the Codes of Practice of the British Parking Association (BPA) nor the International Parking Community (IPC) both of which the claimant is/has been a member.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]27. I refer to the IPC code of practice which states signs should where practical be placed at the entrance to a site. The site in question has one entrance with no sign ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 15 - Photo / Video Evidence, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 16 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]IPC Code of Practice, p22-24[/FONT][FONT=&quot])[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28. My case can be distinguished from the Beavis case, which was dependent upon Mr Beavis being the driver who accepted a clear contract, formed by unusually prominent signage. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice and the clear, prominent terms on brief signs was held to be paramount. None of this applies in this material case.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29. I also refer to the IPC code of practice which states the text should be of such size and in a font that can be easily read by the motorist. The site in questions signs at the time of the Parking Event, and even after recent !!!8220;updates!!!8221; do not meet this requirement. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Exhibit[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s 17, 18 and 19 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Photo from Car, Photo with Tape Measure & IPC Code[/FONT][FONT=&quot])[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]30. The Defendant is at a serious disadvantage in this case.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a) The case involves a well-funded Claimant who is a serial litigant with unlimited access to the services of qualified legal professionals, and who will be legally represented in this case; against an unrepresented Litigant in Person with no legal knowledge or experience of Court process.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b) The Claimant has ignored the named driver and issued vague and incoherent PoC such that the Defendant does not have enough information to know how to properly defend this claim.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c) The Claimant has ignored the Defendant!!!8217;s reasonable request for additional information, made so that she could properly understand the claim and respond/defend accordingly. This is contrary to pre-action protocols and the !!!8216;Overriding Object!!!8217; (CPR 1)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d) I therefore reserve my position to add further points once I have seen the Claimant!!!8217;s court bundle containing their evidence and Witness Statement.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]31. I enclose a trail of e-mail correspondence between my family and Crabtree Property Services, disputing the allocation of a Disabled Parking Space to my family, yet there is no Blue badge holder in the household (Exhibit [/FONT][FONT=&quot]20) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]including correspondence where Crabtree requested my family to report Blue Badge holders parked in that space to UKCPM. I also hold some photos of Blue Badge Holders parked in that bay, which I will not disclose now for obvious reasons, but will make available in court.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Signed :[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;.. !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] DEFENDANT DATE[/FONT]

Glenprk

Thank you, Loadsofchildren. I work till very late but will be OFF this Friday. I intend to find out when I submit my WS in person on the day.


I have discussed the worst case scenario with my son and family and will ensure I attend as I also made a Special Request for an oral hearing at DQ stage.

nigelbb

Glenprk wrote: »

01/18 DVLA Release of Information – DVLA confirmed that no request for details on the vehicle had ever been made during my keepership

This is fatal to their attempt to hold OP liable as keeper for parking charges incurred by the driver.

Umkomaas

nigelbb wrote: »

This is fatal to their attempt to hold OP liable as keeper for parking charges incurred by the driver.

+1

They can only invoke KL if they have acquired the K's data from the DVLA. The fact that you might have provided your details via various communications after the issue of the NtD, but before they formally approached the DVLA, is immaterial, and PoFA is your friend. See PoFA Schedule 4, para 11.

11(1)The third condition is that:
(a)the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) has made an application for the keeper's details in relation to the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate;
(b)the application was made during the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) (where a notice to driver has been given) or 9(4) (where no notice to driver has been given);
(c)the information sought by the application is provided by the *Secretary of State to the applicant.

*The DVLA on behalf of the 'Secretary of State'

Loadsofchildren123

Has that WS gone in yet?

If not, you need to focus on the story a bit more. Write it like it's a book.

Explain who you are, and who the driver was.

something like this:

1. Since x date, I have lived in a flat at xxxxx. My flat came with the right to park one car, in any of the available spaces. A copy of the lease/tenancy with the relevant parts highlighted (clauses x and x) is at pages x to x of exhibit 1. The rights granted to me in the lease/tenancy are all set out in that document and the right to park is unfettered and does not oblige me to display a permit.

2. explain why you didn't always drive and how others were insured on your policy and exhibit the schedule showing other named drivers. make the point others could drive the car using their own insurance, and regularly did so.

3. On the day in question, I was not driving the car. The driver was in fact [my Dad/uncle/mother/sister......]. [then include why - eg. I needed help to move a chest of drawers into the flat, and [driver] agreed to help me, which included driving. My [dad/sister/friend/uncle] picked me up at about x o'clock and we went to fetch the chest of drawers. We returned to my flat at about x o'clock. [driver] parked in one of the spaces.

4. When I moved into the flat [or when the Claimant started being in charge of the parking area at the development], I was given a permit to show that I was authorised to park there as a resident. Although not obliged by my tenancy/lease to display any permit, I did so simply i order to avoid any problems because I was aware that private parking companies often unreasonably target residents in residential developments and are highly litigious.

5. Then explain how you got the ticket - eg was it put on the windscreen on the day, and then you noticed the permit had fallen off?

6. Then say how you had the first letter and appealed because you assumed sense would prevail once you demonstrated you were a resident, with your chronology of when the driver died, providing the driver's details and so on.

There's no need to go into Elliott v Loake, that should be in your defence as a point of law. This statement is all about the FACTS - ie precisely what happened on the day. If your defence didn't cover this, you can put in a para to say that "I was not the driver on the date in question. [x] was. My understanding of the law is that there can be no legal presumption that I was driving, but in any event I have demonstrated that I was not driving and so no presumption can be made at all."

then a paragraph about keeper liability:
As I was not the driver, the only way I can be liable for the charge is as the registered keeper of the car. The only way of making me liable as keeper is if the Claimant complies with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). However, the Claimant does not rely on POFA, nor did it comply with it. Then set out your chronology and in it specify all POFA breaches (eg NtK served late, and highlighting the part where DVLA confirms keeper details not requested from them, cross referenced to the relevant paragraph in Schedule 4 of POFA to demonstrate POFA not complied with).

Loadsofchildren123

you might also include a paragraph about how distressing this is when you are dealing with the death of a close relative, that they keep on chasing you

Glenprk

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Has that WS gone in yet?

If not, you need to focus on the story a bit more. Write it like it's a book.

Explain who you are, and who the driver was.

something like this:

1. Since x date, I have lived in a flat at xxxxx. My flat came with the right to park one car, in any of the available spaces. A copy of the lease/tenancy with the relevant parts highlighted (clauses x and x) is at pages x to x of exhibit 1. The rights granted to me in the lease/tenancy are all set out in that document and the right to park is unfettered and does not oblige me to display a permit.

2. explain why you didn't always drive and how others were insured on your policy and exhibit the schedule showing other named drivers. make the point others could drive the car using their own insurance, and regularly did so.

3. On the day in question, I was not driving the car. The driver was in fact [my Dad/uncle/mother/sister......]. [then include why - eg. I needed help to move a chest of drawers into the flat, and [driver] agreed to help me, which included driving. My [dad/sister/friend/uncle] picked me up at about x o'clock and we went to fetch the chest of drawers. We returned to my flat at about x o'clock. [driver] parked in one of the spaces.

4. When I moved into the flat [or when the Claimant started being in charge of the parking area at the development], I was given a permit to show that I was authorised to park there as a resident. Although not obliged by my tenancy/lease to display any permit, I did so simply i order to avoid any problems because I was aware that private parking companies often unreasonably target residents in residential developments and are highly litigious.

5. Then explain how you got the ticket - eg was it put on the windscreen on the day, and then you noticed the permit had fallen off?

6. Then say how you had the first letter and appealed because you assumed sense would prevail once you demonstrated you were a resident, with your chronology of when the driver died, providing the driver's details and so on.

There's no need to go into Elliott v Loake, that should be in your defence as a point of law. This statement is all about the FACTS - ie precisely what happened on the day. If your defence didn't cover this, you can put in a para to say that "I was not the driver on the date in question. [x] was. My understanding of the law is that there can be no legal presumption that I was driving, but in any event I have demonstrated that I was not driving and so no presumption can be made at all."

then a paragraph about keeper liability:
As I was not the driver, the only way I can be liable for the charge is as the registered keeper of the car. The only way of making me liable as keeper is if the Claimant complies with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). However, the Claimant does not rely on POFA, nor did it comply with it. Then set out your chronology and in it specify all POFA breaches (eg NtK served late, and highlighting the part where DVLA confirms keeper details not requested from them, cross referenced to the relevant paragraph in Schedule 4 of POFA to demonstrate POFA not complied with).

Thank you for your response. I have not submitted yet. I will be doing so tomorrow. How do I respond to the Claimant's WS, which I sent 2 days ago?. Please find my revised WS below. Regards

---

[FONT=&quot]Witness Statement[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I ;Name, Surname --- of---ADDRESS

---

am the Defendant in this matter, 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. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

2. 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.

3. 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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Since --/12/2007, I have lived in a house at ---ADDRESS-. My Dwelling House came with the right to park one car on the Estate in any of the available spaces, other than those specifically allocated or to be allocated. A copy of the Transfer of Parties with the relevant parts highlighted (clause 6) is at page 4 of exhibit 1. The rights granted to me in the freehold are all set out in that document and the right to park is unfettered and does not oblige me to display a permit.

5. My spouse and I were named drivers on two policies with my spouse named as the Policyholder exhibits 2 &3. Mr

---

‘s policy allowed him subject to the owner’s consent to drive motor cars not belonging to him provided as Policyholder, he had the owner’s permission to do so. Based on the nature of his profession, he also drove clients’ cars.

6. On the --/08/2016, I was not driving the car. The driver was in fact my Brother – in law. I needed help to be taken to the Airport as I was travelling on a long-haul flight on the day (exhibit 4 – Boarding Pass). Mr

---

agreed to help me, which included driving for a number of errands till my departure. On his first assignment, he picked my son from his Holiday Football Training at about half past 10 o'clock and they returned to my house at about quarter to 11 o'clock. Mr.

---

parked in the Disabled Space allocated to us, though we do not have a Blue Badge Holder in the family.

7. Slightly over 4 years after moving into our property, when the Claimant started being in charge of the parking area at the development on --/04/2012, , a permit dated --/04/2012 was posted through the postbox to show that we were[/FONT][FONT=&quot] authorised[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to park there as residents. Although not obliged by our freehold to display any permit, we did so simply in order to avoid any problems because we were aware that private parking companies often unreasonably target residents in residential developments and are highly litigious. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. On --/04/2012, my spouse sent an email to Property Managers, disputing the allocation of “Permanent Parking in a Disabled Bay” and “making decisions without consultation. 2 days later, on --/04/2012, Crabtree Property Directors responded “Your suggestions regarding the car parking allocation are noted, but we have had not had any other objections to the current arrangement. As I am sure you will appreciate, trying to revise this at a late stage would lead to unnecessary confusion, and so we will be able to change this, taking the aforementioned into consideration. The parking scheme was only discussed with the Directors of The

---

Management Company Limited, and all decisions made in relation this scheme was further to their review and approval. As you should be aware, directors are elected to represent and make management decisions on behalf of the lessees at the Annual General Meetings of the Company, to which all lessees are invited. I would therefore only liaise with the directors in such cases.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
9. With 2 cars then and 1 permit, it meant we could not fix it onto 1 car but rather put it in a transparent plastic cover and display it in whichever car needed parking, with the other car parked off - site. On --/08/2016, the permit was on the dashboard. After the driver’s return, he did not notice it had fallen off to the floor. He came in for a cup of tea. As we were having a chat, around half past 11 o'clock, just as we were about to leave for the bank to exchange money, a[/FONT][FONT=&quot] neighbour[/FONT][FONT=&quot] living opposite us knocked at our door and pointed a ticket had been placed on my windscreen. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. I immediately wrote a letter dated --/08/2016 and appealed to Claimant because I assumed sense would prevail once I demonstrated I was a resident. (exhibit 5)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. With my spouse, we emailed Crabtree Property on --/08/2016 stating “we kindly requesting you to direct CPM to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as the vehicle was rightly parked in our space” (exhibit 6)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12. After 2 further requests, on --/08/2016 Crabtree Property Management responded “I have received a response from your property manager who has advised that you must immediately follow the procedure set out on the ticket in order to appeal this matter, we do not get involved in such matters as the parking scheme is with the company in question”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13. On --/09/2016, my spouse emailed “It is with regret that we note that you cannot intervene, though other Property Management Agencies would on behalf of their residents. During the process of taking legal advice it has come to my notice that our allocated parking space may not be considered as a common area. It is my understanding that you and your agent CPM do not have any right to impose a permit scheme on our private parking space. You are responsible for the actions of your agent (CPM) who are committing an act of trespass on our property whenever they attach their notices to our car. If this continues, we will have no option but to commence legal proceedings against them (and thus against Crabtree Property Management). We are also exploring withdrawal from any permit system since, my understanding is that as the legal occupiers we have rights to ‘peaceful enjoyment’ of our space. (exhibit 7). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14. On --/10/2016 I appealed to the IPC and they dismissed the appeal on --/10/16[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15. On --/10/2016 a new Property Manager at Crabtree Property Management wrote “I am in the process of obtaining information from our contracts manager at UKCPM with respect to parking arrangements and a site plan so as to try and ascertain how the bays have been allocated. I have also requested a copy of the original instruction to UKCPM as this should help me to determine when the parking enforcement was instructed. I would imagine the parking company was instructed at the requests of the directors of the Management Company to assist with managing the parking at the development. As soon as I have the received information from UKCPM I will of course update you further. My sincere apologies for not coming back to you sooner however, please be assures I am giving this my due attention and will come back to you as soon as I have further information from UKCPM. (exhibit 8)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16. On --/03/2017 the driver, Mr.

---

sadly passed away and the family was availed a Coroner’s Certificate of the Fact of Death (Exhibit 9). Also attached is a Receipt settled in Defendant’s name with ---- Funeral Directors (exhibit 10) and

---

City Council Coroner’s Court Diary for dates including -- /04/2018) (exhibit 11)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17. Meanwhile I was getting threatening Debt Recovery Final Offer Letters, offering “Reduced Amounts” and threatening “a court judgment that could affect future creditworthiness and employability and enforcement proceedings to recover the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] judgement[/FONT][FONT=&quot] debt.. This became more distressing at the period when when Mr.

---

‘s death was being investigated by the Coroner as the waiting period of 6 months, which was extended to 1 year 1 month. I ended up being terrified at the prospect of opening any letter addressed to me in a brown envelope, just wondering how this would end. My spouse supported me through all this, assuring me that since this was contract law, as keeper I had not broken any law.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18. No response was recorded from Crabtree Property Management for a year. On 23/11/2017 we wrote “Please note, on 3 October 2016 you wrote: "As soon as I have the received information from UKCPM I will of course update you further. My sincere apologies for not coming back to you sooner however, please be assures I am giving this my due attention and will come back to you as soon as I have further information from UKCPM. More than a year later, we are still awaiting a response.” (exhibit 12)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19. Another New Crabtree Property Employee responded on 24/11/2017 apologising on behalf of his former colleague, giving assurance he would be dealing with the matter going forward,(exhibit 13) then later pointing out that all his former colleagues had made right decisions and pointing out also “that the car was not rightly parked in the bay”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20. On 17/09/17, in response to their Letter Before claim (LBC) of 12/09/17, I sent a letter to Claimant (exhibit 14) naming the driver

---

who sadly had been deceased months after the Parking Event.

21. I requested them to delete this charge and my personal details from their files and send a notice of cancellation of the charge I requested as keeper, that should they continue to do so, they should provide a LBC which complies with the requirements of Annex A, Paragraph 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (Exhibit 15 Letter to Gladstones)


22. On 17/11/17 I received a second LBC in which the Claimant did not make reference to my correspondence regarding the driver’s name; neither did they respond to my request for a compliant letter (Exhibit 16).

23. Even after naming the driver to the Claimant, I received a Court Claim with an issue date of --/01//18,.

24. As I was not the driver, the only way I can be liable for the charge is as the registered keeper of the car. The only way of making me liable as keeper is if the Claimant complies with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). However, the Claimant does not rely on POFA, nor did it comply with it. Whilst preparing my Defence, I contacted DVLA, who confirmed in a letter dated 24/01/18 that there was never any request for information on the vehicle throughout my keepership. The Claimant did not request for access to details of my vehicle (Exhibit 17 DVLA Release of Information)). This is a breach of Schedule 4 Paragraph 11 which states 11 (1) The third condition is that—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) has made[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]an application for the keeper’s details in relation to the period of parking to[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]which the unpaid parking charges relate;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) the application was made during the relevant period for the purposes of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]paragraph 8(4) (where a notice to driver has been given) or 9(4) (where no[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]notice to driver has been given);[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](c) the information sought by the application is provided by the Secretary of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]State to the applicant.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]27. I took photos at the entrance on /07/2016 and /06/2018 and there are no signs - Exhibit 18 )

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Signed :[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]DEFENDANT DATE[/FONT]


………………………………………………..

Glenprk

In order to respond to Claimant's WS (Message Number 18 in this thread) do I expand with

28. On 26/06/18 I received a WS from Claimant ........?