County Court Claim Form from UKPC

[Deleted User]

You want to keep this simple.

I'd break it into two sections: what you said and did (in this case that appears to be a visit to the site as you weren't driver). That's your factual account.

Then a second part in which you respond to the points in the witness statement, which are more like legal arguments. You want to respond clearly, but try to avoid the "outraged of Tunbridge Wells" tone when you write.

You need to gift the judge a basis to dismiss the claim and you being unhappy won't be reason enough.

This is tricky, I get it. When I was last up even the PPCs own advocate failed to appreciate they had pleaded that I was driver or keeper as alternative points, which then introduce different legal arguments!

TKNDWN

Thanks again Johnersh, especially in realising this is tricky. I'm trying my best in order to help my brother out (and still understand I am a 3rd party and that my name appears nowhere).

So with my entire WS, do you reckon it be rewritten again from scratch? Is their non-compliance with BPA CoP not relevant to why they believe their charges are accurate? Are there any points worth keeping in there or should it be scrapped completely?

If that's the case then I shall get working as soon as I can.

Thanks again.

[Deleted User]

By all means raise non compliance with pre-action rules and codes of practice, but please don't make the mistake of thinking they'll win it for you.

They either help on costs (when you've won anyway) or are the glace cherry on the Bakewell tart of faeces that is being served up. So not wholly irrelevant, but a bolt-on.

You really need to address the foundation of their case - the sign (contract) and whether it can apply. The very jam without which they've got nothing....

DoaM

Have you just been watching Bake Off?

TKNDWN

Hello all. Here is another version of a Witness Statement prepared for my brother. I scrapped the other one entirely following advice received here in this forum and took inspiration from other Witness Statements found throughout the web that are similar to my brother's case. If there are any other worthy points from the other Witness Statement submitted, please let me know! I made the format a little simpler to follow. I have only Exhibit A with page numbers as kindly suggested by Johnersh.

In the County Court at XXXXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXX
Between
UK Parking Control
and
XXXXXX XXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. This is a claim by the claimant, UK Parking Control Limited ("UKPC") for 7 parking charge notices. Following the case of ParkingEye v Beavis in the Supreme Court there remains a number of issues for the court to decide in order for UKPC to win.
A. Does UKPC have a contract with the land owners or occupiers which allow them to operate on the land?
B. Are the signs "large, prominent and legible" to the extent that a contract between UKPC and a driver can be created?
C. If the signs are large, prominent and legible, can the wording actually create a contract?

A. The land owner/occupier contract issue.

At paragraph 9 under ‘Background’ in my defence, UKPC was put to strict proof of their claim within their pleadings that they were managing the site. The only evidence lodged on this point is a copy of a contract which is not dated, has no location details that pertain to the car park(s) on Chantry Close on Elgin Avenue, [CAR PARK RPOSTCODE] and would appear to pertain to [ROAD NAME], [DIFFERENT POSTCODE] if anything. Absent any proof to the contrary, UKPC have failed to show any authority to operate on the land in question and the case should be dismissed.

B. The contract issue.

Should the court disagree on point A then I would point out that UKPC have supplied a few photographs of signs in their Witness Statement under Exhibit AY/4. None of the signs in these photographs are readable. Beavis is clear that the signs must be "large prominent and legible" if they are ever to have any prospect of creating a contract. Paragraph 91, ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

There are some other images which appear to be close up scans of signs however these prove little more than someone can use a scanner and do not prove the signs could be read in situ.

As there is no evidence the signs were "large, prominent and legible" no contract could be formed and as per UKPC v Masterton and Beavis, the claim was dismissed.

“8. So for those reasons, I am unable to accept that the particular circumstances of this case reveal a contractual licence to park with a contract between the parking manager, in this case UKPC, in the Supreme Court authority ParkingEye, and the vehicle owner or driver, in this case the defendant, and in the Supreme Court authority, Mr Beavis.

9. The consequences are that the Supreme Court authority does not assist me on the
charges levied by the claimant in this case and that in the absence of a contract
between the claimant and the defendant, the cause of action does not lie with the
claimant. The defendant’s submissions are that any cause of action lies with the
freeholder. I do not have any contracts between either the NHS Trust or Swan
Housing and the claimant and I do not need to consider this in the light of my finding
and I decline to do so in the absence of documents clarifying the legal position and/or
contracts of those three legal entities between themselves."

"107. In our opinion the term imposing the £85 charge was not unfair. The term
does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the
general law or by statute. But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement
on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have
been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been
limited to the occupation value of the parking space."
- Beavis

Without a valid contract between the landowner/occupier any claim would lie in trespass and be a claim in the name of the landowner/occupier as per Masterton and Beavis and the case should be dismissed.

C. Is a contract created?

Should the court find the signs are "large, prominent and legible" in order they are capable of forming a contract I submit that the content of the signs do not contain all the elements required to create a contract.

It is trite law that to create a contract there must be offer, acceptance and consideration.

The signs included in the Claimant’s Witness Statement Exhibit AY/2 state "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING" There is no offer to myself as a non-resident, even though I am.

"Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicle’s driver”

It does not say you can park for £100/£60 or invite you to do so. The signs forbid the actions stated. There is no offer and the basic principles of a contract are absent.

I submit this is very similar to the scenario to that which DJ Glen decided in Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull

“17. Why is this important? It is important for this reason. In the Beavis case the scheme was categorised by the permission the ParkingEye gave Mr Beavis to be in the car park for a limited period of time. So whether you call it a contractual licence or whether you simply call it a contractual permission, as Lord Mance in the end did, that was the consideration and the consideration flowing the other way was Mr Beavis’ agreement to be bound by those terms.

18. I am afraid that in my judgment that analysis just does not work in this case. It does not work for this reason. If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.


19. I think Mr Samuels recognised the difficulty of his conditional obligation argument, i.e. you must not park here but if you do then you have got to pay, and he urged upon me in the alternative that one had to look outside of just the roadways and look at the leases and the rights and obligations under the leases as a whole and to construct, as it were, a package of mutual obligations and benefits which gave rise to consideration for a contract whereafter a breach would result in a charge.

20. However, in my judgment, there was never any contractual relationship, whether one categorises it as a licence or simply some form of contractual permission, because that is precisely what PCM were not giving to people who parked on the roadway.

21. For that reason alone I will dismiss this claim, but as the parties have taken the trouble
to argue the other issues that arise and in case the matter has to go to any higher court,
I will indicate what my views were on the remaining issues."


For the reason that there is no contract the claim should be dismissed.

2. Should the court not be with me on my above contractual arguments I would like to make the following statement:

UK Parking Control’s (Claimant) only sign within the car park states:

“Unpaid Parking Charges will be passed to our debt recovery agent at which point an additional charge of £60 will apply” (See Exhibit A/Page 1 [UKPC Sign]).

UK Parking Control uses a debt recovery company, Debt Recovery Plus (DRP), in order to recover unpaid parking charges. Debt Recovery Plus are a “no collection, no fee” service as stated on their website (See Exhibit A/Page 2 [DRP]). The claimant is claiming for £420 as part of their overall claim on the basis of using DRP as means to recover unpaid parking charges. As I have had no correspondence with DRP (i.e. no collection), these funds are unrecoverable as the charge of £60, £420 in the case the claimant is claiming for, was not paid to DRP due to their “no collection, no fee” service. It is important to make the court aware that this is fraud.

3. I will make the following points in response to the Claimant’s Witness Statement:

The Claimant’s Exhibit AY/1 contains an “Agreement for Warden Patrol Service” contract between the Housing Association, WECH, and UK Parking Control Ltd, to allow UK Parking Control to pursue motorists for £90 parking charges, £50 if paid within 14 days of issue. Exhibit A/Page 1 demonstrates that the only sign within the car park, through small lettering, does state a £90, £50 if paid within 14 days. I must ask the court where the £100 charge, £60 if paid within 14 days has come from as the contract provided in their Exhibit AY/1, as well as the sign provided (Exhibit A/Page 1) both state £90, £50 if paid within 14 days. I ask that the courts request that UK Parking Control provide clarification of their signage which states a £100 charge, £60 if paid within 14 days and if it was applicable at the time of the alleged contraventions.

4. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (2015 – 2018) Appendix B “Signs” 18.9 “Specific parking-terms signage” states:

“So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.”

Included in the Claimant’s own Exhibit AY/4 are images of the vehicle in question, with no images of the sign that would allow someone parked in that position to be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. I will refer the Court to Exhibit A/Page 3, Page 4 and Page 5 which are images of the main car park, proving there is no adequate signage viewable from the parked position. In this case, the car in question is parked in the same location as the White Smart ForTwo in Exhibit A/Page 3.

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

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



Signature Date

Name