PCN at High Point Village, Hayes

KeithP

Skimad247 wrote: »

How long would one normally need to wait for a DQ from CCBC? it's been 18 days since I submitted my defence but nothing received yet?

The Claimant has twenty-eight days after receiving your Defence from the CCBC to decide whether or not to continue. You will not get a DQ from the court until they have done that.

As I said earlier, download your own if you want.

Skimad247

Hi,

I've just received my Court Date and it's 2 days after my wedding! The DQ was in January and only asked for dates in the next 6 months i couldn't attend. I obviously cannot attend the court date as I'll be on my honeymoon - can i change the court date or should I just put my evidence in and hope for the best?

Le_Kirk

You could download a fresh DQ (or maybe you saved the previous one), put in new dates with the reason (a pretty good one IMHO) and send it to the court and ask for a change.

Billywizz1

Hi, I’ve just had a parking charge from pcm for Highpoint village. I’m not from the area and can’t get back to take photos for a defence. Does anyone have any recent photos of the entry to the ‘restricted’ road that they would be able to share? Thank you.

Le_Kirk

You have piggy-backed (or more technically correct) hi-jacked an old thread. Better to start your own and you should get some replies OR you could search the forum using Advanced Search, with Highpoint Village as your search words and changing Threads radio button to Posts.

Skimad247

An update - I’ve been given a court date of 24th September. I hope you can see flaws in their witness statement??!

Gladstone solicitors have just emailed me the following:
“We act for the claimant in the above matter.

Please find attached, by way of service, the Claimant's Witness Statement.

The assumption is that our Client is not attending the hearing and therefore we kindly request this notice be treated as a notice pursuant to CPR 27.9. However on some occasions our Client may wish to attend and will do so.

We confirm the statement has been filed at the Court.”


1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are the following documents which my Company
i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’);
ii) The Sign (‘the Contract’);
iii) TheSitePlan;
iv) Notices;
v) Photographs of the incident.

3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
CLAIM NO:
PCN Number
Date of Charge
Location
Description
PMxxxxxxx
26/06/2018
High Point Village
Parked exceeding time

4. The Defendant was issued with the above charge owing to the fact his vehicle was parked in a manner that did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the signage contained on site, namely that the vehicle was parked for longer than permitted.

5. To clarify this issue, I refer to the attached documentation which contains a copy of the sign from the attached location. The sign states:
 “No parking outside of a marked bay at any time this includes, stopping, waiting and drop and collection
 20 min maximum stay in marked bays, no return within 1 hour.
 Marked GREEN bays are for Staycity guests only (20 min max)”.

Nature of the Offence / Breach of Contract:
6. The charge was issued to the Defendant owing to the fact his vehicle was parked in non- compliance to the terms above. The Defendant has filed a Defence and defends the charge on the basis that:
a. “The Defendant was not parked at all, merely accessing the site for 7 -8 minutes initially to meet and pick up a colleague from the train”.
b. “...the Defendant drove off as to not occupy a space, or park for a prolonged period...”
c. “The Claimant has put the first photo of the Defendant arriving at the site and the last photo of the Defendant leaving together deceptively, to suggest that the car in the parking space for a single period of 24 minutes...”


7. The Defendant’s defence is not accepted. Firstly, I refer to the signage attached, the terms of which are unambiguously clear. Irrespective of the reason that the Defendant was on the Land he was still subject to the terms of the parking regulations and the signage makes it clear that “stopping / waiting / collection” is not permitted and further no return to the site is permitted within 1 hour.

8. The Photographs make it clear that the Defendant’s vehicle was recorded at 10:45 am and again at 11:06 am. Whilst the Defendant’s vehicle was parked within the confines of a marked bay, the signage makes it clear that no return is permitted within 1 hour once you leave the site. The Defendant refers to leaving the site and returning shortly after, however the signage makes it clear that this is not permitted and the Defendant did return within the hour. Yes, photographs taken of the Defendant’s vehicle show the car facing different directions but this does not mean that the charge was issued to his vehicle “deceptively” which is what the Defendant suggests. The angle of the vehicle are different within the photographs because the Defendant left the site and came back, within a time period that was not allowed. As such parking was not valid and the charge was correctly issued to the Defendant’s vehicle. The angle of the Defendant’s vehicle or again the reason that he was on the Land do not form valid grounds to defend the issuance of the charge.


9. The Defendant’s opinion on my company, the issuing attendant or the issuance of the charge which he has expressed within his Defence, does not evade liability towards the same. The
charge, as demonstrated above and supported by the attached documentation was clearly issued to the Defendant with the correct authority.

10. The onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions for the use of the land; therefore, if one was unable to comply with these terms (for whatever reason) and wished to avoid a charge, alternative parking should have been sought immediately. The charge was therefore issued to the Defendant correctly and the grounds as raised within the Defendant’s Defence are noted but not accepted as grounds to dismiss the charge at hand.

11. The rules of interpretation require simply that the parties knew of their obligations to one- another. The Defendant was offered to use the Land and thereafter either follow the rules and park for free or in breach of the rules agree to pay £100. The rules here just so happen to be as set out above at paragraph 5 above.

12. In the case of Alder v Moore (1961) The court concluded that one should consider the obligations imposed by the agreement, not the terminology used i.e. the agreement’s substance, not form.

13. The principles in this case are the same as in the Parking Eye case, save that in the Parking Eye case, as the particular parking rules were different, the rule breached was that motorists must leave the site within 2 hours, whereas here the rule was as set out above. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign, and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein.

14. The Court may conclude that the Land is managed as follows; the Claimant grants a contractual license to all; this license allows anyone permission to be on the Land. This is inferred by the nature of the land and the lack of any general prohibition of entry on the signage. In this regard, the Defendant (as were all the motorists) was offered to comply with the normal conditions (as clear on the sign), or park otherwise than in accordance with the normal conditions and incur a £100 charge. The acceptance was at the point the Defendant decided to park, having read the sign, and his consideration was the promise to pay £100 for the privilege of parking outside the normal conditions. The Claimant’s consideration is the provision of parking services.

15. I refer to the Court to Judge Hegarty’s comments in ParkingEye v Somerfield (2011) that “If this is the price payable for the privilege, it does not seem to me that it can be regarded as a penalty, even though it is substantial and obviously intended to discourage motorists from leaving their cars on the car park”.

16. Alternatively; it could be concluded that, any person can use the Land provided they do not exceed the licensed activity as set out on the sign and in failing to comply with the license granted to them, they in turn agree to the Claimant’s entirely distinct offer from that license which is ‘to park otherwise than in accordance with the license for a charge of £100’.

17. The signage at the site is clearly visible and the information on the signage informs the driver of the parking conditions at the location. Signage is prominent throughout the parking area. Signage location, size, content and font has been audited and approved by the International Parking Community (“the IPC”). The site plan attached to this statement at exhibit “GSL1” evidences that there are sufficient signs on the Relevant Land, these are marked by way of the ‘x’ as shown on the plan attached. I submit that the terms of parking were readily made available to the Defendant.

18.It is the driver’s responsibility, to check for signage, check the legality and obtain any authorisation for parking before leaving their vehicle. The signage on site is the contractual document. By parking in the manner in which the Defendant did, the charge was properly incurred.

19. What is more, the attached photographs show that the Defendant’s vehicle was parked within close proximity to the signage on site. There was a lamp post situated in front of the Defendant’s vehicle which contained a sign affixed to the same.

Costs:

20. My Company has included a claim for costs as is its right on issuing proceedings. The costs claimed are in accordance with CPR 27.14 and CPR 45.

The Current Debt

21. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to the parking charge incurred.

22. My Company is an Accredited Operator of the International Parking Community (IPC) who prescribes a maximum charge of £100. The Code of Practice states:
"Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/ or other documentation.
Where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated."

23. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the initial 28 days allowed or the further 28 days allowed after the Notice to Keeper has been sent, the parking charge has become overdue and a reasonable sum of £60 has been added.

24. The Sign states the prescribed charge for failing to comply with the terms is £100, however it also specifies “where a parking charge becomes due an application may be made to the DVLA for the keeper’s details. Non-payment will result in additional charges which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis” Further the Letter Before Claim also made it clear the debt may increase in respect of costs and interest if a claim had to be issued. Due to the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company's legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd, who were instructed to commence legal proceedings. The potential additional costs mentioned above are now sought.

25. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of the Defendant’s breach and as such asks thatthis element of the claim be awarded as a damage. The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses. Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

Coupon-mad

“No parking outside of a marked bay at any time this includes, stopping, waiting and drop and collection''.

...the signage makes it clear that “stopping / waiting / collection” is not permitted and further no return to the site is permitted within 1 hour.

Well we can all see that the above conflicts completely with this:

11. The rules of interpretation require simply that the parties knew of their obligations to one- another. The Defendant was offered to use the Land and thereafter either follow the rules and park for free or in breach of the rules agree to pay £100.

14. The Court may conclude that the Land is managed as follows; the Claimant grants a contractual license to all; this license allows anyone permission to be on the Land. This is inferred by the nature of the land and the lack of any general prohibition of entry on the signage. In this regard, the Defendant (as were all the motorists) was offered to comply with the normal conditions (as clear on the sign), or park otherwise than in accordance with the normal conditions and incur a £100 charge.

16. Alternatively; it could be concluded that, any person can use the Land provided they do not exceed the licensed activity as set out on the sign and in failing to comply with the license granted to them, they in turn agree to the Claimant’s entirely distinct offer from that license which is ‘to park otherwise than in accordance with the license for a charge of £100’.

We assume you've searched the forum for a case surname (e.g. 'Alder') from that drivel and found all the other times we've already read that template and pulled it apart? Please do, saves us repeating it all again. This is the same WS as used and re-used in all Gladstones cases.

Skimad247

Thanks for the advice coupon mad. I’m still unclear on what clause they are claiming I breached their rules - waiting, parking for longer than 20 minutes or returning within an hour as they reference different things throughout the evidence.

Is this their only WS or can they add to it?

Skimad247

All,

thank you for your help and advice on this one. Here's my first draft. My court date is 24th September - is there benefits in supplying the Witness Statment much earlier than the 10th September? What is my strongest argument?



PARKING CONTROL MANAGMENT (Claimant)

-and-

xx xx (Defendant)

________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
________________________________________

I am xx xx, of xx, and I am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows.
1. 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.
2. Attached to this statement is a series of documents
3. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.
4. I confirm that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on 26th June 2018.

5. On the 26th June 2018 drove to Hayes and Harlington station to pick up a colleague prior to a meeting we had approximately a mile away. I had not been to Hayes & Harlington Station previously so I was using Google Maps to guide me which took me towards the station itself and onto Station Approach.
6. Due to Cross Rail and Station improvements at Hayes and Harlington Station the main turning circle and drop off area has been removed but this is not overly obvious until a driver has committed to entering Station Approach.
7. As I entered station approach I drove to then end before realising it was a Building Site and then turned around and stopped my vehicle on the side of Station Approach but remained in my vehicle facing out towards the roundabout.
8. A few minutes after my colleagues train was due to arrive I rang him and understood that he had missed the train he planned to be on but would be on the one in 15 minutes time.

9. I was in the parking space for approximately 8 minutes but not once did I leave my vehicle; as there was only 5 parking spaces on Station Approach I didn’t want to occupy what I thought was a Station’s parking space for 15 minutes longer than I had to so I exited Station Approach.

10. I returned 15 minutes later and entered Station Approach and parked my car in a similar manner to before but facing away from the roundabout as I waited for my colleague (approximately 3 minutes) I noticed someone taking photos of my car. It was at this point I looked around and peered up to see a sign, it was not legible from within the vehicle but as someone was taking photos of my car I decided to drive off but knowing that I had not parked or stayed stationary for more than a few minutes I didn’t think anything of it.

11. A few days later I received a letter with the subject FIGURE xx “Postal Notification of Parking Charge” – in the letter it claims that my vehicle was “parked in a manner whereby the driver agreed to pay a charge: “”Parking having exceeded the time limit”” – The signage is the area is clear and concise”. As I had not exited my car (what I would consider parking) and could not read the signage from a seated position within my car there I could not have “agreed” to pay a charge.

12. Upon reviewing the photos of my vehicle that Parking Control Management’s website; I could see that they had taken an initial photo of my car facing towards the round about at 10:45 and another photo when I returned at 11:07 and when I left again at 11:09 and have tried to imply that I had stayed in the space for 24 minutes. I sent off my appeal stating that I was not in the car parking space for longer that 20 minutes and explain my situation.

13. Parking Control Management responded to my appeal FIGURE xx stating that “Your vehicle was observed for over 20 minutes”. This statement is ambiguous and untrue, the photos PCN have submitted can clearly show my vehicle facing 2 different directions on 2 separate occasions and my total time in the 2 different parking spaces equals less than 20 minutes.


14. Figure xx Stated in Option 2 that I could appeal the decision if I believed the decision was incorrect by lodging an appeal with the Independent Appeals Service. FIGURES 3 – 27 shows the number of attempts I tried to lodge an appeal on the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) but I could never log on to the IAS to lodge an appeal. I tried to reset my password despite never setting one, email the IAS on numerous occasions, I tried to find a phone number but they do not show one on the website ; I could therefore not lodge an appeal.

15. FIGURE x of my Evidence shows my vehicle parked in a space on Station Approach. As I am sat in my vehicle my eye line is at 1.15m above the ground. The signage that can be seen in the photo is at a height of 3.2m which cannot be seen from a seated position and without exiting the vehicle which I did not and therefore could not have entered into a contract with Parking Control Management. The text on the sign is extremely small and difficult to read from a standing position let alone from a seated position.

The claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Community (IPC). This is against The Independent Parking Community - ACCREDITED OPERATOR SCHEME CODE OF PRACTICE – PART E which states – “The size of text on a sign will be determined by a number of factors such as the position of it, to whom it is aimed and the information that it needs to convey. Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”

The signs do not conform to this and therefore are not valid.



16. Figure xx also shows that amount of text on the sign. The number of words on the sign are in excess of 407 words some of which are illegible even with the use of a digital zoom of a camera. Further to this there are 2 signs on the entrance to Station Approach that contain 50 words and 126 words. Figure xx shows an extract from The International Parking Community’s Code of Conduct v6 which states in 15.1;

“15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

I would suggest that to be able to park safely, read and understand the text on the sign shown in Figure xx walk to the entrance to read the text on the signs shown in Figure xx and be able to make an informed decision would far exceed the 8 minutes that I was initially stopped within the marked bay.



Parking Control Management’s Witness Statement
17. Parking Control Management’s Witness Statement Paragraph 5 (P5) and Paragraph 7 (P7) contradict themselves. Paragraph 5 replicates the wording on the sign that states “No parking outside of a marked bay at any time this includes, stopping, waiting and drop and collection”. Paragraph 7 then states “signage makes it clear that “stopping / waiting / collection” is not permitted”. The signage states that stopping, waiting and drop and collection is valid so long as it is within marked bays and the fact that the Claimant cannot understand this would highlight that the signage is not “unambiguously clear”.

18. Parking Control Management’s Witness Statement Paragraph 7 (P7) also contradicts with Paragraph 8 (P8). The Claimant states in P7 that “stopping / waiting / collection” is not permitted but then in Paragraph 8 the claimant states “Whilst the Defendant’s vehicle was parked within the confines of a marked bay”. Is the Claimant claiming I was “stopping / waiting / collection” or “parked within the confines of a marked bay”?



Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

19. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

20. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

21. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

22. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

23. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

24. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

25. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

26. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

27. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

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

Statement of Truth

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

Redx

before IT IS ORDERED add The judges stated


get it in just before the deadline, not way before , otherwise they could submit a supplemental WS