Me vs PCM UK (Heath Parade) - court stage

mnkut

Hi all,
Could anyone confirm whether I can submit my Witness statement bundle via email?
Maybe to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk where it guides the Defence submission. Or to the enquiries email of Clerkenwell

I can't seem to find on the Newbies thread where to send WS for the court specifically. I understand I can email Gladstones

Umkomaas

It's recommended that you hand-deliver your WS (neatly bundled and indexed) to the court (get a receipt from the desk clerk). Just emailing it to the court might find that it's not printed in time for the Judge to read, if it is it will be a raw sheaf of papers, some courts have a limit as to the number of pages they are prepared to print.

Email to the other parties is OK.

It's also recommended that you take 3 hard copies to the hearing, should the Judge not have his to hand or the Claimant similarly - despite already being provided to them. Frustrating, but safety first.

KeithP

mnkut wrote: »

Hi all,
Could anyone confirm whether I can submit my Witness statement bundle via email?
Maybe to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk where it guides the Defence submission. Or to the enquiries email of Clerkenwell

I can't seem to find on the Newbies thread where to send WS for the court specifically. I understand I can email Gladstones

Definitely do not send your Witness Statement and evidence to the CCBC.

Surely you understand that your case has been transferred to your local court?


The usual suggestion is that you hand deliver your witness statement and evidence to the court. It will of course be neatly presented, indexed and paginated so that the judge can easily find his way around it.

Do not be tempted to email it to your local court as they have a strict limit on how much they will print, and apart from that, you will lose all control on how the stuff is presented to the judge.

mnkut

Thank you both! I did not consider that, definitely makes sense to be safe than sorry. Noted on getting a receipt from the desk clerk also.

I will prepare the printouts tomorrow morning and head over.

mnkut

I'm writing up points for the WS re: Gladstone's Particulars of Claim

The driver of the vehicle reg: XXXX incurred the parking charge(s) on XXXXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Heath Parade. the Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or registered keeper and the Claimant claims £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable together with interest of £17.06 etc...


Am I being reasonable to state the Particulars of Claim are sparse and inadequate? The other examples online seem much worse than the one I've received and I'm not sure what's the standard.

KeithP

Yes, those Particulars are inadequate.

It really is preposterous that they are using terms like "and/or" and "if applicable".

mnkut

Draft of WS

As it's lengthy I have marked bold the points I seek guidance on, the others I've mangled together from other WS but of course appreciate any pointers there.

I have made some notes on what the Exhibits should be which will be cleaned up before submission tomorrow morning.

Note:
Grace period point added, but unsure if that's appropriate where the car is photographed to have brake lights on

I'm working on making each point far more concise to keep it as simple as possible for the DDJ on the day.



XXXXXX

1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver.

2. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts Parking Control Management (UK) Limited to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Defendant and themselves.

3. The vehicle was stopped at the site for approximately 8 minutes for the purposes of loading and alighting as is evident from the brake lights being on. As is corroborated by the Witness Statement from Witness 1 (Exhibit XX). On any reasonable construction, this
action did not constitute 'parking'.

4. On the XXX 2017 a Parking Charge Notice was sent by post, vehicle registration number: XXX. (Exhibit XX)

5. On the XXXX 2017 the Defendant appealed as the Registered Keeper via PCM UK Ltd.’s online appeals system. (Exhibit XX)

6. On the XXXXX 2017 the Defendant received a rejection letter to their appeal to PCM UK along with a demand for £100. (Exhibit XX).

7. On the XXXX 2017 a demand from Trace Debt Recovery was received for £160 with no explanation for the increased amount and threatening further debt recovery. My research into this matter indicated that this error was a sign that this was a ‘robo claim’. There was no reference as to how the alleged debt had arisen or how the charge had been calculated. No figure for additional charges was agreed nor could it have formed part of the ‘alleged’ contract because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the sign’s Terms and cannot be bolted on later with figures that were not incorporated into the small print With no evidence or further detail offered, this letter was also assumed to be a scam and ignored. (Exhibit XX - Trace letter 1).

8. On the XXX 2017 a further demand from Trace Debt Recovery was received for £160, again without any explanation for the increased amount. (Exhibit XX - Trace letter 2).

9. On the XXX 2017 a letter from Gladstones Solicitors was received demanding £160 be paid to PCM (UK) Ltd, again without any explanation for the increased amount. (Exhibit XX - Gladstones 1)

10. A submission to the relevant adjudication (IAC) was not made due to the revelation that Gladstones and IAC share the same company directors. Which to any reasonable understanding appears far from independent or fair (Exhibit XX, companies house screenshots)


Signage:

11. There are two signs near the layby which appear multiple times across the site. Both these signs are adhered to the nearest wall in such a elevated position approximately three metres in height from the ground where someone in a passing or parked vehicle is unlikely to see it and impossible to read it. (Exhibit XX - mrs sunglasses photo). There is a requirement to exit the vehicle, walk over to the wall and attempt to read. Which goes against IPC’s ‘Code of Practice’ guidelines (of which PCM UK Ltd. is a member): Part E, Schedule 1 clearly states that: “Such signs must;... 4) Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site;... 6) Contain text appropriate to the position of the sign and the relative position of the person who it is aimed at.” (Exhibit XX - IPC guideline).

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Furthermore, the charge is buried in the small print and is an unfair term. (Exhibits XX sign & YY aerial photo of distance of sign on wall)).

6. The Claimant has failed to acknowledge the illegible signage within their Witness Statement, stating a failure to read on the Defendant’s part. In the case of PCM (UK) Ltd v Bull, the ruling favoured the Defendant based on forbidding signage (Exhibits XX - chequers avenue signage),

7. In an identical case to this regarding Heath Parade, NW9 heard at Clerkenwell, PCM (UK) Ltd v Mr K [2007], D4GF9617, Deputy District Judge Ostroff ruled on PCM (UK)’s forbidding signage based on the precedent set by PCM (UK) Ltd v Bull. (Exhibits XX HW sign & YY heath parade sign)

8. An example of the Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] case which shows an easier to read sign that appealed to the Supreme Court.(Exhibit XX)

7. The Claimant offers a second signage that contradicts the earlier exhibit and uses forbidding language stating “No Customer Parking At Any Time”, signed off by “Genesis Housing Association”, a different legal entity to PCM (UK) Ltd (Exhibits XX pic of no customer parking genesis).

8. As the signs are adjacent and it is unclear: which sign is to be referred too, who the Defendant’s the obligations are too and whether these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer when one is forbidding language and the other is illegible. This goes against IPC’s ‘Code of Practice’ guidelines Part E, Schedule 1 requirement to “Such signs must: Identify yourself as ‘the Creditor’”. (Exhibits XX - ipc guideline, YY -position of signage)

9. Consumer Rights Act (2015) rules that if signage has multiple interpretations the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. Therefore the signage with the largest font should apply which disallows parking, the Defendant denies the vehicle is parked. (Exihbit - consumer rights act)

10. Furthermore, the largest sign holds forbidding language a case regarding Heath Parade, NW9 was heard at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, PCM (UK) v Ms C. [2017] C1GF92FF the Deputy District Judge ruled against PCM (UK) Ltd due to the forbidding language of “NO CUSTOMER PARKING AT ANY TIME”. (Exhibits XX - genesis sign)

11. Since the alleged event the local Sainsburys’ have added distinguishable and legible signage (Exhibit Sainsbury signage) clarifying where parking is available which suggests the Claimant's signage were insufficient for Sainsbury’s shoppers too (Exhibit - where Sainsbury's is in the map).

Grace Period:

XX. The IPC ‘Code of Practice’ states:”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”. A grace period of reasonable time must allow finding signs, reading, distinguishing, interpreting and decide whether the to accept the terms or not. The vehicle is recorded at Heath Parade for 8 mins, a reasonable grace period was not observed given the illegibility, distance and contradicting nature of the signs.

XX. Furthermore it is believed the illegibility, distance and contradicting nature signs were a device for entrapment rather than information. The IPC ‘Code of Practice’ states: “14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.”

Authority:

12. The Claimant fails to address why PCM (UK) Ltd are perusing parking charges for a land that they did not have the Freeholder’s authority for at the date of the alleged event 4th February 2017. The authority letter provided in the Claimant’s Witness Statement states: “Company name: Genesis Housing Association” (Exhibit XX freeholder agreement). My research into this matter identifies “Choices for Graham Park Ltd” owned the freehold to the land during 4th February 2017 title number: NGL931573, in reference to A,7 and B, 3. (Exhibit XX - title deed).

XX. A case heard at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch on 29th Septemeber 2018 ruled PCM do not have freeholder authority for the layby at Heath Parade, as Land Registry documents state Choices for Graham Park Ltd rather than Genesis Housing Association.

13. As of March 2018 the ownership of the land where the layby is has been transferred to Barnet Council after heavy lobbying from local MPs and constituents regarding tickets received from PCM (UK) Ltd, only to later succeed at court stage. (Exhibit thread the image of labour MP asking council for update on the land).

14. The Claimant cites Lord Justice Lewison comments in VCS vs HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186 however the Claimant could never deliver the consideration (i.e. the loading allegedly offered) as they had no locus standi to offer loading space that was owned by neither the Claimant, PCM (UK) Ltd or Genesis Housing Association. Their promise to deliver said parking is therefore void for lack of consideration.

15. On the XXX 2018 I received a County Court claim from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton for a total of £252.06 (Exhibit XX - pic of CCF). Once again, the demand specified an increased amount without any explanation. The Claimant fails to comply with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) as there was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, which should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre Action Conduct.

Particulars of Claim:

16. The Claimant states prior to proceedings the Defendant received notices in accordance with the Act and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the charge and the subject of the claim. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and inadequate and it is unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the cause of action. The Defendant is still unclear whether the Claimant is seeking trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge.

XX. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’


XX. On the 27th July 2016 District Judge Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

17. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the Particulars of Claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). Lacking information why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.

18. The Defendant disputes the Claimant has incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the Keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

19. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation as to how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. Other than stating in their Witness Statement that it was resasonable.

mnkut

Any thoughts?
I shall be printing tomorrow morn and hand delivering before 12pm

mnkut

Hi all, the hearing is on Tuesday eek.
Writing up a script for the day to support nerves when questioned by the judge, and I needed some help on the argument made by gladstones that landowner authority is irrelevant based on Beavis and VCS vs HMRC.

Struggling to coherently explain how it's irrelevant, other than explaining it's akin to if a business setting up shop on my driveway without my consent but argued they had the consent of a stranger. Not sure the judge will enjoy such analogy

Rajeev

Hi Mnkut, Good luck for tomorrow. Me and ZakLondon attended the Shoreditch county court today and both cases were dismissed by the Judge. The PCM lawyers did not even turn up. The Judge was quite unhappy as she had 3-4 cases of this site today.