Excel parking charge notice

nosferatu1001

45pence per mile, HMRC rate.

dufflers

Ok cheers, and should I put in the details of the other hearing into my WS?
I'll post up what I have then after

dufflers

I've received the defence and WS pack from excel, the one they prepared for the set aside hearing in error, they haven't even amended the dates on the docs they sent me..

For the most part it's just generalised info that substantiates their right to operate blah blah blah, but there are details that don't match up to the facts of the case..

They make reference to a £70 fee reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, however the fee is reduced to £35 on their own signs and letters to me.

They also have a printed version of the main signage on the site, and there is an additional message at the bottom of the sign which says "any parking charges that are correctly issues and subsequently cancelled will incur a £10.00 admin fee."
On the actual sign (which i have a photo of) it states the admin fee is £15.00, so are they deliberately falsifying evidence for proof of signage?

They also have a picture with parking tariffs which don't match the actual prices

What really really annoys me is that i probably would have just paid a £10 or £15 admin fee for getting the reg wrong!! (For the ticket/sleeve cost or whatever).

Finally and this is more of a query for everyone, but the letter of authority they provided is dated 2016 and is signed by the leaseholder, not the landowner. there isn't an end date for this authority either. The charge was incurred June 2018

I'll post up my WS when I finish it, but is there anything worth attacking in their details that aren't correct? How would i go about rebutting this in my WS?

Cheers all

dufflers

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am x of x. In this matter I will say as follows:


2. 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.


Events of the Material Date

3. On x I entered the x Car Park in my vehicle, parked correctly in a marked bay and paid for a 12 hour allocation on the Ringgo phone application as instructed. I received a receipt by text to my phone.


4. The included evidence, Exhibit (X) “Parking Receipt from RingGo” shows that a ticket was paid for in full, however the vehicle registration was entered incorrectly. The last 3 letters of the registration are identical to my old vehicle which had been parked and paid for previously.


5. Upon returning to my vehicle and seeing the ticket on my windscreen, I realised my mistake. I immediately sent an appeal notice via my phone to the claimant, with details of the error and exhibit (X) attached to the appeal.


6. The evidence clearly shows that correct payment was paid in good faith at the material time. The claimant can easily verify from this evidence that the parking fees have been correctly paid. Indeed, the claimant has confirmed that they are aware that I paid for a ticket in full.


7. There is no legitimate interest in penalising a paying driver for a keying error. I made reasonable endeavours to comply with the T&Cs by inputting my full registration details and paying the fee to park in the car park. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 -EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach.


Landowner Authority

8. In my Legal Defence, I put the Claimant to strict proof that it has a contract from the Landowner to pursue charges and take enforcement action in court for parking charges. The claimant has not been able to provide this. They have merely produced a statement signed by their Commercial Director stating that they have this right as the leaseholder. There is therefore no evidence that they have this legal right. The fact that it has not produced this evidence that would significantly help its case suggests, on the balance of probabilities, that this contract does not exist.


Charges and relevant law

9.I would like to question what authority do Excel have to circumvent the law, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the court’s own double recovery rules.


10.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.


11.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.


12.The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.


13.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 and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.


14.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 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.


15.Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html

“
at para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

at para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.''

at para 198. ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''
”


16.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, I aver 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.


17.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.


18.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.


19.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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''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...''


20.That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''


21.In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is my 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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.


22.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. I am of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.


The Claimant’s Claim and conduct

23. The Claimant has acted unreasonably throughout this dispute, and there are several areas of the Claimant’s witness statement that simply aren’t true.


24. As previously adjudged in my earlier set aside hearing, the Claimant wrongly sent claim forms and documents to an old address, despite my keeping in contact with their legal agent as instructed by letter. (Exhibit (X)).


25. The Claimant then sent an unprepared legal representative to the hearing; indeed, they had the same defence and witness statement they now rely upon again. The representative attempted to block the set aside without any evidence, and therefore with no reason other than to cause me further costs and anguish. Because of the reasons above, and due to the fact that I have been forced to defend myself on 2 separate occasions, I would like to request all of my costs at the Litigant in Person rate, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).


26. On 25/09/19 it was stated by Deputy District Judge Evans that upon production of evidence that I had informed BW Legal of my change of address, I would be awarded the costs of the set aside hearing. Attached as exhibits (X&X) are my initial email to BW Legal and a subsequent letter sent to my current address from them, proving that before commencement of the claim, BW Legal knew my current and correct address.


27. The witness statement provided by the Claimant contains several errors showing that they use a simple cut and paste format which isn’t fit for purpose, this also substantiates the assertion that their ‘legal costs’ are a fallacy.


28. The Claimant describes terms and conditions and maintains that an original fee of £70.00 would be reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days. Their own signage states that the £70.00 would be reduced to £35.00. The fact that the Claimant is trying to use these terms and conditions as the main crux of their claim but can’t even refer to them correctly highlights the hypocrisy of this dispute.


29. In the “Site location” section of the Claimant’s documents, there is an image of the SA1 Swansea Waterfront signage. This image is incorrect. The image shows a section titled “Parking Charge Notices will be issued for the following:” with a specific category stating “Not entering the full and accurate vehicle registration number when making payment (If applicable)”. This section is not located on the current signage.(Exhibit (X)).


30. As referenced in (29.), the image presented by the Claimant is outdated. The claimant’s tariff shows a charge of £4.40 for 12 hours parking whereas they are currently £5.30 as shown in exhibit (X). At the bottom of the sign there is a statement that “Correctly issued Parking Charge Notices which are subsequently cancelled will attract a £10.00 fee. This is not only outdated, having since been increased to £15.00, but also highlights the Claimant’s actual costs should they wish to cancel a PCN. (Exhibit (X)).


31. The information above proves that the Claimant has omitted vital information that they intend to rely upon in order to make their claim against me. I maintain that the signage shown by the Claimant were not those used to form the alleged contract on the material day.


Summary

32. I believe that this claim is entirely unreasonable, unnecessary and unwarranted. The Claimant could, with minimum effort, see that the parking fee was paid at the time that they have issued a PCN to me. They are unable to prove they have any authority to act in court as tenants of the landowner of this car park. Instead, they have relentlessly pursued and harried me, attempting to intimidate me into paying an unlawful and inflated penalty charge. I have spent countless hours reading in order to defend myself against this vexatious claim. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant.


33. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

1505grandad

Just a thought - para 12 - would it be helpful to include as evidence a copy of the "no win/no fee" statement? A screenshot is available on the forum as I believe the website has now been amended.

Unless of course a copy has already been submitted to the Court.

dufflers

I'll find it and attach as a screenshot thanks

dufflers

can anyone find anything that needs tinkering?
in particular do you think point 29 should be framed more close to the top? is it a strong point?

dufflers

I'm looking to print this all out and get it ready to send it off, (I'll email it too just to be sure)
Could anyone please look at my question above and let me know if they agree?

dufflers

Also,
Set Aside Hearing Costs

Cost of set aside as adjudged by Deputy District Judge Evans: £255.00

Sub-total £255.00 ======

Ordinary Costs

Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 25/09/19 & Pending date: £75.00

Return mileage from home address to Court (2 occasions): £3.60

Sub-total £78.60 ======

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (6 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £114.00

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £15.00

Loss of credit from previously deferred university module
(Exhibits X&X):£123.00

Sub-total £252.00 ======

£585.60 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

Le_Kirk

I would move your point 29 nearer to the top, certainly before the Abuse of Process points.