told not to worry about payment and enjoy the day by the staff

harnas

thanks a lot,

just going through their DQ.. in the witness section they stated 0 (it says including themselves)... how does that work?
(btw DQ is also signed by "BW legal" picture of signature)

Coupon-mad

None of that matters. A solicitor can sign as their firm's name.

harnas

This witness statement is presented in following sections:
Section 1: Preamble
Section 2: Defendant’s recollection of the events on the day the PCN was given
Section 3: Appeal process with Armtrac
Section 4: Appeal process with IAS
Section 5: Post appeal, BW Legal and Court case.
Section 6: Conclusion
Section 7: Additional evidence
Defendant’s Schedule of Costs
 
Section 1: Preamble
1. I, xxx, am the Defendant in this case. 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.
2. I am defendant in this case. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was also the driver on the day.
3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all. I think my case was not dealt with a “good faith” principle and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.
4. I arrived on the car park located in St Ives, called Tiny Car Park, next to St Ives Laundrette on North Terrace street, around 7:00PM on 27th of May 2018.
5. I did not pay for the stay on the car park and I did not display the ticket. I was told by Armtrac associate, very clearly, that I did not have to pay for the parking on that day and I took it as an agreement that overwrites the contractual obligations to pay, displayed everywhere on the car park.
6. I believe I was deliberately tricked into this situation to profit Claimant’s income.
7. I appealed and complied with all of the requirements, but all of my appeals were dismissed. I realise my case is hard to prove without other witnesses but throughout the appeal processes, on several occasions I requested information which would prove that my statements are true, but I was denied the help in obtaining them or my requests were overlooked. I repeatedly asked for Landowners involvement and those requests were omitted.
8. When the case transferred to BW Legal, I ignored all of the letters sent requesting me to pay an overinflated sum and asking for my financial situation. After some time, being bombarded by emails, phone calls and letters, pursuing me to pay, I called BW Legal to settle the case, requesting cancelation but that was declined, and I was advised about 2 options: to pay or to go court. I decided on the latter believing in justice, even if this would mean substantial loss.
9. I did some research to prepare my defence and found many similar cases IAS and BW Legal etc. I used some of the help from the people posting on forums about such cases as I do not have any experience in disputes such as this one. It seems that those predatory practices are very common among private parking/security services and BW Legal is mentioned in many of them.
10. I believe my line of defence is reasonable and shows my will to co-operate throughout the process, exposing the malpractice on the Claimant’s side, including IAS which stands for Independent Appeal Service, but is part of the same trading body as Claimant’s business.
11. I also believe that the amount that Claimant wants to “recover” is not related to the loss of business/profits as there are no losses for the claimant. The only loss that could be claimed is the 2 hours charge for the stay on the private property of the landowner. But the fact is that the loss has happened due to Claimant’s employee malpractice of setting the trap on landowner’s customer – myself.
12. The legal costs should not apply here as the matter could be dealt with after the initial conversation, based on the good faith principle and promissory estoppel doctrine.
13. I am surprised that Armtrac did not want to find the rouge employee that damages the reputation of the company misleading the customers and instead continued pursuing the PCN.

Section 2: Defendant’s recollection of the events on the day the PCN was given
14. Below is my recollection from that day:
a. After arrival to the parking place, I parked my car and took my 2-year-old daughter from the car to pay for the stay.
b. I noticed that the pay machines that were present there at the time did not allow for card payments. I searched for a cash machine or a shop nearby but couldn’t find anything in proximity and did not want to go away too far without paying. I checked the sings for the rules of the car park, as I usually do when using any parking space.
c. I remembered that I have £5 note in the car. I went back with and found it in the boot of my car. The machine would not accept the notes either as these were the “change only” machine so tried to search for someone that would change the £5 pounds for me. I was planning to leave the car park and get the change, if not successful.
d. There was a person seating in a red small red car (something like Citroen C1 or Toyota Aygo). His car was parked near the place I parked my car and the person was there before I arrived at the car park. I asked for the change but was told that he doesn’t have it.
e. I turned around and started to look for someone else when the same person approached me few meters later and asked if the change that I need is for the parking payment. I confirmed that and then introduced himself as security employee and said that I don’t have to pay on this occasion. He was in a “security” type uniform and I spotted an emblem of the car park security company on the gown or ID. I was a little bit surprised by his statement/offer but I was also in rush for the dinner with a hungry child. I checked with him more than few times if this is ok and he ensured me that it is and I should go and “enjoy the day”.
f. I trusted that what he said was simply a kind gesture after seeing me struggling with the pay going back and forward with my 2 years old daughter.
g. On the way out of the car park I met him again - he was having a cigarette on the pavement, outside the parking place, and I asked him again if that is for sure ok and also if he knows which car is mine. He simply smiled and confirmed that he is the only person that looks after the carpark on that day and I do not have to worry. I left the carpark with my daughter.
h. On the return, just after 9PM I noticed the PCN on my car. I tried to find the person as the note stated it was issued just 2 minutes before we came back, but I didn’t see him or anyone else again.
i. Signage picture (issued later at appeal stage) is in exhibit “PI-S2” on page 1.
j. Picture of me holding the PCN showing time of the picture, is in exhibit “PI-S2” on page 2.
Section 3: Appeal process with Armtrac
15. Immediately after arriving home from the weekend in Cornwall, on 27th of May 2018, I emailed the company to explain what has happened. The full email conversation as an email chain is in exhibit “PI-S3” on pages 1-4 It is briefly described below:
a. I stated what has happened on the day and hoped for quick clarification. From the very start I admitted that I did not have the ticket and that I didn’t pay for it.
b. I requested polite cancellation of the PCN due to the circumstances presented.
c. I was asked about my car details and admission that I was the driver and registered keeper. I provided that
d. In response I was asked about my full address details. The way the email was constructed made me think that it was generated automatically as none of the points I raised were taken in a “human way”. They were just cold requests for details. I was reluctant to give it out as was not sure of the purpose it may serve, but as it was not possible to move forward without it, I provided that in a good faith.
e. Appeal was registered with date of 30th of May 2018.
16. I received the appeal response on 4th of June 2018 dismissing the appeal – exhibit “PI-S3” on pages 5-6). My response and email chain following this is briefly described below and also in exhibit “PI-S3” on pages 7-10).
a. It didn’t answer any of my questions
b. It stated only the basic facts about the car parking rules and contractual agreements
c. It stated that my car parked there without the ticket being displayed – which I admitted as my first point in my very first email to Armtrac. This confirmed to me that most of the reply were automatic replies with copy/paste action without truly reading it.
d. I was told that I can appeal to the Independent Appeal Service (IAS)
e. The appeal response came with a “do not respond to this email” message, but I replied (to 2 of the addresses I had) stating that I will appeal to the IAS as the response was not answering my questions.
f. I requested Armtrac to secure CCTV footage suggesting that even without audio, the video would support what I stated.
g. I received 2 replies – one which seemed to be automatic telling me that I should go with IAS. And second, non-automatic telling me that the CCTV is run by “separate company on behalf of the landowner” and Armtrac doesn’t have access to it. And then reiterating the fact that tickets have to be displayed for the patrol officers.
h. I thank for the response and seeing that it’s the first time I am dealing with non-automatic response I asked for an honest opinion about this situation.
i. I didn’t receive the reply for 10 days and on 22nd of June 2018 I re-iterated my question again. I also asked for landowner details so I could obtain the information from the CCTV for future reference, which would confirm my case. Also, once again, I requested to politely cancel the PCN suggesting it would save time and troubles on both sides.
j. I received the response on the same day stating that all questions were dealt with in the appeal response from 4th of June. I was denied landowner details stating that they are protected on data protection laws.
k. I was also told that patrol officer is there to secure the site, not to advice motorists and that I should check the rules before leaving the vehicle on the car park.
l. I checked the written rules on the signature and there is nothing about officers’ duties. The sign states that Armtrac manages and secures the car park (exhibit “PI-S2” page 1) and there is no mention that I should not listen the direction they give.
m. I replied that I was misguided by their representative. I also told Armtrac that I do understand that they may not want to share landowner’s details and asked them to contact landowner to secure the footage for future reference. I reiterated that good will from them would end this dispute. I stated that I will make the appeal on the same day (22 June 2018).
n. I never received a reply.

Section 4: Appeal process with IAS
17. As per advice above, I thought that appealing to the Independent Appeal Service would bring some justice. After all it meant to be “Independent” and therefore someone should see why I have the dispute. I made an appeal on 22 June 2019 – the appeal process is exhibit “PI-S4” on pages 1-6. Below is brief description.
a. The whole process felt as a cold quick response without answering the key points of my questions at all
b. It only stated facts about not displaying the tickets – again, something I was very clear from the beginning
c. It didn’t respond to my requests for the CCTV – the only response that I got was copy/paste answer from Armtrac.
d. IAS stated that the PCN was correctly issued therefore rejected the appeal.
e. This went back for second “hearing”, I reiterated that the CCTV is very important for me, even just to secure it or provide any directions of where I could get it.
f. I also stated that I’ve heard that verbal agreement is legally binding and amended the contract obligations – referring the conversation with parking officer.
g. In response, it again stated some facts about the event but didn’t address the issues raised. They also wrote that IAS is not there to give legal advice. And that Armtrac is not the Landowner, that the signs are placed clearly and that there is photographic evidence of my car being parked there. I was puzzled with the needs to re-iterate the same responses again and again.
h. The appeal was dismissed
i. It was only then that I was made aware that the IPC (Independent Parking Committee, now called International Parking Community) which is the trading body Armtrac belongs to, is run by the same owners as the IAS. It made it clear to me that the process of appeal and the outcome shouldn’t be a surprise as the it is not as independent as it sounds.
Section 5: Post appeal, BW Legal and Court case
18. After the IAS refused my complaint I decided to wait and started to do some research about car parking companies. I decided not to pay and go to court believing in justice which is on my side in this case. I already devoted a lot of time trying to comply with Armtrac and IAS regulations and I didn’t see the honest will to help me. I doubt that landowner was contacted about the issue, about the CCTV and I didn’t get any help to get the details to arrange the evidence that by myself. I was told that the information is protected legally, but through the forums (at a very late stage) I found out it is publicly accessible via Land Register.
19. I signed up to some forum that helps people resolving issues and was presented with evidences of cases that could have helped my case.
20. On 29 Nov 2018 I received 2 letters (from Armtrac and from BW Legal) that BW Legal will now lead the case and represent Armtrac in the dispute. Since then:
a. They were requesting a disproportionate amount of money to the cause.
b. I do not believe that the cost schedule is this high, giving the automated way of approaching clients.
c. I found it hard to track and very confusing of what the real costs would be at the end as the information I was given from Armtrac contradicted the information of BW Legal. First it was £60(reduced amount if paid quickly, then £100 as a standard charge (exhibits in PI-S2) then £200 shown as an example if I go to court (exhibit PI-S5 page 1). BW Legal presented costs as £160 as it included their Dept recovery costs, then £241.82 issued on 25 June 2019 (Exhibit PI-S5 page 2 and 3). I assume that the final quote will be even higher at the end as they apply some interest on it.
d. It is over 20% higher than what Armtrac gave as a misleading example. It is also 2.5x more than the fine and approximately 100x more than the stay on the car park.
e. This means that I was again, misguided during the appeal process when making key decisions of pursuing the case. The final amount, whatever would it be, wouldn’t change the fact I came to court to settle this case as I truly believe I was exempt from the original contract displayed on the parking, but each time it discouraged me from pursuing the justice. I find this a scare-technique that focuses on making victims of this malpractice pay rather than help them in a good will approach.
f. BW Legal obtained my contact details from Armtrac and called me, emailed me and wrote me persistently.
g. I answered some of the calls but when asked to confirm my details I refused to give it away and requested them to state how they obtained mine – they refused to confirm without providing data.
h. Reading through the forums I’ve learned that BW Legal “specialises” in cases like this and are using predatory methods to get the payment (like threatening with high cost for court proceedings referred in point 20d).
i. Despite all the advice of not contacting them I decided to call them, which was a result of discouraging me as per point above – this was on 30 May 19 at 10:26:05 – number I called: 01133234479. The duration was 00:16:02 (billing in exhibit “PI-S5” on page 4)
j. Giving all my details in all good faith I asked again to go through the case and cancel it. I had to explain this to 2 operators and after discussion I was told that it’s either payment or court. There was no room to negotiate at all, despite what the letter asking for the payment said.
k. This went exactly as described on the forums. From then onwards I decided to follow the advice given there and ignore all of the attempts of communication and threating letters.
l. As soon as court case was confirmed I followed the procedure to the letter and promptly.
Section 6: Conclusion
21. Witness statement summary
a. I think that throughout this case I have shown willingness to cooperate and tried to resolve the issue within the boundaries imposed by Armtrac, IAS and BW Legal.
b. I was always polite and quick to respond.
c. I tried to obtain the only evidence that I may rely on which is the CCTV footage.
d. I was denied the key information that would help my case.
e. On top of that, they never questioned that this conversation happened and could check their logs on who was there, confront this individual
f. As this case was unfolding, I began to feel like someone that has no rights, that is accused of lying and that was to be punished heavily for listening to the management company representative on the private property they manage.
g. During the appeal processes I was told I shouldn’t listen to him rather than making a case of having an employee giving false advice.
h. They never offered or wanted to identify the parking officer. They must have logs of who was there at what time. I gave details of the car he was in and it would be very easy to identify.
i. I didn’t request this directly, as I knew that this individual can deny everything I say. Whether for securing himself and his in the company even when the initial intentions were good (assumed at the start), or due to misleading me purposely (assumed at the end). This is why I wanted to get the CCTV footage.
j. All the appeals were dealt by the companies represented by the same trade body. I feel that none of this was fair or “independent” and the whole process seems to be designed in a way that only appears to be fair but is designed and automated in a way that makes people pay the invoices.
k. I am an honest individual that always tries to resolve the disputes quickly, I always go by facts and I never lie. On top of that I believe in dialog and good communication. It is a big part of my life personally and professionally. This is why I was hesitant to responding to BW Legal even after getting the fact-based advice. And this is the reason why I called them as a last attempt – without success again.
l. With all of this in place I feel as I was told that at the end the truth doesn’t matter, it is all my fault and now have to pay for it whilst there are no consequences to the company or the person that provided me this information – nowhere in the case it was denied that this has happened.

Section 7: Additional evidence

22. To support my case and the defence I attach following additional exhibits:
a. Parking (Code of practice) Bill – Hansard, dated 2 Feb 2018 – exposing the appeal process to be unfair in some of the firms, calling for a need of an independent appeal service.
b. IPC code of practice – explaining appeal processes and predatory tactic which meant to be forbidden.


I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true
Signed:
Dated:

Coupon-mad

Armtrac did not want to find the rouge employee

Pink? Typo!

He was in a “security” type uniform and I spotted an emblem of this Claimant on his uniform/badge and was reassured that he must be authorised to offer an alternative contract in the form of permitted free parking on this occasion, given the failure of their machine to accept my notes. [STRIKE]the car park security company on the gown or ID.[/STRIKE]

You may want to add a few Parking Prankster blogs to show that Armtrac are (allegedly) known for presenting misleading facts to consumers and courts:

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/mick-cook-from-armtrac-presents.html

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/12/armtrac-security-services-use-dodgy.html

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/12/armtrac-postal-problems.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/12/armtrac-security-services-use-dodgy.html

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/03/armtrac-lose-case-over-camborne-scam.html

Set the scene, find some newspaper articles as well (not just those Blogs) that present Armtrac in the sort of low light that makes the Judge realise you are telling the truth.

harnas

any idea why my IP was blocked? ...this very moment?

dufflers

17i. It was only then that I was made aware that the IPC (Independent Parking Committee, now called International Parking Community) which is the trading body Armtrac belongs to, is run by the same owners as the IAS. It made it clear to me that the process of appeal and the outcome shouldn’t be a surprise as the it is not as independent as it sounds.

15. Immediately after arriving home from the weekend in Cornwall, on 27th of May 2018, I emailed the company to explain what had happened.

21k. I am an honest individual that always tries to resolve the disputes quickly, I always go by facts and I never lie. On top of that I believe in dialogue and good communication.

Just a couple of things i noticed, I know they're small stuff but have a proof read through once you've finished

Coupon-mad

Copying from word has caused this, as is shown in lots of threads, you can't do that.

Happened to me the other week but it coincided with my holiday to Spain so I didn't care and just emailed the Forum Team to reinstate my IP when back from holiday.

harnas

Not sure if i have time to do the examples to set the scene as per your advice...:(

Coupon-mad

You only have to print the blogs I linked, and do one Google search for newspaper articles. Do you have time to print them?

harnas

Printing may be the problem and that i want to scan it and send it today. (Half term doesnt help)