Court Claim - UKPC / SCS LAW - DEFENCE PENDING IMMEDIATE SUBMISSION

KeithP

Para 7 starts "7. The claimant has not sent any such notices...".
What 'notices' are you talking about here?

In my opinion, you still have not sufficiently clearly shown how the Claimant has failed to abide by POFA to such an extent that the driver's liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

You Witness Statement still doesn't refer to any evidence.
Perhaps para 3 should end something like:
"...as evidenced by my hospital discharge summary - see exhibit NAM1".

namiku

KeithP wrote: »

Para 7 starts "7. The claimant has not sent any such notices...".
What 'notices' are you talking about here?

In my opinion, you still have not sufficiently clearly shown how the Claimant has failed to abide by POFA to such an extent that the driver's liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

You Witness Statement still doesn't refer to any evidence.
Perhaps para 3 should end something like:
"...as evidenced by my hospital discharge summary - see exhibit NAM1".

Wherever I say as evidenced I mean to the attached evidence however I will number them and add a see exhibit note to each of those parts. Thanks for that.

What more can I say regarding PoFA I believe the strength of my particular claim would be in the amount sought, if you can point me in another direction also I will include more information.

When I say notices, I mean they've not sent any evidence at all, no notices to keeper, no pcns, no pictures of my car, no pictures of signage, etc... Should I include them?

KeithP

namiku wrote: »

What more can I say regarding PoFA I believe the strength of my particular claim would be in the amount sought, if you can point me in another direction also I will include more information.

Well I think that is a weak argument.

namiku wrote: »

When I say notices, I mean they've not sent any evidence at all, no notices to keeper, no pcns, no pictures of my car, no pictures of signage, etc... Should I include them?

But you say 'any such notices'.
Maybe it's me, but I would expect to see a list of 'such notices' before that statement.
But reading it again, perhaps just leaving out the word 'such' would work.

Coupon-mad

8. The claimant may also try to rely on the ParkingEye Vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 where the signs displaying information in the Beavis case were accepted to be large, prominent and legible. As evidenced the signage erected by UKPC

UKPC?

Regarding keeper liability, you need to simply say that these charges fail because:

(a) the Claimant has failed to serve compliant Notice to Keeper letters within the statutory deadline, and/or with the prescribed wording, as set out in Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, including but not limited to the omission of any 'warning'; about keeper liability as per para 9(2)f of the Schedule, and

(b) there was no 'adequate notice' (i.e. prominent signs, not hidden/high terms up on posts) about the parking charge, contrary to Schedule 4, and

(c) there was no 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' upon the driver, contrary to the main pre-requisites for keeper liability as set out in Schedule 4.

You should also put into evidence the NHS Parking Principles, and say:

This 'all profits for penalties kept by the the parking firm' charging regime incentivises penalties and is against the Buckinghamshire Healthcare trust parking policy (see Evx) and the Government policy as set out in the NHS Car Parking Principles (see EVx) Thus, even if the driver did park in contravention of a sign, there is no 'legitimate interest' excuse to save the charges from being struck down as punitive, unconscionable and unrecoverable, and as such this case is fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that in each parking charge case the penalty rule remains 'engaged'. Only the 'legitimate interest' facts relating to the retail park in that 'complex' and 'completely different' case - and the unusual brevity and clarity of the signs - saved the £85 charge in Beavis.

By 'EVx' I mean you need to number your evidence; your initials then 1, 2, 3, etc.

namiku

KeithP wrote: »

Well I think that is a weak argument.


But you say 'any such notices'.
Maybe it's me, but I would expect to see a list of 'such notices' before that statement.
But reading it again, perhaps just leaving out the word 'such' would work.

That was supposed to be a follow on from the previous paragraph so I have changed that to say "they have not included any notices to keeper as part of theri evidence".

What would make the claim stronger? What else from PoFA can I refer to that is relevant to my particular case?

I've read on from paragrah 4 of schedule 4 but can't see what else to add. I'm thinking regarding parkingperiod which is mentioned a lot but I'm not sure if that is referrant to a period of parking, x amount of time?

Coupon-mad

See above.

namiku

---

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
and
namiku (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am namiku, of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. I was the keeper of the vehicle between the dates that the PCNs were issued however the claimant has not sent as part of their evidence other than a witness statement any proof that the car was in fact parked in contravention with the terms of parking.

3. On X date I had gone into labour and about to have a baby and was driven to X hospital and admitted at X time. I had a baby at X +2hrs as evidenced by my hospital discharge summary.

4. Due to complications I was admitted to hospital between Day X and day X + 4 as evidenced by my hospital discharge summary (see exhibit NA1) and therefore was not the driver on any of the mentioned contraventions listed by the claimant.

5. The claimant is bringing a case against me on the basis that I was the driver as they are seeking to recover an amount of £120 per PCN which as evidenced by the signage (see exhibit NA2) would amount from £60 for the original Parking Charge and £60 additional charge after being passed to a debt recovery company due to non-payment. As I have shown evidence (exhibit NA1) that I could have not possibly been the driver this claim as I was admitted to hospital at the time this claim would have no standing.

6. The claimant may also try to bring this claim against me as the keeper on the basis that it complies with paragraph 4(2) of the Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (see exhibit NA3) which states that “The right under this paragraph applies only if (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6 11 and 12 are met”. Paragraph 5 of this schedule states “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”.

7. The claimant has not included any such notices as part of the evidence for their claim but as per the signage (see exhibit NA2) the notice to keeper would be an equal amount to that of the PCN issued which would be £60, and as the claimant is seeking to recover £120 per PCN then they have not complied with the provisions set out in paragraph 4(2) of the Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 the liability would not therefore pass to the keeper so the claim would have no standing.

8. Furthermore on failure to comply with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 (exhibit NA3):

(a) the Claimant has failed to serve compliant Notice to Keeper letters within the statutory deadline, and/or with the prescribed wording, as set out in Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, including but not limited to the omission of any 'warning'; about keeper liability as per para 9(2)f of the Schedule, and

(b) there was no 'adequate notice' (i.e. prominent signs, not hidden/high terms up on posts) about the parking charge, contrary to Schedule 4, and

(c) there was no 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' upon the driver, contrary to the main pre-requisites for keeper liability as set out in Schedule 4.

9. The claimant may also try to rely on the ParkingEye Vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 where the signs displaying information in the Beavis case were accepted to be large, prominent and legible. As evidenced the signage erected by UKPC is significantly different from that of ParkingEye and in any case this could only pursue this claim against the driver and not the keeper especially since they have failed to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

9. Despite a request even via my defence the claimant has failed to provide a contract which establishes their rights to act on behalf of the land owner at this location, this leads me to believe that the claimant has no authority to bring a claim as not only do they not own the land, but they are not authorised by the land owner, the secretary of state for health, to operate on this land.

10. As a final point I would like to stress that the total amount sought by the claimant are not actual costs and I invite for the Claimant to be put to strict proof to show how each of these costs have been incurred. By way of liquidated damages the maximum amount that could possibly be due to the land owner in the event that all conditions to form a contract were met would be £20 for 7 consecutive days of parking for visitors of patients, as evidenced by the leaflet on Buckinghamshire Healthcare trust parking policy. As a patient this would have applied to me and all my visitors, however as there was no period of observation or period of parking specified contrary to Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, damages to the land owner simply cannot be determined, therefore the £600 being sought, or even a £300 charge if we were to accumulate the total from just the notices to keeper, against me would be extremely extravagant and unconscionable in that it is disproportionate to the Claimant’s interest, and disproportionate to the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the Defendant’s alleged breach of contract.

11. I also firmly believe that the Claimant is inflating claims by adding all sorts of fees in contrarty to CPR 27.14 that does not permit charges such as solictior fees for example to be recovered in the Small Claims Court with a view of exploiting vulnerable people parking at hospitals by submitting them to payment with offers of reductions on the already hugely inflated charges. Such offer was made to me via Buckinhamshire Healthcare Trust when I reported their actions. This charging regime by the Claimant which would seek for 'all profits for penalties to be kept by the the parking firm' incentivises penalties and is against the Buckinghamshire Healthcare trust parking policy (see NA5) and the Government policy as set out in the NHS Car Parking Principles (see NA6) Thus, even if the driver did park in contravention of a sign, there is no 'legitimate interest' excuse to save the charges from being struck down as punitive, unconscionable and unrecoverable, and as such this case is fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that in each parking charge case the penalty rule remains 'engaged'. Only the 'legitimate interest' facts relating to the retail park in that 'complex' and 'completely different' case - and the unusual brevity and clarity of the signs - saved the £85 charge in Beavis.

I therefore invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and request that as I have had to take a leave of absence from my job as a XX officer for XX County Council to attend this hearing, that my costs be awarded, 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
Date

---

Final draft?

Coupon-mad

You still have UKPC (a different firm!):

As evidenced the signage erected by UKPC

This needs to be a numbered point on its own:

This charging regime by the Claimant which would seek for 'all profits for penalties to be kept by the the parking firm' incentivises penalties and is against the Buckinghamshire Healthcare trust parking policy (see NA5) and the Government policy as set out in the NHS Car Parking Principles (see NA6) Thus, even if the driver did park in contravention of a sign, there is no 'legitimate interest' excuse to save the charges from being struck down as punitive, unconscionable and unrecoverable, and as such this case is fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that in each parking charge case the penalty rule remains 'engaged'. Only the 'legitimate interest' facts relating to the retail park in that 'complex' and 'completely different' case - and the unusual brevity and clarity of the signs - saved the £85 charge in Beavis.

namiku

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You still have UKPC (a different firm!):



This needs to be a numbered point on its own:

I'm not sure I understand the UKPC error? UKPC is the claimant?

Le_Kirk

namiku wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the UKPC error? UKPC is the claimant?

At the beginning of your WS, you state that Civil Enforcement is the claimant. You still have "no such notices" in point 7.