Gladstone Solicitors Claim letter - Need help with defence

Coupon-mad

I didn't say you needed to provide a copy of any permit?

I said to copy a WS that uses Jopson, as yours misses a lot of evidence exhibits that would add more weight to your case. You need meat on the bones.

how did you manage to get that much in costs covered? claiming it as time spent researching?

The Judge was ''this close'' to awarding those costs (sadly she didn't) but to get large costs you should:

- file a COSTS SCHEDULE (4 figures, or high hundreds, why not try!), with your WS and evidence bundle (yep, now)

- include all the printing and postage and hours of time taken at £19 per hour, plus your expected costs to attend the hearing of course like loss of salary/leave, travel and parking costs.

This is shown in an example in the NEWBIES thread post #2, where there is a link to a thread by sassii, who successfully got a 4 figure costs schedule awarded.

guess_hu

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I didn't say you needed to provide a copy of any permit?

I said to copy a WS that uses Jopson, as yours misses a lot of evidence exhibits that would add more weight to your case. You need meat on the bones.

The Judge was ''this close'' to awarding those costs (sadly she didn't) but to get large costs you should:

- file a COSTS SCHEDULE (4 figures, or high hundreds, why not try!), with your WS and evidence bundle (yep, now)

- include all the printing and postage and hours of time taken at £19 per hour, plus your expected costs to attend the hearing of course like loss of salary/leave, travel and parking costs.

This is shown in an example in the NEWBIES thread post #2, where there is a link to a thread by sassii, who successfully got a 4 figure costs schedule awarded.

writing up a beefier WS, 14 days before my trial is tomorrow and I plan to hand deliver this to the court tomorrow and email It over to Gladstone. Quick question, do I copy and paste the parkingeye vs Beavis and Jopsons v homeguard cases? or is there another way I should present this?

Coupon-mad

You do not need to print the Beavis case at all, as it was Supreme Court level and well known, no need.

Re Jopson, you will need to print the transcript in full.

The driver visited a friends residential home and parked in either 2 spaces, 1 which is allocated to the house itself, or in the communal car park for the residents that lived there or the residents visitors.
The driver had a permit available for parking but when the parking attendant gave the tickets, it didn’t allow the driver enough time to retrieve the permit

You also need the grace periods section of the IPC CoP as well, to show you were not given enough time to fetch the visitor permit.

And the predatory tactics words from the IPC CoP too.

And the PCM v Bull case from the Parking Prankster, and add some words about prohibitive signs (search the forum for PCM v Bull witness statement and copy some words already written by a previous winner!).

You should also attack things in their template WS that are rubbish, look for things like the signage photos being blurry and the pics of the car being rushed and taken sneakily over 2 minutes flat, to prove the 'no grace period' point and your allegation about predatory tactics.

And you could ask the friend to email you a signed WS confirming that he lived there and that he had visitor permits which he shared with you including one for that day, but that PCM swooped first. It would be great if he could add how common this predatory ticketing scam was and that (maybe) he moved out because of it, or that he complained to the managing agents, or that the residents' lives were made a misery by this private nuisance by PCM.

Can he do that tonight?

It would need his signature and date & be headed up properly as a WS for your case (same headings as yours & a statement of truth at the end, before he signs & dates it).

See what I mean about adding meat to the bones, you need to WIN this on weight of evidence and get the Judge on your side before you walk in the door on the hearing day.

guess_hu

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You do not need to print the Beavis case at all, as it was Supreme Court level and well known, no need.

Re Jopson, you will need to print the transcript in full.

You also need the grace periods section of the IPC CoP as well, to show you were not given enough time to fetch the visitor permit.

And the predatory tactics words from the IPC CoP too.

And the PCM v Bull case from the Parking Prankster, and add some words about prohibitive signs (search the forum for PCM v Bull witness statement and copy some words already written by a previous winner!).

You should also attack things in their template WS that are rubbish, look for things like the signage photos being blurry and the pics of the car being rushed and taken sneakily over 2 minutes flat, to prove the 'no grace period' point and your allegation about predatory tactics.

And you could ask the friend to email you a signed WS confirming that he lived there and that he had visitor permits which he shared with you including one for that day, but that PCM swooped first. It would be great if he could add how common this predatory ticketing scam was and that (maybe) he moved out because of it, or that he complained to the managing agents, or that the residents' lives were made a misery by this private nuisance by PCM.

Can he do that tonight?

It would need his signature and date & be headed up properly as a WS for your case (same headings as yours & a statement of truth at the end, before he signs & dates it).

See what I mean about adding meat to the bones, you need to WIN this on weight of evidence and get the Judge on your side before you walk in the door on the hearing day.

I will speak to my friend now and try get that sorted ASAP!

here is my updated WS

In the Uxbridge County Court and Family Court

Claim No. XXX

Between

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED (Claimant)

and

MR XXXXX (Defendant)



WITNESS STATEMENT


I am XXXX, of XXXX, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

1. I was visiting a friend on XX/XX/2017, XX/XX/2017 and XX/XX/2018 at XX. The required parking space is located at the rear of the property. On the first occasion I had to park away from the property as there were no spaces available at the property. I went inside to ask for the parking permit but as there were 7 residents living at the property, it took a little while for me to ask each resident where the permit was. On the second occasion, there was a 3rd vehicle parked within the resident’s spot. I went inside to get the driver to move their vehicle. The driver was leaving anyway so I went ahead to ask the 7 residents for the parking permit again which took a short while. As I was going back to the vehicle to park correctly and display the permit, the man issuing the ticket advised me not to worry about this PCN dated 05/12/2017 and took the PCN with them. I took no notice of that as I thought the matter was dealt with. I can be seen in the Claimants statement on page 53 as the warden was walking away. Finally, on the 3rd occasion on 24/01/2018 I went inside to ask for the permit again and within minutes a PCN had been given.

2. The Claimant has not adhered to the Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice (of which it is a member) for grace periods.
The IPC Code of Practice
“15. Grace Periods
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.
15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.”
The Claimant has not given any grace period to allow me to retrieve a permit to park.

3. Even if the Court is minded to consider that a visitor must display a permit there must be a reasonable 'grace period' time allowed for fetching it from the resident (which involves 4 flights of stairs and conversation) and there is no evidence that this time was allowed. Immediate ticketing or lack of a fair grace period is contrary to the IPC code of practice, being a predatory and unfair business practice.

4. The Claimant hasn’t noted any ‘Arrival Time’ or ‘Wait time’ and the evidence provided from the Claimant’s photographs show that the photographs were taken within a matter of minutes. This shows that the grace periods have not been allowed for in their calculations.

5. Should the Court be satisfied that there is a potential cause of action, there are no road markings or bays etc.; this is not a car park, just an unmarked cul-de-sac street, the photos shown by this claimant merely show very poorly lit signs, which would have made it impossible for a driver to read terms or learn of the parking charge buried in unremarkable small print. It seems that it was pitch black, so unlike in the far more complex case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the driver cannot be bound by terms on a sign never seen, parking on an unmarked residential road. It is trite law on-street (had this been Council highway, where the TMA2004 applies as well as the Highway Code) that no markings suggest no restrictions.

6. I’d like to also state the Claimant did not display clear, large, prominent signs within the site that were capable of being read from the driver's seat and/or forming a contract, contrary to the BPA CoP, PoFA and the Beavis Vs ParkingEye 2015 case. Exhibits (RB/001, RB/003, RB/008 and RB/009) in attached photographic evidence. Also, this can be seen in the Claimants photographs taken on the date of each PCN as the signs cannot be read by the camera when standing near the vehicle. From the pictorial evidence you can see that the font type is incredibly small and would not be legible from the driver’s seat, and is purely aimed at only unauthorised driver, not myself.

7. Even if the court believes the signs were possible to see in the dark, the wording is prohibitive, it states you must display a permit to park, forbidding parking otherwise. It is therefore unable to offer a legitimate contact allowing parking for £100 if the driver decides to park. As Seen in PCM vs Bull (2016) where PCM used similar signage and the verdict summarised that all the sign is essentially saying is “you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass”, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass. This verdict has been reached in regard to PCM signage of this nature at numerous other claim hearings, IPC signage does not create a contract as the notice is forbidding.

8. The Claimant’s signage states that ‘Vehicles parked with a valid parking permit fully displayed within the windscreen when parked wholly within the confines of a marked bay appropriate for the permit on display’. However, on the site where this signage is, there are no marked bays. This is shown in Exhibit (RB/001 to RB/008) in attached photographic evidence.

9. So, if an operator wishes to fairly and prominently alert drivers to a parking charge and other onerous terms, they must mark the road and ensure the signs are clear, lit and in large lettering. Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' applies; a driver cannot be bound by terms not brought to his/her attention in the clearest way, such that the driver would be bound to have seen and read the terms and learnt of the 'parking charge'. This was certainly not the case.

10. The claimant may argue that I parked outside of the allocated bay for loading. I refer to the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Exhibit RB/010), where on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

11. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is my position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

12. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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

Signature of Defendant:


Name:
Date:

guess_hu

Also my costs

DEFENDANT'S SCHEDULE OF COSTS


Ordinary Costs


Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 29/08/2019 £150.00

Return mileage from home address to Court (20 miles x £0.45) £9.00

Parking near Court £5.00

Sub-total £164.00 ======


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

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (20 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £380.00

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £15.00

Sub-total £395.00 ======



£ 559.00 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

Coupon-mad

All good, but give everything an exhibit number, which seems to be missing here:

As Seen in PCM vs Bull (2016)

Oh, and change:

the warden was walking away.

to

the person who had issued the predatory PCN was swiftly trying to leave.

guess_hu

Coupon-mad wrote: »

All good, but give everything an exhibit number, which seems to be missing here:


Oh, and change:

to

I haven't actually put the PCM vs Bull (2016) file in my exhibits, should that be copied and pasted like the Jopson?

guess_hu

guess_hu wrote: »

I haven't actually put the PCM vs Bull (2016) file in my exhibits, should that be copied and pasted like the Jopson?

Don't worry, added and referenced. Time to print, hand post, and email

nosferatu1001

Your costs are wrong

Max for ORDINARY costs would be £95 for a half days loss of earnigns OR leave. You will need evidence of this.

I would split your unreasonable costs down - have 3, 4, 5 line items such as
- research defnce X hours
- write defence Y hours
- research WS and gather evidence
and so on. Makes it harder to attack

guess_hu

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Your costs are wrong

Max for ORDINARY costs would be £95 for a half days loss of earnigns OR leave. You will need evidence of this.

I would split your unreasonable costs down - have 3, 4, 5 line items such as
- research defnce X hours
- write defence Y hours
- research WS and gather evidence
and so on. Makes it harder to attack

I'm paid £15 an hour and im scheduled for 10am, have to take leave from work for the full day.
will change my unreasonable costs now