BW Legal Letter of Claim

Umkomaas

Castle wrote: »

This one perhaps?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=76367359&postcount=36

I'd missed that somehow, but it was posted on some other poster's thread, not on the defendant's thread.

So I've added a C&P of the transcript to the thread to which it is most relevant.

Thanks for linking Castle.

Urb14

Hi guys am I allowed to post my WS on here for you to review?

beamerguy

Urb14 wrote: »

Hi guys am I allowed to post my WS on here for you to review?

Yes please, we need to review

Urb14

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO: XXXXXXXX

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED Claimant
V
XXXXXXXX Defendant

___________________________________________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
__________________________________________________________________________________

I, X X, of X, am the defendant in this claim.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

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.

3. The paragraph numbers mentioned below relate to the Witness Statement filed by the Claimant’s paralegal, X X.

4. In paragraph # it states that no PCN was affixed to the car at the time of the contravention, rather a ‘warning card’ was issued (exhibit XX). However this ‘warning card’ had all the hallmarks and requirements of a Notice to Driver as required by paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It must specify the vehicle, the land on which it was parked and the period of parking. It must specify the parking charges and explain why they are payable and must specify a period within which payment must be made. This information was available by accessing the online link referred to in the notice. Due to it having this information to access, the ‘warning card’ should be treated as a notice to driver.

5. Under the provisions of paragraph 8(5) of schedule 4, the notice to keeper should not be issued by the car park operator for at least 28 days from the day after the date of service of the notice to driver. In this case, it was issued just 7 days after, with the notice being issued on XX in relation to the contravention date on XX. Because the notice to keeper was issued within 28 days, paragraph 8 of schedule 4 was not met. Consequently paragraph 6 and paragraph 4 have also not been met and the claimant has no right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

6. In paragraph #, it is stated that the terms and conditions are worded as follows: ‘SERVICE AREA ONLY. No Parking Except for Service Vehicles Whilst Loading/Unloading and Authorised Permit Holders Only’. However these terms and conditions were not stated on the sign in front of which my car was parked. It is a different sign that states ‘Valid Permit Holders’ in a large font, surrounded by text written in a smaller font which became even smaller and more difficult to read towards the bottom of the sign (XX). Once I read the large words ‘Valid Permit Holders’ I assumed that any contract offered on the sign applied to permit holders only. I deny that the terms and conditions of the site were communicated clearly by the signage.

7. In any case, the sign states that "By entering this private land you entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd. Do not remain on this land unless you fully understand and agree to these contractual terms and conditions". However, with no entrance signs to the car park there was no way of a person knowing when they'd actually entered the land. Lack of entrance signs is not in accordance with Schedule 1 of the International Parking Community’s Code of Practice. It also says do not remain on this land but does not state how long a vehicle cannot remain on the land for. In addition, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions of the sign from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant has already been committed.

8. ‘SERVICE AREA ONLY. No Parking Except for Service Vehicles Whilst Loading/Unloading and Authorised Permit Holders Only’. The wording of these terms and conditions do not give the impression that a contract to park is being offered at all, and I make reference to UKPC v Masterson (2016). Instead the signage is forbidding unauthorised parking, and thus it is a matter of trespass.

9. The claimant should prove that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation. A copy of a contract provided by the claimant (XX) details an agreement between Vehicle Control Services Ltd of 2 Europa Court, Sheffield Business Park, Sheffield; and Excel Parking Services Ltd of 2 Europa Court, Sheffield Business Park, Sheffield. It does not refer to Excel parking as landowners but rather they are the lawful occupier.

10. The claimant has given no evidence of an IPC-compliant landowner contract which contains wording that specifically assigns them any rights to form contracts with drivers in their own name- as was the case in Pace v Lengyel (2017).

11. The POFA, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Previous cases have seen this charge as an abuse of process from the claimant, to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. The cases were struck out for this reason, two such examples are Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Mr Johnathan Davies [2019] (XX) and UK Car Park Management v Esplanade Ltd [2018] (XX).

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 the contents of this witness statement are true.
__________________________________________________________________

Sorry if its bad! Look forward to any feedback, thanks in advance

1505grandad

Para 10 - "The claimant has given no evidence of a BPA-compliant landowner contract" - should be IPC

No references to the evidence that will be filed.

The latest re Abuse of Process is to attach a supplementary sheet with the paras from the AoP thread.

Urb14

1505grandad wrote: »

Para 10 - "The claimant has given no evidence of a BPA-compliant landowner contract" - should be IPC

No references to the evidence that will be filed.

The latest re Abuse of Process is to attach a supplementary sheet with the paras from the AoP thread.

Link to thread?

Coupon-mad

No need, it's talked about in EVERY Defence thread and we repeat ad nauseum at WS stage now:

'include the wording (and transcripts) in post #14 of beamerguy's abuse of process thread'

and

'include your costs schedule and your evidence, numbered, and all pages numbered.'

You can always click on any other WS thread and find it, or click on beamerguy's username to hop to his thread.

The rare losers on here are those who only come to their own thread, with big gaps when they go missing, and seem to miss all the info constantly given every day on the shedloads of other WS threads at the same stage.

Don't be that person, widen your horizons and read more threads.

Urb14

With regards to evidence from previous cases, do I have to include the full transcript in evidence or just the relevant part/paragraphs?

Also does it matter who was driving at the time? I'm just thinking in case I am asked as I haven't mentioned it anywhere in my WS

Coupon-mad

The full transcripts are needed (but not the Beavis case, at all).

Also does it matter who was driving at the time? I'm just thinking in case I am asked as I haven't mentioned it anywhere in my WS

Oh yes you have, in #8:

Once I read the large words ‘Valid Permit Holders’ I assumed that any contract offered on the sign applied to permit holders only.

Urb14

I have numbered all pages and numbered the evidence. Think I'm all set to print this off and hand deliver it to court tomorrow, as well as a copy to the claimant via recorded delivery.
I have included a contents page too, is this ok/normal?

Also does anybody know the nature of the sanctions I will face from the court and/or claimant for submitting the documents so so late?