NtK appeal letter and situation

typeractive

Updated WS

• Removed the code of conduct text regarding the BPA (but I have left in that they are BPA members, and the information from the RAC). I can remove it if advised (para 6, point C),
• Abuse of process text included.
• I haven't included the information about Beavis v Parking Eye as I don't know what I need specifically.
• Included response from MP, which doesn't say a lot, but does say they have turned them over at NTK stage.

Further support welcomed - thanks
p.s. ignore all the !'s - for some reason they have added in when copying from my Mac.

---

I, NAME, of ADDRESS, am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows.

1. On DATE I arrived at the BUSINESS NAME premises in ADDRESS. This was my first visit to this site with the purpose of making brief enquiries. My visit to the premises was less than 10 minutes as I was en route home from work.

2. The car park is what would be described as an open access car park with no physical barriers or obstacles to deter a visitor from parking (IN3.1, IN3.2, IN3.3, IN3.4 and IN3.5). There is a low level sign which guides visitors to the BUSINESS NAME either into the!‘customer parking’!or!‘deliveries’!areas. Following those signs I entered the area indicated as ‘customer parking’. There was no additional information relevant to the terms and conditions of the car park visible on entry.

3. The car was parked in a bay outside the BUSINESS NAME, within close proximity to the entrance of the business. There was no visually prominent signs in place to suggest entering the car park was met with specific terms and conditions.

4. I entered the BUSINESS NAME, made my enquiries and left. I would approximate my visit to be a maximum of 5 minutes upon leaving my vehicle, entering the building and returning to my vehicle, at which point I left. My gym records (IN2.1) indicate all of my visits have been at the ALTERNATIVE branch until DATE, two days after the alleged recorded parking offence.

5. A few days after I was shocked to receive a parking charge from UKCPS with a demand for an unreasonable request of £100, but this would be reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

6. I returned to the BUSINESS NAME premises in TOWN to inspect the site and also ask the management about these parking charges on their site. My findings are as follows:

a). The signs are not clear enough to make it explicit that the site has terms and conditions to the average motorist. The first visible sign has a large white P with a surrounding blue background which looks significantly like a regular parking sign (IN3.6). In a smaller typeface there is text that highlights “Private land” and “conditions apply, see main signs for full details site managed by UKCPS”. Please note the erected sign is slightly different to the witness statement supplied by the claimant (annex 2). Upon searching the site for other (assumed) ‘main signs’ the terms are outlined in a very small font. These signs are not visible upon initial entry to the car park, and the area they apply to is not explicit which is confusing for any motorist utilising a shared car parking facility.!

b). The BUSINESS NAME staff explained that other motorists has been caught out with this ‘scam’, and one visitor in near identical terms had their parking charge revoked as a local MP had intervened. I have contacted my local MP to which they have indicated they have had some successes when overturning such parking charges (IN4)

c). I requested the land owner’s contact details as I understand the land owner has the authority to revoke parking charges. As you can see in the email (IN4.1) titled ‘EMAIL TITLE’ sent from the land owner’s property manager on the DATE to the BUSINESS NAME were supplied with the following information “The parking patrols will commence next Wednesday the DATE the signs are due to be erected on DAY, you will have a 10 minutes grace period”. The erected signs do not provide any acknowledgement of this 10 minute grace period, which I believe is an element of false advertising and strengthens my argument that UKCPS have not operated in an ethical manner as I was parked for less than 10 minutes and the evidence supplied by UKCPS does not indicate my entry or exit timings. As outlined in my defence the provided photographs date and time stamps commence at XX/YY/ZZ HH:MM, and conclude at XX/YY/ZZ HH:MM totalling a documented time of XX:XX if the camera instrumentation is calibrated and accurate. UKCPS are an Accredited Operator of The International Parking Community (IPC). In accordance with the Accredited Operator Scheme Code Of Practice v.6 1st April 2017 page 12, section 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. As published on the legal and advice section of the RAC website; Operators who are BPA [British Parking Association] members are supposed to abide by the BPA code of practice which drivers should be given a 10 minute grace period. If you haven’t received a 10 minute grace period between when the ticket expired and parking notice was issued, you should have good grounds to appeal. UKCPS are BPA members.

d). Given the communications from the land management company (BUSINESS NAME), and in accordance with the IPC code of practice as outlined above, I believe UKCPS understand the need to provide motorists a grace period though have neglected to follow this conduct. The BUSINESS NAME was provided with information about the 10 minute grace period and extended that promise to myself as a visitor, and thus, therefore cannot be a valid contract that penalises me for visiting for less than 10 minutes.

7. UKCPS have then continued to harass me with numerous attempts of communication using ‘baiting strategies’ such as offering to lower the fine (still beyond any reasonable cost for a parking payment) and utilising debt recovery companies which has caused an element of stress (IN5).

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

8.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.

9.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.!

10.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.

11.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.

12. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis!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.!

13.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!

Quote:
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.''

14.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, the Defendant avers 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.!

15.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.!

16.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.

17.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...''

18.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.''

19.In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's 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.

20.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. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.!

21.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.

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

Signature
Date.

---

1505grandad

Perhaps a screenshot of the no win/no fee should be included in evidence for para 10.

Para 13 includes a link to a Supreme Court case. I don't think this is necessary - just the title of the Court case and number etc as the Court will have access to the actual case.

Coupon-mad

You do need to list what evidence you are appending, so we can see.

Here I see nothing talking about promissory estoppel (Google it):

d). Given the communications from the land management company (BUSINESS NAME), and in accordance with the IPC code of practice as outlined above, I believe UKCPS understand the need to provide motorists a grace period though have neglected to follow this conduct. The BUSINESS NAME was provided with information about the 10 minute grace period and extended that promise to myself as a visitor, and thus, therefore cannot be a valid contract that penalises me for visiting for less than 10 minutes.

I did say to include certain phrases:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need a point about the IPC Code of Practice mandatory grace period being 10 mins in car parks where parking is allowed, such as this one (quote it and show the page as evidence). Remember that a Judge may not know this, so this is vital evidence.

You need to talk about there being no 'legitimate interest' in penalising visitors of BUSINESS NAME, distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

You could also have a point about promissory estoppel, given that the business was promised that its visitors/staff would have 10 mins grace and whilst nothing told you about this time limit at the time, it would have been something the business itself was relying upon when accepting you as a visitor with a legitimate brief enquiry. Effectively, they extended that promise to you, and thus there cannot be a valid contract that penalises you for visiting for less than 10 minutes.

And you need to file & serve your costs schedule at this stage, we recommend.

typeractive

Thanks Coupon Mad, in post 57 of the thread, I was asking for a bit of advice on how to word the promissory estoppel, and also how to reference the Beavis Case. Appreciate everyone’s busy.

typeractive wrote: »

Thanks Coupon Mad.

I also added in another section but wasn't sure how to word the promissory estoppel:

d). Given the communications from the land management company (BUSINESS NAME), and in accordance with the IPC and BPA codes of conduct as outlined above, I believe UKCPS understand the need to provide motorists a grace period though have neglected to follow this conduct. The BUSINESS NAME was provided with information about the 10 minute grace period and extended that promise to myself as a visitor, and thus, therefore cannot be a valid contract that penalises me for visiting for less than 10 minutes."

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to talk about there being no 'legitimate interest' in penalising visitors of BUSINESS NAME, distinguishing this case from!ParkingEye v Beavis![2015] UKSC 67.

typeractive wrote: »

Managed to find this case. Is there a particular paragraph I'm looking for? Just unsure what I need to reference to from this case.

So, having another stab at these few points (I won’t copy and paste the whole WS in, just these bits).


d). I believe there is an example of promissory estoppel given the fact the (BUSINESS NAME) was operating under the instructions and guidance provided by the land owner property management team (BUSINESS NAME) in email IN41. by extending the 10 minute grace period to myself as a visitor. Thus, there cannot be a valid contract between UKCPS and myself that penalises me for visiting for less than 10 minutes. UKCPS clearly understand the need to provide motorists a grace period though their membership with the International Parking Community following the Code of Practice, and also through their membership with the British Parking Association. UKCPS have neglected to follow this conduct and acted in an unethical manner.

I’ll renumber the paragraphs, and add this in before current number 7.

7. There is no legitimate interest in penalising visitors of BUSINESS NAME, distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.


My pack will consist of:

• Title page
• Witness statement
• Costs Schedule
• Evidence which relies on:

1. Email regarding parking patrols (including 10 minute grace period) from land owner management company to business outlets
2. Email of my gym membership logging all entries to another branch until 2 days after the parking charge
3. 10 Photographs from entry into the car park to the displayed signs and poor typography
4. Reference to UKCPS supplied photographs with the date and time stamps.
5. IPC code of practice
6. Snippet of RAC website
7. All the letters I have received including debt collectors
8. Debt recovery plus “no recovery/nofee” information - I need to find that yet.
9. I need the 2 letters in coupon mads post 14 in beamerguy’s thread, but I need to know where to refer to them in my witness statement.

Coupon-mad

All the letters I have received including debt collectors

No need for any of those, they are fluff and filler and not important.

Debt recovery plus “no recovery/nofee” information - I need to find that yet.

Linked in the ABUSE of PROCESS thread by beamerguy, today.

typeractive

Hi all,

I have spent some time pulling everything together into a nice neat version (this has taken longer than expected). Made some tweaks to my witness statement, mainly for spelling and grammar. I also identified UKCPS have provided an out of date/wrong sign in their witness statement when compared to the erected sign on site and included that in my witness statement. There is no mention of the word "terms" on the erected sign.

The running order is:

• Title page
• Contents page
• Witness statement - 99% as in this thread already.
• Calculated cost schedule
• Evidence: emails from gym / local MP / landowner
• Photographs of site and signs with dates and times taken
• IPC code of practice page 12 regarding grace period
• RAC legal advice
• DRP 'no win no fee' evidence
• Abuse of process examples from beamerguy's thread.
• My original defence.

I've also:

• Referenced with my initials to the evidence I am relying upon.
• Put things in order with page numbering
• Added title and claim number on every page in footnote.

Anything else I need to consider before posting recorded delivery to UKCPS and the court? Planning to send tonight / tomorrow. Well within the 14 days

Thanks

Umkomaas

All looks good to me, until I came to this.

Anything else I need to consider before posting recorded delivery to UKCPS and the court? Planning to send tonight / tomorrow. Well within the 14 days

Forum advice is to hand-deliver to the court in neat, paginated ring binder and issue to the organisation shown on the original claim form in the box headed - 'Address for sending documents and payments .....' (which may be UKCPS or may be their solicitors - check) - BUT never by 'Signed For', because if the claimant (or rep) won't sign for it, all you have is proof that it was never received.

A more secure (and cheaper) method is first class post with a free certificate of posting from your PO counter, which you retain as proof.

typeractive

Umkomaas wrote: »

All looks good to me, until I came to this.



Forum advice is to hand-deliver to the court in neat, paginated ring binder and issue to the organisation shown on the original claim form in the box headed - 'Address for sending documents and payments .....' (which may be UKCPS or may be their solicitors - check) - BUT never by 'Signed For', because if the claimant (or rep) won't sign for it, all you have is proof that it was never received.

A more secure (and cheaper) method is first class post with a free certificate of posting from your PO counter, which you retain as proof.

Super - I can ring bind and hopefully drop off to the door of the court.

I will check the address of the recipient (pretty sure it is UKCPS), and send them it in the post with a proof of postage. I will also scan and email to them in addition.

Thanks for this!

typeractive

Hi everyone,

I have some good news! This letter arrived today.



I have to say a massive thanks to all the fabulous posters on here. I guess the argument (which was completely true!!) shone through in the end after a year of this rubbish!

Massive thanks to:Coupon-mad, Umkomaas, 1505grandad, Le_Kirk, KeithP, fruitcake and ralph-y! Plus anyone else I could have missed. Thank you for answering all my questions which I'm sure many of you thought were stupid - it's been a lot to take in. Anyway, very grateful for your wonderful help. :beer::beer:

Redx

Excellent news

Now please stick around and help others with your new found knowledge