Parking Eye Fine

sweetgem

Hi they also stated that between mid September and mid October 2019 the claimant and the defendant exchanged email correspondence in regard to settlement of this claim. As this correspondence has been marked Without Predjudice, this cannot be exhibited.
I actually initiated a settlement. Is sent 3 settlement letters making offers and they only came back with a counter offer of £125 but they marked it Without Predjudice save as to costs. So I can highlight this at Court when it comes to costs? correct?

Coupon-mad

When it comes to costs, you can (to minimise liability) but that's only needed if you lose. If you win, you claim your costs as per the costs schedule you filed with your WS and evidence.

sweetgem

Is landholder and landowner the same thing?

KeithP

sweetgem wrote: »

Is landholder and landowner the same thing?

Not necessarily.

Try putting that question into Google for a more comprehensive answer.

sweetgem

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT xxxx
CLAIM No: xxxxxx

BETWEEN:


Parking Eye Ltd (Claimant)
and
xxxxx (Defendant)

Witness Statement of xxxxx

I am xxx of xxxx, xxxx , xxxx, xxxx state as follows:

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 and the Witness Statement filed by the claimants handler Sxxxxxx is not based on the true facts of the day concerned as Ms Sxxxx was not there and has no personal knowledge of the day’s events whereas I do have the knowledge as I was present at the Hotel in question.

2. I assert that I am the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question in this case, Registration xxxxx.

3. 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.

4. On the xx August 2018 at approximately xxam I arrived at the Holiday Inn xxxxxxxxx to attend a meeting that had been pre-arranged in the bar area and I attach email verification of this meeting Exhibit 1. And that I was a genuine Patron of the hotel. Driving into the entrance of the hotel I genuinely do not recollect visualising any parking signs that stood out and my focus was on parking the car and aiming to arrive to the meeting as soon as possible. Whilst parking the car again I cannot recall any signs nearby that warned of parking restrictions that were in place as I walked straight to the hotel reception.

5. In addition the defendant has Dyslexia and struggles with reading processing and remembering information in addition to other learning difficulties associated with Dyslexia, therefore poor written signage or lack of signage would be detrimental for the defendant. Dyslexia is a life-long condition which has a substantial effect on an individual’s day to day activities and is classed as a disability under the Equality Act 2010. Exhibit 2 provides evidence of the defendants’ disability.

6. The Claimant states that they are authorised to manage the car park at Holiday Inn xxxxxx by the landholder and refer to a copy of the relevant contract marked Exhibit 2. The said exhibit is only a Supply agreement between the Claimant and Holiday Inn xxxxxr and does not specifically state if any of the parties are the landowners of the car park in question. The claimant has also attached the terms and conditions of supply which is illegible even for a spectacle wearer. This does not denote the Claimant having any proprietary interest in the car park thus meaning as a matter of law the Claimant should not have had locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration would have been provided by the landowners, and only they would have been able to sue for any alleged damages or trespass.

7. The claimant in their Witness Statement have attached Exhibit 3 that includes a copy of the signage, a plan of the car park and images of the signs at Holiday Inn xxxx Furthermore, the Claimants claim handler Ms xxxx states that she can confirm that the signage was in place on site on the date of the parking event.

8. This is strongly rejected not least because the map of the car park signage layout plan and the corresponding information which includes signage type, allocation, size and key for installation locations is undated. Furthermore, it does not suggest that these signs were or are in place at the time the defendant visited the Hotel. In addition on the key for installation a payment machine has been added but on the Car Park Signage Layout Plan Map it is noticeably absent. The defendant also disputes the fact that Ms xxx can confirm that the signage was in place on site on the date of parking as there no evidence to suggest that she can personally back this claim up as she was not present or if there is any evidence to clarify where the defendants’ car was parked and if there was a visible sign nearby.

9. The images of the signs sign type 1-3 are on exhibit 3 are generic and do not signify belonging to any particular place. Further to this, sign type 4 in black and white which the claimant has attached does not prove if this is a genuine sign at the Holiday Inn xxxor merely a computer generated picture for the benefit of this claim as there is no visual background to place the sign anywhere at the hotel.

10. The Tariff payable at machine reception or by phone sign date stamped the xx/2018 again cannot be verified as being a genuine sign at the Holiday Inn xxxx and further to this the following 19 photographs of signs dated xx/2018 of which some are of poor quality also cannot be verified as originating from the Holiday Inn xxxx as there is no evidence to suggest where the photographs were taken.

11. The terms and conditions on the pictures of the signs that the Claimant has submitted are grossly incompetent for a normal person, leave be a person who has Dyslexia as they seem to be at least over 2 metres tall as the small print from such a height is illegible and the defendant is merely 5ft and 2 inches tall.

12. The allegations appear to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car parkin question and is not evidence of the driver not being an authorised visitor of the Hotel (which the defendant was).

13. Upon entering the reception area there was nothing and no signs to remind a visitor or direct them to input their registration. The defendant was never made aware of any new parking restrictions by the Hotel staff and nor were they made aware that (as I have found out too late) apparently there is a non-prominent system to input vehicle registration numbers (VRNs) into a hidden hotel lobby terminal. The defendant did not encounter any terminals that were facing outwards that were in their visual capacity while walking past the reception area and the Claimant is put to strict proof that a keypad was in Reception and in working order, at the material time.
The outdated photograph of xx/2017 the Claimant submits as Exhibit 15 cannot be relied upon as evidence as they are not current and the photograph of the close up terminal is obscured and of poor quality and does not signify the purpose of the terminal or if in fact if it is for registering your VRN for parking. Furthermore, the photographs cannot verify if this in fact is the reception of the Holiday Inn xx, thus making them inadmissible.

14. The defendant attended her meeting with her colleague and coffee was purchased in the Bar area and paid for by the colleague. The defendant classified herself as a patron of the hotel and had in fact not known at the time that visitors in fact are granted exemption from parking charges if refreshments are purchased and that to claim exemption, she might need to input her VRN on arrival at the Hotel.

15. I suggest the lack of prominence of the hidden keypad is either as a result of negligence or a deliberate action by this Claimant and they cannot blame the Hotel Staff, when the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 schedule 4 (the POFA’ – see Exhibit- 3) burden for ‘adequate notice’ and a relevant obligation/contract falls squarely with the parking firm trying to create a contract regarding a parking charge.

16. As well as failing to create adequate notice and a relevant obligation/contract – pre-requisites for parking on private land cases – the Claimant has fallen foul of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTRs) in terms of a ‘misleading omission’ in allowing the keypad/terminal system to be so obscure as to be unknown to a patron visiting the hotel.

17. I am not an unobservant person and argue that the average person would not have seen or known about the VRN system, therefore the contractual charge arising from not using it, is void under consumer unfair contracts law.

18. The claimant is put to strict photographic evidential proof of the prominence of the system that day (not an assumption as to where the keypad/terminal actually was) and to declare to the court in evidence, how many parking charges they have issued at this site due purely to drivers not being given adequate notice/not entering their VRNs.

19. The mechanism by which a person can exempt themselves using an unexpected keypad/terminal in a corner in the hotel somewhere, fails Lord Denning’s Red hand Rule whereas some vague clauses which have been seen would need to be printed in Red Ink on the face of the sign/document with a Red Hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient. Consequently, this fails the Consumer Rights Act 2015 schedule 2, paragraphs, 6, 10, 14 and 18 Exhibit – 4 On this occasion the signs were less than sufficient.

20. The first acknowledgement about a parking charge notice that I received from the Claimant was not until September 2018 (dated 2018) and subsequently received another letter Before County Court Claim dated the xxx 2018 demanding a payment of £100. I responded by apologising for the delay in writing due to poor health. I have a number of long term illnesses that have a daily impact on my life which can hinder progress in the smallest of tasks. I appealed to the Claimant to cancel the Parking Charge due to the fact that the Notice to keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period of 14 days under Schedule sub paragraph 9 (4) and (5). Exhibit -5 and stating to the claimant that 29 days had passed from the date the parking charge was issued.

21. The Claimant in point 26 of their witness statement states the onus is placed on the Defendant to prove that the NTK was not delivered. This opinion is strongly opposed by the Defendant as she informed the Claimant that there are 3 Roads of the same name (xxxxx within a 1.5 and 6 miles radius) of her local area Exhibit - 6 and mail may have been lost or misdirected. If the Claimant in fact had posted this NTK and the subsequent reminder and carried their research in a meticulous manner they would have posted the parking notices with proof of delivery or in such a way that the mail was guaranteed to be received by the Defendant recognising the fact there was more than one address of the same name in that locality.

22. Several exchanges of emails were exchanged between the Claimant and Defendant to resolve the issues in an amicable way. However the claimant’s lack of interest and limited customer service skills rendered the process futile.

23. I also contacted the hotel directly explaining the circumstances and requesting they cancel the PCN Exhibit-7. I was told to provide proof of purchase at the hotel for their consideration in determining if cancellation of the PCN was possible.

24. I contacted the lady who I had the meeting with, requesting if she was able to provide proof of purchase of the beverages we had bought. Unfortunately she had left the company and her colleague was not able to offer assistance. Exhibit - 8 I relayed this information to the hotel and how I was unable to provide any proof of purchase and they indirectly accused me of not being a genuine user of the hotel and I was purely there to abuse their car parking facilities to which I informed them I had in no way , shape or form an interest in travelling all the way into xxxx purely to park in The Holiday Inn Car Park as I reside and work in xxxx and have no business to be there just for a leisurely visit because I do not know the area, unless there is a genuine and firm reason to be there. On this occasion I needed to attend a pre-arranged meeting which would support my claim and I attached a copy of the email confirming the appointment. Unfortunately this information was ignored.

25. The Defendant vehemently denies receiving any email correspondence on the xxxx 2019 from the Claimant offering an opportunity to appeal to POPLA. If the opportunity had arisen I would have utilised this process to its full capacity.

26. The Defendant initiated the process to mediate with the Claimant directly in regard to settling the claim on the following dates of the xx September 2019, xxx 2019, xx 2019 and the xx 2019. However the Claimant were not forthcoming in negotiating and settling at a reasonable offer and only provided one counter offer (Save as to Costs) to the first Defendants letter of xx September 2019.

27. I invite the court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, 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:

sweetgem

Please can you check this over also can I email it to the court and the Claimant and then send hard copy in post I think im cutting it very very very fine

thank you

Redx

You can only use email if they have agreed that you can use email , the traditional method is royal mail , plus the method recommended for your local court is hand the bundle in , in person , obtaining a receipt of the name of the accepting officer or court official , or reference number

Courts have printing limits , plus expensive print charges too , so phone and ask

1st class post to the claimant with free certificate of posting from the P O Counter , not signed for , not special delivery

Le_Kirk

I genuinely do not recollect visualising any parking signs

Do you mean "I didn't see any signs"

MistyZ

I found a few minor things, grammatical mainly, probably not worth quibbling about.

I'm no expert but this looks okay to me. Furthermore, seems as if you're really 'owning' this now which bodes well.

Get it to the court on time!

sweetgem

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Do you mean "I didn't see any signs"

Yes I didn’t see any signs