BW Legal - Court Claim Help!

Sydney9

In their WS - they don't specify that the leisure centre has two car parks. One for each building. On the aerial shot, it only shows the signs for the first car park. I will upload an aerial picture of this leisure centre for you to see with the second car park marked.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uxhzj7uvvac8lno/AAAKHQA8PzCTjMkqfrYsxvCha?dl=0

Sydney9

Hi Guys. So I am now in the process of doing my WS again so that I can use it dispel their WS. I will show you a draft shortly. I was initially worried after seeing their WS but after reading other threads. I realise its the same template they use for everyone.

Coupon-mad

Yep, it always is!

Sydney9

Here goes my third draft. I have changed the formatting.

I, xxxxxxx, of xxxxxx, am the defendant in this case. Attached to this statement is my evidence and other information marked AB [] to which I will refer to.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there 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. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case.

4. There was no requirement upon me as keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail, no adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the various letters impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law.

Background

5. On 15 April 2018, I attended a dance class in Redbridge Sports & Leisure Centre (“RSLC”) in preparation for a dance show called ‘JRDA Live’ that was due to take place on 29 April 2018. Please see exhibit AB1.

6. JR Dance Academy (“JRDA”) normally has dance classes at RSLC every Tuesday. Please see exhibit AB2. There are over 30 students that participate in these classes.

7. I have used the Leisure Centre for this dance class three times prior to this incident and have parked my vehicle without paying for any parking.


Site Details

8. The Redbridge Leisure Centre is made up of two very large building: Norman Booth Building and Jean Brown Indoor Arena.

9. The Claimant has provided a site plan for the Car Park at Page 4. It is submitted this site plan is misleading. There are three car parks at RSLC instead of the one that is being stipulated by the Site Plan. Please see exhibit [] at pages [] as evidence of this. This document is taken from the RSLC website and google maps. RSLC website states that there are three on-site parking with over 400 car parking space:

a. Norman Booth Building Car Park
b. Jean Brown Arena Car Park
c. Frenford Card Park


SIGNAGE AT THE SITE

10. The Claimant at Para [13] submits that there is a total of 12 signs at the Car Park with Page 4 detailing where all the 12 signs are situated. It is submitted that these are signs are primarily around the Norman Booth Building Car Park. Therefore, Claimant is under the assumption that a driver who is a user of the other buildings will become aware of the signs while driving through the dark.

11. It admitted that the car was parked from 19:14 to 22:03. Thus, the alleged contravention took place in the evening when it was dark. There were no obvious and well-lit signage from the drivers’ point of view. Please see exhibit [] which is video taken from a passengers point of view.

12. The Claimant has provided no images showing where the alleged vehicle was parked. It merely relies on the ANPR images to show breach of Terms and Conditions which does not adequately show the drivers realistic surrounding when parking.

13. If a driver has used a parking place where s/he previously never paid, and their parking destination is not Norman Booth Building (where all the signs are allegedly kept) but the other two. It is not unreasonable to say that the signs were not visible enough to get the drivers attention.

14. The Claimant at Page [6] produce a sign which says “PRIVATE LAND. PAY & PERMIT PARKING ONLY’. Please see exhibit [ ] at page [ ] which show where this sign is situated. It is situated on the left-hand side of the entrance to the centre thus not easily visible to a driver.

15. The claimant has provided various pictures of the sign all of which were taken during the day time. The sign lists 4 numbered terms and conditions (please see exhibit []) which are clearly set out however none of them are failure to pay & display. Below this are further terms and conditions which are illegible to read unless zoomed in or with very close look.


16. The signs say that the charges only apply from 4am to 9pm. Which means there is a cut-off point at 9pm. The tariff for parking up to three hours is £1. The reason why this £1 was not paid is purely because there were no clear indications to suggest that payment must be made. The vehicle was parked in a large area of land and there were no signs directing people to pay nor were there any visible signs to read. One cannot expect another to follow Terms and Conditions stipulated by the Car Park if they were not made of the aware of the T&C.

17. The sign states that members can receive up to 6 hours free parking per visit by completing a registering process. The sign does not define ‘members’ nor does it not provide further details about the registration process. It merely refers people to see the reception for more details.

18. I believed the dance class was the registration process needed, given the fact that, I never had a PCN when parking there before. I had no reason to think the free time would not also relate to my parking on a Sunday for the dance class I were registered for. As a regular user of the site I would never have had cause to seek out hidden new terms on signs that I believed granted me a 6-hour parking licence as a registered dance class attendee.

19. In any case, it should be noted that, I personally have been a driver for nearly 6 years. I have experience driving in London and are aware of the heightened parking restrictions on Private Land. It is not of my character to hastily park my car and risk the chance of being fined £100 if the mere price to park was £1. I would have paid the parking fee of £1 had I known that the cark park had parking rules and had I seen the signs asking me to pay.

DOUBLE RECOVERY COST

20. Claimant at Para [71] site Chaplair Limited V Kumari (2015) EWCA 798 stating that the maximum amount that can be charged for debt recovery is £60.00. The Claimant employed Trace Debt Recovery UK to pursue this matter [did not collect any debt]? I need help with this. They cannot charge the additional 60 quid right?


21. In light of this, the Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing.


Statement of Truth

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

Signature
Date


IS there anything more I should do?

Sydney9

Please let me know if this is good enough.

KeithP

Patience Sydney.

Less than two hours on a Saturday afternoon seems a bit soon to be bumping this.

A lot of people have better things to do at a weekend, especially a Bank Holiday weekend, than read Witness Statements.

Coupon-mad

I certainly had better things to do earlier while the weather was nicer, but whilst watching a bit of trashy TV tonight, I had a close look at your case.

My comments are:

7. I have used the Leisure Centre for this dance class three times prior to this incident and have parked my vehicle without paying for any parking. It was my honest belief that I counted as a 'member' for which the signs say no payment of a tariff is needed.

RSLC website states

Attach that webpage as evidence too, a printout of what they state about 400 spaces (as long as it doesn't talk about pay & display and wreck your defence).

A typo & a few important words omitted here:

...that there are three on-site parking areas with over 400 car parking spaces that can be accessed from the entrances:

a. Norman Booth Building Car Park
b. Jean Brown Arena Car Park
c. Frenford [STRIKE]Card[/STRIKE] Car Park

This is not true, surely, in mid April at 7.15pm:

while driving through the dark.

11. It admitted that the car was parked from 19:14 to 22:03. Thus, the alleged contravention took place in the evening when it was dark.

Please see exhibit [] which is video taken from a passengers point of view.

How are you going to present the video, and how are you going to make sure the Claimant gets a working copy of it (and how will you prove they got it) and have you asked the court for permission or guidance about how to show a short video on the day? Think about all of that.

Remove this as evidence - DO NOT show more pics of their signs in situ:

14. The Claimant at Page [6] produce a sign which says “PRIVATE LAND. PAY & PERMIT PARKING ONLY’. Please see exhibit [ ] at page [ ] which show where this sign is situated. It is situated on the left-hand side of the entrance to the centre thus not easily visible to a driver.

Replace #14 #15 #16 and #17 with:

14. The Claimant has produced old pictures of signs taken in 2016 and in January 2017. These are inadmissable as evidence, given they show terms on signs from 18 months/two years before the parking event and - crucially - well before this Claimant's limited one-page 'authority' letter even existed. Further, there is no information to show where these signs were within the three car parks, and many of the images show signs which do not mention a £100 charge and/or fail to name the party making the alleged contractual offer. In any event, it is submitted that the Defendant was parked in a sign-free area of parking in one of the other two car parks and agreed to no contract.

15. Given the evidence the Claimant has supplied themselves, it is reasonable to conclude that all/some of these signs in evidence were placed by Advance Parking Ltd (whose contract allows them, not this Claimant, to retain all revenue from penalties and from phone payments) or perhaps Redbridge Leisure Centre themselves, given the omissions including the lack of:
(i) the mandatory BPA logo, and
(ii) the required t&cs regarding a contract and who offers it, and
(iii) the required information regarding ANPR surveillance cameras stating how this and the phone data will be used. Whilst the parking event was just before the introduction of the GDPR, the Data Protection Act 1998 certainly applied to ANPR systems, as did the Information Commissioner's Data Protection Code of Practice for surveillance cameras and personal information (the 'ICO CoP' - EXHIBIT XX).*

16. Most of the sparse signs produced in evidence are incapable of meeting what the Supreme Court described in 2015 as the 'effectively regulatory' requirements of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires full compliance of AOS members with the ICO CoP, and which also sets clear and mandatory rules about Signs and entrance signage (EXHIBIT xx - relevant pages/mandatory sign images from the BPA CoP).

17. The images provided are woeful in all respects, including the amount of signs claimed to be at the location. One (undated) sign image even says 'ANPR and warden patrols coming soon' but no date is given, nor any information about how to register and which existing patrons are to be considered existing members. To be capable of binding all drivers (members of the many Leisure Centre groups or not) each of the three car park areas would need its own entry sign, and numerous other repeater signs for a 400 space area. The 12 or 13 signs mentioned in the Claimant's Witness Statement cannot possibly be sufficient, so it is averred that the Claimant has shown the signs for one car park only and has left the other two unevidenced.

17.1. It is averred this is likely to be due to the signatory of the Witness Statement not being a true witness at all. BW Legal describe themselves on their website 'About Us' as 'a one stop shop for debt collection' based in Leeds. Their 'witness' is not only unlikely to appear at trial to be questioned, but even with input from their client their statement is pure hearsay, based upon a well-known cut & paste template. They have added information which cannot possibly come from their own knowledge, and given their location they are unlikely to have ever seen the site in question in Redbridge.

17.2. By contrast, I say that my evidence should be preferred, given that I am familiar with the car parks, and can (unlike the Claimant) relay an honest account of the material date and the site. Whilst I cannot recall seeing any signage terms, and certainly not anything that would have seen me agree to a contract to pay £100, I held the honest belief from parking here on a few occasions before without charge, that members could park free. The signs, such as they are, bear this out. The Claimant's evidence shows that 'members' can receive up to 6 hours free parking per visit or can register at reception. The sign does not define 'members' nor does it not provide further details about the registration process. I was a Dance club member and as far as I knew, I was registered at reception and authorised to access this location for my classes.

17.3. I would like to put it on record that I take offence at the Claimant's seriously patronising statements at #44 - 46, accusing me of a 'lack of understanding' of my own defence and even 'plagiarism' merely because I sought assistance from the MoneySavingExpert forum whose posters include legally qualified contributors and which has assisted thousands of 'unfair parking charge' victims and which has openly demonstrated a 99% win-rate for Defendants against parking firms since 2017. I am not sure what else the Claimant expected me to do - pay up and shut up, perhaps - rather than use the undoubtedly successful, useful and free resources open to me as a litigant in person. I suggest that it is the Claimant who has a lack of understanding of this location and the relevant CoPs and the high bar required for signage and contract law evidence. Hence this very poorly pleaded case, which has no merit or prospects of success.

Then this is how you can argue your bit about costs:

DOUBLE RECOVERY COST

20. The Claimant at Para [71] [STRIKE]site[/STRIKE] cites Chaplair Limited V Kumari (2015) EWCA 798 which can immediately be dismissed, in that this was a completely different case involving a signed lease and an amount which had actually been paid.

21. In my case, the truth is that no £60 payment has been made to a debt collector because Trace Debt Recovery are known to send letters for parking firms on a 'no collection, no fee' basis. This is an abuse of process in trying to recover a sum vastly above the parking charge, a sum which was not only never paid, but which also falls foul of the CPRs regarding justification and proportionality of standard costs. The Claimant and their solicitors have knowingly misled the Court and the Claimant is put to strict proof or to explain their abuse of process in adding to the claim non-existent 'damages/debt collection' costs.

22. Even if I am wrong and the Claimant can evidence £60 'damages/debt collection letters' expenditure, they are attempting to claim monies that a parking firm are not entitled to recover at all. The authority for this is ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where only £85 was recoverable. The Supreme Court held that the significantly inflated 'parking charge' in such cases already more than comfortably covers the very small costs of operating an automated parking regime (some £15 for the automated process of letters). The Supreme Court stated that the penalty 'parking charge' in these cases is almost entirely profit, so (regardless of whether a Trade Body has been persuaded by its paying members to add a point about 'debt collection costs' into their CoP) the basic costs contained within that business model cannot exist as a separate head of cost.

But those will have to be higher numbers because I reckon you also need to tear into the so-called landowner authority in the middle, before your point about costs (you can decide where this fits and the numbering):

NO EVIDENCE OF CLAIMANT'S CONTRACT, OR STANDING TO SUE

x - The Claimant has shown no evidence that they have complied with the BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1. - 7.3 (EXHIBIT XX) regarding prior written landowner authority and the parking firm's own standing to sue motorists.

x - Inexplicably, the Claimant has provided a single-page 'letter of authority' (dated months after most of the dates on the signage images, as already noted) which covers none of the mandatory requirements of the BPA CoP at 7.3:
''a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement''

x - The only other 'evidence' is a (fairly illegible in my copy) 2016 agreement made with a completely different legal entity, Advanced Parking Ltd, where one heading can be discerned, stating 'Main Car Park'. Not only does this support my position that this Claimant has only shown evidence about a parking management regime in one out of the three car parks, but it also cannot possibly be assumed that the terms of a standard Advanced Parking Ltd Contract from 2016 exactly matches any contract that this Claimant may have drawn up and signed. Not that they have put such authority in evidence.

x - Even if the Court is minded to consider that it is unlikely that this Claimant could operate and put signs and ANPR cameras up without 'some level' of landowner authority, therein lies the difficulty for this Claimant. There is nothing to demonstrate the contract definitions, restrictions and limitations of that authority - not even the contraventions they can issue a PCN for, nor even a map showing the boundary of the 'enforced' section of the site - which is why the BPA CoP sets out the requirements in paragraph 7.3 as quoted above and exhibited in my evidence.

x - The only aerial shot in evidence seems to have been cobbled together using Google maps and is not signed by the landowner nor annexed to any authority, nor even dated. And again, it only shows the signs for the first car park, supporting my assertion that the Claimant's authority boundary (if it exists) is limited to a section where I did not park my car. EXHIBIT XX shows my own aerial picture of Redbridge Leisure Centre with the second car park marked, and at trial I will also be able to point out the third car park, all accessed from the same entrances/roadways. I will say with my own local knowledge, that all cars would be captured by the same ANPR cameras regardless of the area in which the drivers ended up parking, and this is what has happened in my case.

* https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

See a breakdown of the relevant points of that CoP here, and it is a mandatory requirement of the BPA CoP that an AOS member must comply:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75720083#Comment_75720083

Sydney9

Thank you so much Coupon Mad. I really appreciate all your help and for taking time out of your Saturday to help me.

I will now go through the WS:

1. I don't think I can add the Webpage because it says the following:
ON –SITE PARKING
A. Norman Booth Building Car Park (Charges Apply)
B. Jean Brown Arena Car Park (Charges Apply)
C. Frenford Car Park
(Charges Apply*
and a picture of the sign below this.

2. I have now removed 'it was dark' statement. I have not asked the ocurt for permission to submit the video so I will not submit a video.

3. I have reread 17.3 couple of times because it is FIREE!!!

I will post the amended version shortly. Thank you once again Coupon Mad. I am grateful for your help.

Sydney9

Hi Everyone. So this is my finalised WS. Please let me know if this is good to be printed today. The deadline to serve is tomorrow. I am personally going to court to serve the docs. I will scan the documents and serve it to the otherside electornically.

I, xxxxxxxx, of [address], am the defendant in this case. Attached to this statement is my evidence and other information marked AB [] to which I will refer to.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there 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. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case.

4. There was no requirement upon me as keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail, no adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the various letters impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law.

Background

5. On 15 April 2018, I attended a dance class in Redbridge Sports & Leisure Centre (“RSLC”) in preparation for a dance show called ‘JRDA Live’ that was due to take place on 29 April 2018. Please see exhibit AB1.

6. JR Dance Academy (“JRDA”) normally has dance classes at RSLC every Tuesday. Please see exhibit AB2. There are over 30 students that participate in these classes.

7. I have used the Leisure Centre for this dance class three times prior to this incident and have parked my vehicle without paying for any parking. It was my honest belief that I counted as a 'member' for which the signs say no payment of a tariff is needed.

SITE DETAILS

8. The Redbridge Leisure Centre is made up of two very large building: Norman Booth Building and Jean Brown Indoor Arena.

9. The Claimant has provided a site plan for the Car Park at Page 4. It is submitted this site plan is misleading. There are three car parks at RSLC instead of the one that is being stipulated by the Site Plan. Please see EXHIBIT AB [ ] at pages [] as evidence of this. RSLC website states that there are three on-site parking areas with over 400 car parking spaces that can be accessed from the entrances:

9.1. Norman Booth Building Car Park
9.2. Jean Brown Arena Car Park
9.3. Frenford Car Park


SIGNAGE AT THE SITE

10. First and foremost, the Claimant’s witness statement includes photographic evidence of signage taken in bright daylight; while the alleged contravention occurred at night.

11. The Claimant at Para [13] submits that there is a total of 12 signs at the Car Park with Page 4 detailing where all the 12 signs are situated. It is submitted that these are signs are primarily around the Norman Booth Building Car Park. Therefore, Claimant is under the assumption that a driver who is a user of the other buildings will become aware of the signs naturally.
[
12. The Claimant has provided no images showing where the alleged vehicle was parked. It merely relies on the ANPR images to show breach of Terms and Conditions which does not adequately show the drivers realistic surrounding when parking.

13. If a driver has used a parking place where s/he previously never paid, and their parking destination is not Norman Booth Building (where all the signs are allegedly kept) but the other two. It is not unreasonable to say that the signs were not visible enough to get the drivers attention.

14. The Claimant has produced old pictures of signs taken in 2016 and in January 2017. These are inadmissible as evidence, given they show terms on signs from 18 months/two years before the parking event and - crucially - well before this Claimant's limited one-page 'authority' letter even existed. Further, there is no information to show where these signs were within the three car parks, and many of the images show signs which do not mention a £100 charge and/or fail to name the party making the alleged contractual offer. In any event, it is submitted that the Defendant was parked in a sign-free area of parking in one of the other two car parks and agreed to no contract.

15. Given the evidence the Claimant has supplied themselves, it is reasonable to conclude that all/some of these signs in evidence were placed by Advance Parking Ltd (whose contract allows them, not this Claimant, to retain all revenue from penalties and from phone payments) or perhaps Redbridge Leisure Centre themselves, given the omissions including the lack of:
(i) the mandatory BPA logo, and
(ii) the required t&cs regarding a contract and who offers it, and
(iii) the required information regarding ANPR surveillance cameras stating how this and the phone data will be used. Whilst the parking event was just before the introduction of the GDPR, the Data Protection Act 1998 certainly applied to ANPR systems, as did the Information Commissioner's Data Protection Code of Practice for surveillance cameras and personal information - EXHIBIT AB [ ]

16. Most of the sparse signs produced in evidence are incapable of meeting what the Supreme Court described in 2015 as the 'effectively regulatory' requirements of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires full compliance of AOS members with the ICO CoP, and which also sets clear and mandatory rules about Signs and entrance signage. EXHIBIT AB [ ]

17. The images provided are woeful in all respects, including the amount of signs claimed to be at the location. One (undated) sign image even says 'ANPR and warden patrols coming soon' but no date is given, nor any information about how to register and which existing patrons are to be considered existing members. To be capable of binding all drivers (members of the many Leisure Centre groups or not) each of the three car park areas would need its own entry sign, and numerous other repeater signs for a 400 space area. The 12 or 13 signs mentioned in the Claimant's Witness Statement cannot possibly be sufficient, so it is averred that the Claimant has shown the signs for one car park only and has left the other two unevidenced.

17.1. It is averred this is likely to be due to the signatory of the Witness Statement not being a true witness at all. BW Legal describe themselves on their website 'About Us' as 'a one stop shop for debt collection' based in Leeds. Their 'witness' is not only unlikely to appear at trial to be questioned, but even with input from their client their statement is pure hearsay, based upon a well-known cut & paste template. They have added information which cannot possibly come from their own knowledge and given their location they are unlikely to have ever seen the site in question in Redbridge.

17.2. By contrast, I say that my evidence should be preferred, given that I am familiar with the car parks, and can (unlike the Claimant) relay an honest account of the material date and the site. Whilst I cannot recall seeing any signage terms, and certainly not anything that would have seen me agree to a contract to pay £100, I held the honest belief from parking here on a few occasions before without charge, that members could park free. The signs, such as they are, bear this out. The Claimant's evidence shows that 'members' can receive up to 6 hours free parking per visit or can register at reception. The sign does not define 'members' nor does it not provide further details about the registration process. I was a Dance club member and as far as I knew, I was registered at reception and authorised to access this location for my classes.

17.3. I would like to put it on record that I take offence at the Claimant's seriously patronising statements at #44 - 46, accusing me of a 'lack of understanding' of my own defence and even 'plagiarism' merely because I sought assistance from the MoneySavingExpert forum whose posters include legally qualified contributors and which has assisted thousands of 'unfair parking charge' victims and which has openly demonstrated a 99% win-rate for Defendants against parking firms since 2017. I am not sure what else the Claimant expected me to do - pay up and shut up, perhaps - rather than use the undoubtedly successful, useful and free resources open to me as a litigant in person. I suggest that it is the Claimant who has a lack of understanding of this location and the relevant CoPs and the high bar required for signage and contract law evidence. Hence this very poorly pleaded case, which has no merit or prospects of success.

18. In any case, it should be noted that, I personally have been a driver for nearly 6 years. I have experience driving in London and are aware of the heightened parking restrictions on Private Land. It is not of my character to hastily park my car and risk the chance of being fined £100 if the mere price to park was £1. I would have paid the parking fee of £1 had I known that the cark park had parking rules and had I seen the signs asking me to pay.

NO EVIDENCE OF CLAIMANT'S CONTRACT, OR STANDING TO SUE

19. The Claimant has shown no evidence that they have complied with the BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1. - 7.3 EXHIBIT AB [ ] regarding prior written landowner authority and the parking firm's own standing to sue motorists.

20. Inexplicably, the Claimant has provided a single-page 'letter of authority' (dated months after most of the dates on the signage images, as already noted) which covers none of the mandatory requirements of the BPA CoP at 7.3:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement''

21. The only other 'evidence' is a (fairly illegible in my copy) 2016 agreement made with a completely different legal entity, Advanced Parking Ltd, where one heading can be discerned, stating 'Main Car Park'. Not only does this support my position that this Claimant has only shown evidence about a parking management regime in one out of the three car parks, but it also cannot possibly be assumed that the terms of a standard Advanced Parking Ltd Contract from 2016 exactly matches any contract that this Claimant may have drawn up and signed. Not that they have put such authority in evidence.

22. Even if the Court is minded to consider, that it is unlikely that this Claimant could operate and put signs and ANPR cameras up without 'some level' of landowner authority, therein lies the difficulty for this Claimant. There is nothing to demonstrate the contract definitions, restrictions and limitations of that authority - not even the contraventions they can issue a PCN for, nor even a map showing the boundary of the 'enforced' section of the site - which is why the BPA CoP sets out the requirements in paragraph 7.3 as quoted above and exhibited in my evidence.

23. The only aerial shot in evidence seems to have been cobbled together using Google maps and is not signed by the landowner nor annexed to any authority, nor even dated. And again, it only shows the signs for the first car park, supporting my assertion that the Claimant's authority boundary (if it exists) is limited to a section where I did not park my car. EXHIBIT AB [ ] shows my own aerial picture of Redbridge Leisure Centre with the second car park marked, and at trial I will also be able to point out the third car park, all accessed from the same entrances/roadways. I will say with my own local knowledge, that all cars would be captured by the same ANPR cameras regardless of the area in which the drivers ended up parking, and this is what has happened in my case.

DOUBLE RECOVERY COST

24. The Claimant at Para [71] cites Chaplair Limited V Kumari (2015) EWCA 798 which can immediately be dismissed, in that this was a completely different case involving a signed lease and an amount which had actually been paid.

25. In my case, the truth is that no £60 payment has been made to a debt collector because Trace Debt Recovery are known to send letters for parking firms on a 'no collection, no fee' basis. This is an abuse of process in trying to recover a sum vastly above the parking charge, a sum which was not only never paid, but which also falls foul of the CPRs regarding justification and proportionality of standard costs. The Claimant and their solicitors have knowingly misled the Court and the Claimant is put to strict proof or to explain their abuse of process in adding to the claim non-existent 'damages/debt collection' costs.

26. Even if I am wrong and the Claimant can evidence £60 'damages/debt collection letters' expenditure, they are attempting to claim monies that a parking firm are not entitled to recover at all. The authority for this is ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where only £85 was recoverable. The Supreme Court held that the significantly inflated 'parking charge' in such cases already more than comfortably covers the very small costs of operating an automated parking regime (some £15 for the automated process of letters). The Supreme Court stated that the penalty 'parking charge' in these cases is almost entirely profit, so (regardless of whether a Trade Body has been persuaded by its paying members to add a point about 'debt collection costs' into their CoP) the basic costs contained within that business model cannot exist as a separate head of cost.

27. In light of this, the Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing.

Statement of Truth

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

In terms of Evidence, I printing our the following:
My Defence
My Witness Statement
My Costs
My Evidence: Dance Show Leaflet, Dance Show Timetable Leaflet, Aerial Shot of the Car Park, BPA CoP, ICO CoP, Beavis Parking Sign. Is there anything else I should take with me?

Coupon-mad

We will take a look asap, bear with us. As it's a Holiday, we are busy with real life.

You do not need to file & serve another copy of your defence so you only need one copy of that for your own bundle for the hearing. They have the defence already.