Business court

weatherman89

thank you!

weatherman89

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT STOKE-ON-TRENT, BETHESDA STREET, HANLEY,
STOKE-ON-TRENT, ST1 3BP
CLAIM NO. XXXXXX
BETWEEN

PARKINGEYE LTD(CLAIMANT)
AND
MR XXXXXX(DEFENDANT)

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked as EX1 to which I will refer.

2. I am unrepresented, with no experience of court procedures. If I do not set out my documents in the way the claimant may, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

3. In this witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

4. 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.

5. I am a doctor at the Royal Stoke University Hospital (RSUH) and the said claim is for an area that accommodates some of the doctors who work in the Hospital. I had spoken with some of the doctors who live in this area and was advised that parking is free and it is on first come, first serve basis. I had parked in this area for close to 3 months without any charge notice. And so did most of the doctors at the hospital. I refer to my paginated evidence EX1, page 1, as proof that I am a doctor with the RSUH.

6. I recall receiving some parking charge notices from the claimant sometime in July 2018 and ignored them as I honestly believed them to be scam letters due to the fact no warning notices or grace period was applied as stated by the BPA code of practice v6 applied in December 2017, section 18.11, for which the claimant is a member. The BPA CoP states the need for additional signs and warnings so that people used to the rules, who would not reasonably expect to have to re-read signs every time when they are familiar with the terms already, learn about the change without being penalised. A copy of the related paragraph of the BPA CoP is attached in my EX1 as evidence.

7. As stated in the claimant’s parking charge notice that a parking charge is applicable if the motorists fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. However, the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the reception terminal is situated. I refer to the BPA code of practice, Part B, which states that entrance signs are necessary as contained in my EX1.

8. These penalties against doctors are the very essence of unconscionableness, have no 'legitimate interest' excuse unlike the ParkingEye v Beavis case, and thus the penalty rule referred to by the Supreme Court (to be applied to parking charges on a case by case, individual facts basis), remains firmly engaged and the charge is unrecoverable.

9. This claim is unreasonable and breaches the Government policy set out for some 4 years now, in the NHS Car Parking Principles which states that; ‘Reasonable’ implementation of additional charges practice might include additional charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (eg commuters), or who persistently flout parking regulations (eg blocking entrances). A period of grace should normally be applied before a parking charge notice is issued. I refer to the NHS Car parking principles in my EX1 as evidence.
10. I invites the court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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

Signature…
Date….

weatherman89

this is the WS with the suggested changes...kindly advise

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT STOKE-ON-TRENT, BETHESDA STREET, HANLEY,
STOKE-ON-TRENT, ST1 3BP
CLAIM NO. XXXXXX
BETWEEN

PARKINGEYE LTD(CLAIMANT)
AND
MR XXXXXX(DEFENDANT)

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked as EX1 to which I will refer.

2. I am unrepresented, with no experience of court procedures. If I do not set out my documents in the way the claimant may, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

3. In this witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

4. 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.

5. I am a doctor at the Royal Stoke University Hospital (RSUH) and the said claim is for an area that accommodates some of the doctors who work in the Hospital. I had spoken with some of the doctors who live in this area and was advised that parking is free and it is on first come, first serve basis. I had parked in this area for close to 3 months without any charge notice. And so did most of the doctors at the hospital. I refer to my paginated evidence EX1, page 1, as proof that I am a doctor with the RSUH.

6. I recall receiving some parking charge notices from the claimant sometime in July 2018 and ignored them as I honestly believed them to be scam letters due to the fact no warning notices or grace period was applied as stated by the BPA code of practice v6 applied in December 2017, section 18.11, for which the claimant is a member. The BPA CoP states the need for additional signs and warnings so that people used to the rules, who would not reasonably expect to have to re-read signs every time when they are familiar with the terms already, learn about the change without being penalised. A copy of the related paragraph of the BPA CoP is attached in my EX1 as evidence.

7. As stated in the claimant’s parking charge notice that a parking charge is applicable if the motorists fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. However, the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the reception terminal is situated. I refer to the BPA code of practice, Part B, which states that entrance signs are necessary as contained in my EX1.

8. These penalties against doctors are the very essence of unconscionableness, have no 'legitimate interest' excuse unlike the ParkingEye v Beavis case, and thus the penalty rule referred to by the Supreme Court (to be applied to parking charges on a case by case, individual facts basis), remains firmly engaged and the charge is unrecoverable.

9. This claim is unreasonable and breaches the Government policy set out for some 4 years now, in the NHS Car Parking Principles which states that; ‘Reasonable’ implementation of additional charges practice might include additional charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (eg commuters), or who persistently flout parking regulations (eg blocking entrances). A period of grace should normally be applied before a parking charge notice is issued. I refer to the NHS Car parking principles in my EX1 as evidence.

10. I invites the court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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

Signature…

Coupon-mad

I would not talk about grace periods.

Parking Eye do allow 10 minutes grace and the PCN will be about a longer period of stay, so by talking about grace periods you are handing them an easy win on that point at least.

So remove both those mentions in your WS, below and from #9.

6. I recall receiving some parking charge notices from the claimant sometime in July 2018 and ignored them as I honestly believed them to be scam letters due to the fact that parking was known to be free for doctors at this place, and no warning notices were in existence [STRIKE]or grace period was applied[/STRIKE] as stated by the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) v6 applied in December 2017, section 18.11, for which the claimant is a member. If the rules had changed, no notices (either delivered as a paper version to the doctors/other staff or prominent notices added to the site here) drew attention to any change.

7. The BPA CoP states the need for additional signs and warnings so that people used to the rules, who would not reasonably expect to have to re-read signs every time when they are familiar with the terms already, learn about the change without being penalised. A copy of the related paragraph of the BPA CoP is attached in my EX1 as evidence.

8. [STRIKE]As stated in the claimant’s parking charge notice[/STRIKE] The Claimant seems to be making a case that a parking charge is applicable if the motorists fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. However, I knew nothing of this onerous change and risk of penalties and was shocked to receive a flurry of PCNs some weeks after the parking events, giving me no chance to learn of the terms first.

8.1. This is in breach of Lord Denning's well known 'red hand rule' and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as regards unfair/hidden and unexpected contract terms and misleading omissions in terms. [STRIKE]However, [/STRIKE] The claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the reception terminal is situated, and I had no idea this was required or that such a terminal even existed until after the PCNs arrived, which had all the hallmarks of a scam or trap. I refer to the BPA [STRIKE]code of practice[/STRIKE]CoP, Part B, which states that entrance signs are necessary as contained in my EX1.

You missed this out - very useful to argue at a site that is large and has different rules all over the place (you saw the Barnet Hospital case I linked where P/Eye had relied upon images that were not even taken in the same place!):

I would also talk about how this is a huge & sprawling site and the car will have been picked up by ANPR cameras from entry to exit, not just in this section. Each section has different rules, ranging from pay & display, to dropping off, to permit holders, to staff only, and to 'registering using a hidden keypad every time' and so it is impossible to be sure which terms apply to the event captured which could be anywhere within the hospital site, given the lack of background in the images. P/Eye are put to strict proof of where their images were captured within the site

You need to number each piece of evidence as individual numbers, not all 'EX1'.

weatherman89

Here is the updated version....

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT STOKE-ON-TRENT, BETHESDA STREET, HANLEY,
STOKE-ON-TRENT, ST1 3BP
CLAIM NO. XXXXXX
BETWEEN

PARKINGEYE LTD(CLAIMANT)
AND
MR XXXXXX(DEFENDANT)

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked as EX1 to which I will refer.

2. I am unrepresented, with no experience of court procedures. If I do not set out my documents in the way the claimant may, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

3. In this witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

4. 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.

5. I am a doctor at the Royal Stoke University Hospital (RSUH) and the said claim is for an area that accommodates some of the doctors who work in the Hospital. I had spoken with some of the doctors who live in this area and was advised that parking is free and it is on first come, first serve basis. I had parked in this area for close to 3 months without any charge notices. And so did most of the doctors at the hospital. I refer to my paginated evidence, page 1, as proof that I am a doctor with the RSUH.


6. I recall receiving some parking charge notices from the claimant sometime in July 2018 and ignored them as I honestly believed them to be scam letters due to the fact that parking was known to be free for doctors at this place, and no warning notices were in existence as stated by the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) v6 applied in December 2017, section 18.11, for which the claimant is a member. If the rules had changed, no notices (either delivered as a paper version to the doctors/other staff or prominent notices added to the site here) drew attention to any change.

7. The BPA CoP states the need for additional signs and warnings so that people used to the rules, who would not reasonably expect to have to re-read signs every time when they are familiar with the terms already, learn about the change without being penalised. A copy of the related paragraph of the BPA CoP is in my EX1 as page 3.

7.1. This is in breach of Lord Denning's well known 'red hand rule' and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as regards unfair/hidden and unexpected contract terms and misleading omissions in terms. The claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the reception terminal is situated, and I had no idea this was required or that such a terminal even existed until after the PCNs arrived, which had all the hallmarks of a scam or trap. I refer to the BPA CoP, Part B, which states that entrance signs are necessary as contained in my EX1 page 4.

8. The Claimant seems to be making a case that a parking charge is applicable if the motorists fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. However, I knew nothing of this onerous change and risk of penalties and was shocked to receive a flurry of PCNs some weeks after the parking events, giving me no chance to learn of the terms first.

9. These penalties against doctors are the very essence of unconscionableness, have no 'legitimate interest' excuse unlike the ParkingEye v Beavis case, and thus the penalty rule referred to by the Supreme Court (to be applied to parking charges on a case by case, individual facts basis), remains firmly engaged and the charge is unrecoverable.

10. This claim is unreasonable and breaches the Government policy set out for some 4 years now, in the NHS Car Parking Principles which states that; ‘Reasonable’ implementation of additional charges practice might include additional charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (e.g. commuters), or who persistently flout parking regulations (e.g. blocking entrances). I refer to the NHS Car parking principles in my EX1 as evidence in page 5.

11. This is a huge & sprawling site and the car will have been picked up by ANPR cameras from entry to exit, not just in this section. Each section has different rules, ranging from pay & display, to dropping off, to permit holders, to staff only, and to 'registering using a hidden keypad every time' and so it is impossible to be sure which terms apply to the event captured which could be anywhere within the hospital site, given the lack of background in the images. ParkingEye are put to strict proof of where their images were captured within the site

11. I invites the court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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

Signature…
Date….

1505grandad

Your 7.1 should be 8.1 as per C-Ms post #75


Pedantic mode:-


Para 5 first served basis


Para 6 (for) of which the claimant is a member


Para 8 if the motorist (s)


Para 11 I invite (s) the court

weatherman89

points noted and i have added an additional paragraph(12)...please kindly advise if this is okay.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT STOKE-ON-TRENT, BETHESDA
STREET, HANLEY, STOKE-ON-TRENT, ST1 3BP

CLAIM NO. xxxxx
BETWEEN
PARKINGEYE LTD (CLAIMANT)
AND
MR. xxxxx (DEFENDANT)

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked as EX1 to which I will refer.

2. I am unrepresented, with no experience of court procedures. If I do not set out my documents in the way the claimant may, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

3. In this witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

4. 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.

5. I am a doctor at the Royal Stoke University Hospital (RSUH) and the said claim is for an area that accommodates some of the doctors who work in the Hospital. I had spoken with some of the doctors who live in this area and was advised that parking is free and it is on first come, first served basis. I had parked in this area for close to 3 months without any charge notices. And so did most of the doctors at the hospital. I refer to my paginated evidence, page 1, as proof that I am a doctor with the RSUH.


6. I recall receiving some parking charge notices from the claimant sometime in July 2018 and ignored them as I honestly believed them to be scam letters due to the fact that parking was known to be free for doctors at this place, and no warning notices were in existence as stated by the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) v6 applied in December 2017, section 18.11, of which the claimant is a member. If the rules had changed, no notices (either delivered as a paper version to the doctors/other staff or prominent notices added to the site here) drew attention to any change.

7. The BPA CoP states the need for additional signs and warnings so that people used to the rules, who would not reasonably expect to have to re-read signs every time when they are familiar with the terms already, learn about the change without being penalised. A copy of the related paragraph of the BPA CoP is in my EX1 as page 3.

8. The Claimant seems to be making a case that a parking charge is applicable if the motorists fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. However, I knew nothing of this onerous change and risk of penalties and was shocked to receive a flurry of PCNs some weeks after the parking events, giving me no chance to learn of the terms first.

8.1. This is in breach of Lord Denning's well known 'red hand rule' and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as regards unfair/hidden and unexpected contract terms and misleading omissions in terms. The claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the reception terminal is situated, and I had no idea this was required or that such a terminal even existed until after the PCNs arrived, which had all the hallmarks of a scam or trap. I refer to the BPA CoP, Part B, which states that entrance signs are necessary as contained in my EX1 page 4.



9. These penalties against doctors are the very essence of unconscionableness, have no 'legitimate interest' excuse unlike the ParkingEye v Beavis case, and thus the penalty rule referred to by the Supreme Court (to be applied to parking charges on a case by case, individual facts basis), remains firmly engaged and the charge is unrecoverable.

10. This claim is unreasonable and breaches the Government policy set out for some 4 years now, in the NHS Car Parking Principles which states that; ‘Reasonable’ implementation of additional charges practice might include additional charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (e.g. commuters), or who persistently flout parking regulations (e.g. blocking entrances). I refer to the NHS Car parking principles in my EX1 as evidence in page 5.

11. This is a huge & sprawling site and the car would have been picked up by ANPR cameras from entry to exit, not just in this section. Each section has different rules, ranging from pay & display, to dropping off, to permit holders, to staff only, and to 'registering using a hidden keypad every time' and so it is impossible to be sure which terms apply to the event captured which could be anywhere within the hospital site, given the lack of background in the images. ParkingEye are put to strict proof of where their images were captured within the site.

12. I must state that this claim has been both physically and psychologically draining to me as there is hardly day I don’t think about it while at work or home. It is my wish that this can be put to rest once and for all, so I can get my life back.

13. I invite the court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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

Signature…

Coupon-mad

Yep that's great - needs the date as well as signature at the end, though!

weatherman89

thank very much indeed...hopefully, i will share the good news on the 15/04/19 after my victory!

weatherman89

I just saw a letter from ParkingEye asking for a settlement. The claim is £485, they want a sum of £285....please kindly advise