BW Legal and Britannia Parking

kernowkid007

In the County Court at ----

Claim No. ---



Between

(Claimant)

and

--- (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT



Ixxx of xxxx

I and the defendant in this case and will say as follows

1.I am unrepresented, with no legal background or training and have had no previous experience of county court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

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

3.Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of evidentiary documents marked Exhibit xx1 to xx8 to which I will refer.

4.I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim as laid out in my submitted defence, with the addition of supplementary witness statement outlining recent precedent for “abuse of process” XX1 as part of the witness statement.

5. I deny that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

6. The Claimant asserts that my vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions

7. My defence to this claim is that:

a. I have not breached any terms and conditions of parking.
b. I have the reasonable belief that the Claimant did not have the authority on the xxxx date to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
c. The claimant has failed to comply with pre-action protocol, failing to provide me the necessary evidence and documentation to support their claim.
d. My vehicle was allegedly observed via ANPR to have been parked for 30 minutes beyond the free parking period at this car park. This is disputed due to conflicting evidence regarding the signage.

Background

8. In the early evening of the 27th of April 2017, I drove into xxxxxxx with a friend along xxxxx road, turning left into xxxxxx car park adjacent to The xxxxxx Public House. On entering the car park I did not observe any signage relating to parking restrictions.

9. I parked my car in one of the bays and my friends and I made our way to one of the restaurants at the site. As we walked the short distance to the restaurant, neither my friend nor I observed any of the signage present in the car park.

10. I have utilised this car park many times in the past in the knowledge that it was a free car park with no restrictions. I had no idea that since the redevelopment, the car park now operated with restrictions.

11. I returned to my car later that evening and left the car park, still totally unaware my vehicle had been recorded entering or leaving via ANPR cameras.

12. Some week later I received a PCN from Britannia Parking advising me I had incurred a penalty for a 30 min overstay. As there was limited information included with the PCN, I wasn’t convinced this was a legitimate Claim.


Unclear Signage


13. The photo of the entrance sign for the car park submitted in the claimants WS on page 4 was mounted high up on a lamp post to the left-hand side of the road. That sign and the current sign mounted in the same position Exhibit XX…are not immediately obvious to a driver entering the car park. There are a lot of other visual distractions for the driver to deal with on entering, other signs, (building signage and free-standing signs), other cars (parked and moving in and out of the car park.

14. The photos of the signage around the car park submitted as evidence in the claimant’s WS- pages 4-10, were taken on the 21/02/2017. From the photos the signs appear to show a maximum stay of 3 hours and no return within 3 hours. T and C’s are in are small font at the bottom of the sign.


15. The evidence submitted as Exhibit XX… shows the signage in the car park found from Google Street view dated August 2017, the signage shows extended free parking time – 3 hours from 7am to 7pm and 4 hours from 7pm to 7am with no return within 1 hour. Further evidence of these updated sign can be more closely examined in Exhibits xx and xx. These signs would show that I have not in fact overstayed as I had only remained in the car park for 3.5 hours from 7.29pm to 1059pm.

15. The claimant is put to strict proof as why the signs were changed, under what instructions from the landowner and most importantly on what date this change occured.



Claimants right to operate and bring action in their own name


14. Page 1 and 2 of the claimants Witness Statement evidence shows a copy of their ‘’Letter of Authority’ from the Landowner/Management Company (XXXXXXXXXX). This letter was signed by a director on the 5th May 2017. Essentially this document was signed, and therefore authority given 9 days after alleged parking event and 1 day after the PCN was served on me, therefore I believe that the claimant had no right to bring this action against me. The claimant is put to strict proof that they had the authority to operate at this carpark on the date of this case.



Costs on the claim – disproportionate and disingenuous.


15. In addition to the parking charge, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

16. In relation to the £60 ‘debt recovery costs’ the claimants Witness Statement in paragraph 46 says: The claimant is also seeking recovery of its debt recovery costs in the sum of £60. The claimant refers to the bottom of the sign, at page 10 (displaying the Terms and Conditions), which states, ”where parking charges remain unpaid beyond 28 days, recovery charges in respect of further action may apply”. Paragraph 47 ‘The above term forms part of the Terms and Conditions, which were agreed by the Defendant by parking in the car park. Had the defendant paid the PCN then the Claimant’s need to instruct solicitors (incurring expense) to recover the PCN charge would have been avoided’.

17. In the claimants Letter of Claim they have added the £60 as ’Initial Legal Costs’ and then a separate cost of £50 as ‘Estimated solicitors’ costs’ The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

18. 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 of claim, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

19. 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.


20. 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.

21. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimants purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny.

22. 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.

23. The Claimant is also in Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 paragraphs 6, 10 and 14, as the Official Guidance tells us that consumer notices are not exempt from the test of fairness. The CMA Official Government Guidance says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' Supplementary Witness Statement attached evidence of this as Exhibit xx..

24. The fact that the claimant is one of a number of claimants to be known inflating their claims in the face of recent court actions further increases the suggestion that they are reliant on individuals not defending themselves and abusing the courts in order to obtain default CCJs.

25. 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.

26. 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. The Defendant refers to the following paragraphs given in the judgement on the 4th of November 2015 in ParkingEye v Beavis: 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 ParkingEyes accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEyes 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.

28. 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.

29. In summary, the Claimants particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendants position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimants 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.

30. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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

Signature of Defendant:

Umkomaas

Sort out your paragraph numbering which runs ....

14, 15, 15, 14, 15, 16.

kernowkid007

Hi all,

would really appreciate your thoughts on above WS draft. Ideally i need this printed asap and sent to court and claimant in next couple of days.
Many thanks as always

kernowkid007

Might sound like a stupid question but do I send WS to PPC or their Solicitor?
Do I send costs schedule to them too?
Para numbering sorted on above WS, think I’ve duplicated a para too!
Any other thoughts ?

KeithP

kernowkid007 wrote: »

Might sound like a stupid question but do I send WS to PPC or their Solicitor?

It really is quite straightforward.

You should send it to the address in the box headed 'Address for sending documents and payments' on your Claim Form.

A copy of your Costs Schedule - and indeed everything else that you send to the court - must be sent to the Claimant.

kernowkid007

Thank you, I knew it was a stupid question!

Coupon-mad

12. Some [STRIKE]week[/STRIKE] weeks later I received a PCN from Britannia Parking advising me I had incurred a penalty for an alleged 30 min overstay. As there was limited information included with the PCN and it did not meet any of the requirements for a Notice to Keeper (ref: Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 9) and there had been no visible signage terms, I concluded that this was a false ticketing scam as exposed more than once on Watchdog and other consumer programmes and articles.[STRIKE]wasn’t convinced this was a legitimate Claim[/STRIKE].

#15 onwards needs replacing (entirely, apart from the statement of truth and signature/date of course - your version mentions no date at the bottom and you MUST date it!) with the current words in post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy and attach a copy of DJ Grand's order from CEC16's thread, and DDJ Joseph's order from CrystalTips' thread, so your Judge can see what other courts are doing about the false added £60.

What exhibits and photos are you appending, and what case law? CRA 2015, etc? You have got those?

And photos of the changed signs, etc?

kernowkid007

Thanks CM, I’ll revise from 15 onwards.
I have printed post no.14 from beamerguy’s thread and was going to submit this as a supplementary witness statement. In that best do I need all the paragraphs from 15 onwards?

I have paper copies of PoFA 2012, CRA2015 schedule 2
And was thinking of printing CMA guidance.
Do I need to include them as exhibits or just have them in court?
I have photos of current signage and of Google Street View from Aug 17 ( 4 months after parking charge) showing new signs.

Coupon-mad

I have printed post no.14 from beamerguy’s thread and was going to submit this as a supplementary witness statement. In that case do I need all the paragraphs from 15 onwards?

No, you don't need it twice - just change the end of your WS to refer to your supplementary WS and state that you will rely on statute law and binding case law at the hearing, to strike out the false added £60.

I have paper copies of PoFA 2012, CRA2015 schedule 2
And was thinking of printing CMA guidance.
Do I need to include them as exhibits or just have them in court?

With all those 3 you can just rock up with them as they are statute law and case law, all accessible to a Judge and none of which needs serving first. Save your printing for now!

I have photos of current signage and of Google Street View from Aug 17 ( 4 months after parking charge) showing new signs.

Good, I think you will win on that point. They will be unlikely to be able to show when the signs changed an/or when/why the landowner required the change, which must have been before that date, and as soon as the time was required to be changed by the landowner, their previous authority to enforce PCNs after 1 hour, was gone. Even if it took the scammers another week/month to change the signs.

kernowkid007

Great news, just left court and my wife won! Despite the claimant requesting an appeal, will provide more in-depth account soon. Many thanks all!