Help! Have followed advice so far...but worried

Lotuslady

Ok, here it is... haven’t proof read for the last time as unsure wether worth adding 31. Part.
Any comments/glaring mistakes welcome.. running short of time now.. will do as much as I can.  Still Summary Costs to do.. the hours/days/weeks have put into this case far out way prob outweigh what is allowable..!! Prob same for all I guess.. Though have had to delay starting my business because of this...

In the County Court at Torquay and Newton Abbot

Claim No. XXXX

Between UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)

And

XXXX (Defendant)

 

Witness Statement of XXXX

1.  I am XXX of XXXX the Defendant in this matter. I am an unrepresented consumer with no previous experience of this type of court procedure.  Should I not present my case as professionally as the claimant’s, I trust that the Court will excuse my inexperience.

2.  I assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contravention and drove to the site mentioned in the Claimant’s witness statement accompanied by my now 18 year old daughter to watch a film at the adjoining Retail Park Odeon Cinema see Exhibit JR01 “A” my proof of ticket purchase. Also site plan Exhibit JR01 “B”

4.  I was a visitor to this area at the time in question with my home address being some 247 miles away. I had visited this area before some years previously, and despite driving around the area a lot beforehand to find signage to the Retail Park, neither my daughter or I could find any, and my satnav kept saying I had arrived at the Odeon cinema when we reached an area adjacent to the site mentioned in the Claimant’s Witness Statement.  As it was by now dark and we both knew the Odeon was a short walkable distance away due to the SatNav on my phone, we decided to park up and walk.

5.  I had been suffering with PTSD since 2003 as detailed in my exhibit JR01 “C” which indicates it to be of “a severity that was likely to be impacting on your daily functioning and wellbeing”, which may go some way to explaining why around the 17th or 18th October 2018, I opened a letter, Claimant’s Exhibit on page 25, dated 21ST SEPTEMBER 2018 the “Parking Charge Notice” (PCN). 

     I was completely shocked and confused when I read it as I was sure I had not parked in any car parks around that time, and also because somehow this letter must have been missed.. and now stated that I owed £100 for parking in the alleged car park.  I immediately rang my daughter who confirmed to me that she was not aware that we had parked in any car park on the night mentioned in the PCN as had not seen any signs either to indicate that this was the case.  I appealed as soon as I was able, though at the time was very unsure if this was in the time allowed as found the wording on  page 26 of Claimant’s Exhibit page 26 under “Appeals and Enquiries” very confusing at the time having to reread it several times  still being none the wiser.  I know now that this was due to PTSD symptoms.

6.  I assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all for the following reasons;-

The Contract is not a Valid Contract - Claimant has no authority to pursue parking charges on this land.

7.  The claim is in the name of UK Car Parking Management, Company Number 11881490, but the contract in the Claimant’s Witness Statement (WS) page 11 is with a completely different, and dormant company called UK Car Park Management, Company Number 7383860. See Exhibits JR01 “D” “part 1” and “part 2” which show it didn’t even exist on that date.  The address they use on the contract also confirms this.

8.  In addition, the alleged contract has been redacted, such that the signatories cannot be identified and this goes against the findings in the persuasive appeal court judgement Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited Case No: A2/2019/1938 where the judgment approved by the court for handing down stated in paragraphs 74 and 75. “...The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole...” and  “Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality... confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision”

9.  Also the contract has not been signed in accordance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 because it has not been signed by two authorised persons within the meaning of the Act.

10.  Section 44 Execution of Documents says:-

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a) by two authorised signatories, or

(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) every director of the company, and

(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

11.  The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

12.  The contract ran for eighteen months which would have been from July 2016 to December 2017, but the alleged parking event was in September 2018.  The Claimant has not provided any proof that client and company sought an extension to the contract after eighteen months, or that the contract did indeed continue on a rolling monthly basis.  It must have terminated at some point for UK Car Parking Management to become dormant/dissolved. 

13.  In addition as the signatures are illegible, the Claimant has provided no proof that the signatures are actually employees of the two companies concerned as there is no indication on the document that they actually work for the two named companies or in what capacity.

14.  No other contract proving the claimant has authority to operate, manage or enforce parking conditions has been provided.  It is therefore rejected that the claimant has the authority from the landowner to establish them as the creditor within the meaning of Schedule 4: 2(1) (b) Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Exhibit JR01 “D” “part 3” nor establish them as a person who is able to recover parking charges as detailed within the Claimant’s Trade Association Code of Practice, Exhibit JR01 “E”.

15.  The Claimant therefore has no locus standi and on the basis of their evidence cannot offer contracts to drivers.  Nor did they comply with the IPC Code of Practice (part B, 1.1) which states “if you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner...”  They also cannot get DVLA data without having a contract with the landowner as per the same Code of Practice.  Limited companies are separate legal entities.  Another entity run by the same directors cannot just adopt the contracts of a dissolved company.

Claimant has not adhered to guidelines within their Code of Practice and uses documents that are Invalid therefore no contract with driver.

16.  CWS’s Page 10 shows a stock image of a sign, but there is no proof that such a sign exists on the site in question.  None of the signs shown in the CWS are legible so are incapable of forming a contract with a driver.

17.  The “Site Plan” from CWS’s page 16 has been taken from a “Google Maps” screenshot dated 2020 and then been marked up.  See my Exhibit JR01 “G” which clearly shows 2020 as the date in the bottom right corner.  Plus it shows the same coloured vehicles parked in the same positions shown as on their “Site Plan” which incidentally has no date on.  A Site Plan is a signed, dated and formally produced document which the Claimant’s is not.

18.  The same “Site Plan” also shows “signs” as denoted by blue dots which were certainly not present  when I visited the site on 30th June 2020.  See my Exhibit JR01 “H” which I have forwarded in a file to the court via email.  This Exhibit shows a video taken from the passenger seat of my vehicle at dusk (a time when there was more daylight than on the date in question).  It clearly shows the Claimant to have not adhered to the IPC’s Code of Practice on several counts for the following reasons.

18.1   A sign near the “entrance” roundabout is in a font and format too small as to easily be seen by a passing motorist.

18.2   There is no sign present (towards the end of the video) as marked up by a yellow circle on my Exhibit JR01 “G” as indicated on the Claimant’s Site Plan.

18.3.  There is no lighting present to illuminate any “signs” both background or otherwise.  Pages 25 and 26 of the CWS show clearly that at the time of the alleged contravention it was definately dark by way of the photographic images contained therein.

The Claimant has added inflated costs which are an abuse of process

19.  My Exhibit JR01 “I” is a copy of two letters I have sent, the first to the SRA and the second to Gladstones Solicitors which cites a previous judgment where such costs have been added and shows the documentation where this has been added. 

20.  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 POFA 2012 schedule 4 (Exhibit JR01 “D” “part 3”) nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis.  It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue an knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

The Claimant Witness Statement (CWS) is Invalid

21.  The CWS appears not to be actually signed by Mr Jack Chapman.  It is obvious that Jack Chapman has not signed the CWS to me as if you look at his Witness Statement (WS) on page 10, for starters it can be clearly seen that the same signature exists both after the “Statement of Truth” and also lower down the page near the number 10.  I attach sample “Jack Chapman” signatures, Exhibit JR01 “F” (1),(2),(3,) and (4)  that I have obtained from the an Internet forum  as regards previous cases where this electronically copied signature has been used, the last page of which shows them all next to each other for comparison (and also for comparison to page 10 of CWS)

22.  A formal complaint has already been sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) about a similar UKCPM case where this exact same UKCPM “electronic signature” was exposed by a lay representative, to be a facsimile and that UKCPM could not have signed the statement on the date stated under the facsimile signature, or at all.

23.  In the two cases in October 2019, Claim Nos E9GF9M7K and E4GF8M1R, UKCPM -v-Mrs A, before Deputy District Judge Cohan at High Wycombe.  Statements purported to have been signed by Jack Chapman, an employee of the Claimant Company, could not have been.  A comparison of the signatures on these two statements showed that the signatures are 100% identical in every respect, down to the last pixel.  It was highly improbable, if not impossible, that any person would sign his name twice in a completely identical manner on two separate occasions, three months apart.  The signature appears to be the same in this case too.

24.  The complaint to the SRA continued: ''The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this, is that Gladstones have copied, traced, or otherwise forged Mr Chapman's signature, and that in fact Mr Chapman has never seen or signed these statements. This is particularly relevant in the case of the second statement, which was emailed to the Defendant on the day after it was created. Gladstones are based in Knutsford, Cheshire, whereas the Claimant company are situated in West Sussex. Unless they couriered it by helicopter, it is clear that Mr Chapman could not have signed it

   

Lotuslady

   This is a significant and serious act of dishonesty, for which Lesley Layton of Lance Mason                          Solicitors was struck off the roll in 2017. 

25.  The complaint, currently under investigation against Gladstones, suggested that the SRA needs to take urgent action on this matter, as it is more likely than not that this is a regular practice.

26.  In the case of UKCPM v Mrs A on 17th October, Deputy District Judge Cohan at High Wycombe struck out both claims. He also agreed that the two factors of late service and a defective WS Crossed the the threshold of unreasonable behaviour and warded Mrs A her full costs in the sum of £331.8-, which he said was a very reasonable figure.

27.  My case has the same facsimile signature from a person who was not a witness.  It is a templated statement and 'Jack' from UKCPM is not here to be cross examined, being conspicuous by his absence.

.

28.  I have reported Gladstones solicitors to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority in view of the fact

that this Witness Statement is a template and almost exact match for others, is not written by any

UKCPM employee and that is it unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that the UKCPM

employee whose facsimile signature had been screen-dumped at the bottom, has even seen the

statement let alone signed it. The SRA are known to be currently actively investigating these

specific 'Jack Chapman' signed witness statements which have been sent to the SRA due to an

apparent failure to ensure that the UKCPM witness has written, read and signed it himself. This

appears to be a serious abuse of the Court process and compromises the Claimant's entire

position.

29. I am aware that this person “Jack Chapman” will not appear to be questioned and my position as 

Defendant is prejudiced in view of the background and current SRA investigation.  In view of this,

the Defendant asks that the WS and the enclosures are considered hearsay at best, and disregarded.

Summary

30.  In light of their being no valid contract or agreement between Claimant and Landowner, nor proof of valid contract between any driver and the Claimant, plus the abuse of process regarding inflated added costs, and the invalidity of the CWS. I ask the court to dismiss the case as having no rights to bring the action regarding this claim. 

31?? I would also like it noted that I entered into negotiations with the Claimant Company’s Solicitor via email on 28th April 2020 when COVID struck in an attempt to end this claim, explaining my side, which entailed numerous emails back and forth.  I forwarded to them photos and a video showing lack of signage at the site. They did not reply to my last email of 15th July which I attach here ?? Where I detailed  further evidence of their lack of signage. Instead I received the CWS bundle on 27th July via the post.

32.  I also request “unreasonable conduct” costs to be added, and ask that the judge grant my full costs because this claim is not just without merit, it is fundamentally unlawful that this Ltd company Claimant even got my data, or issued PCN’s to anyone at this location. Pursuant to CPR27.14. I append my Summary Costs Assesssment. 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed.                                                                                 Dated.

1505grandad

Para 7  -  I think it is the wrong way round re the entities involved

Lotuslady

Yep, you’re right 1505grandad, thanks for spotting that a MAJOR error!!

Fruitcake

Personally I would include 31. Unless any communication was marked "without prejudice", I don't think you have anything to lose. Showing that they stopped communicating can only show them as being unreasonable. 

I'm about to join a zoom meeting with my former colleagues and friends so I will have a look at your WS later. 
I need a top up of abuse and banter and beer before I can continue.

Fruitcake

13.  In addition as the signatures are illegible, the Claimant has provided no proof that the signatures are ...

signatories. 

16.  CWS’s Page 10 ...

17 ...CWS ...?

Who or what are CWS?

I'll have a look at the rest in the morn.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

13.  In addition as the signatures are illegible, the Claimant has provided no proof that the signatures are ...

signatories. 

16.  CWS’s Page 10 ...

17 ...CWS ...?

Who or what are CWS?

I'll have a look at the rest in the morn.

CWS=Claimant's Witness Statement, probably.

Umkomaas

Castle said:

Fruitcake said:

13.  In addition as the signatures are illegible, the Claimant has provided no proof that the signatures are ...

signatories. 

16.  CWS’s Page 10 ...

17 ...CWS ...?

Who or what are CWS?

I'll have a look at the rest in the morn.

CWS=Claimant's Witness Statement, probably.

It used to be the Co-operative Wholesale Society!

Lotuslady

Thanks Castle, thought I had mentioned meaning of CWS but will have another look,
thanks again

KeithP

Lotuslady said:

Thanks Castle, thought I had mentioned meaning of CWS but will have another look,
thanks again

Nearly...

in para 7 you wrote:

...in the Claimant’s Witness Statement (WS)...