County Court Case - Help Needed

Redneck61

It is by no means complete, I will fully finish it up tonight but wanting some feedback please.


Also thanks to Christie2692 who I found to have a very similar case to mine. VCS literally used the exact same points in their witness statement with that case and mine too (they definitely do copy and paste!)

Redneck61

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT (Sheffield County Court)
Claim No.: [INSERT claim number]

Between

Vehicle Control Services LTD(Claimant)

-and-


[YOUR NAME] (Defendant)


_____________________

WITNESS STATEMENT
_____________________


I, ************** am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.


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

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. I was not the driver.

4. A note was affixed on the vehicle with a bold message bearing ‘This is NOT a parking charge notice’. Subsequently after 7 days from the convention a notice to keeper letter was sent to the registered keeper: myself, claiming liability for the charge notice that was affixed on the vehicle.

5. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a Charge Notice was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

6. The claimant says they rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in para 31 of their witness statement to hold me as the keeper liable for this charge.


7. I would like to draw attention to Ex2, Henry Greenslade's words as Lead Adjudicator in the POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability', which make it clear that a keeper is not required to name the driver and that in the absence of evidence of that party, the only way for a parking firm to hold a keeper liable is by full compliance with the POFA.

8. No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. The owner of VCS and its sister parking company, Excel, is already well aware from a persuasive June 2017 case at Manchester (Excel v Smith, Claim No. C0DP9C4E/M17X062, heard on appeal after the county court Judge fell into error regarding the question of keeper liability, that the Senior Circuit Judge held when upholding the appeal, that their incorrect citation of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd was 'improper'.


9. In Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 8230; The Judge was critical of the claimants attempts to hold the keeper liable without being able to rely on POFA. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated ‘I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

10. Ultimately POFA 2012 states that if a charge notice was given, the NTK should be given on days 29-57 after the convention. I’d like to reiterate and emphasise how the claimant didn’t bother following POFA 2012 guidelines yet they rely upon this same act to hold me as the keeper liable for this charge. As said above it is also debated whether a charge notice was handed to the driver since the note clearly stated ‘this is NOT a parking charge notice’.

11. I would also like to highlight Abuse of Process as the claimant has inflated costs considerably which seems to be an attempt of double recovery. The cases that highlights this is claim number: F0DP201T – District Judge Taylor ; where the respected judge said:

"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 protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover,

This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998 "


Another case which highlights this abuse of process is Claim No: F0DP163T – District Judge Grand.


12. The Claimant sites Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking 1971 2QB163 in para 28. I do not see this case as being relevant as it relates to a car park with a barrier. The sign which forms part of the contract is visible at the point of entry whilst the car is stationary whilst waiting for the barrier to open. The car park in question has no such barrier, rather there are just two large signs upon either sign of the entrance printed ‘Chinese Fireworks Co LTD’.

13. The Claimant refers to ‘Vine v Waltham Forest’ in para 30. The Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no sign directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle whilst parking. I would say this is relevant to the current case as the terms and conditions displayed by the Claimant could have only been seen in daylight or good street lighting at least; the claimant does show pictures of the car park in their exhibits with source of light being the photographers camera flash and an adjacent petrol station forecourt. However with it being dark and the signs being very small it seems impossible to have seen them or even the writing printed on them without means of a flash light or street lighting.


14. In para #34 The Claimant refers to ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’. The Claimant's reliance upon the Beavis case is unfounded because the Supreme Court confirmed what was required 'in every case' is to establish firstly that a clear contract existed and was agreed (prominent signage) and that there was a legitimate interest in charging more than damages. Neither applies here; the signage evidence here is ridiculous; the photographer clearly has used means of flashlight / camera flash to illuminate the signage that was supposedly present at the time of the contravention – unlike the ‘brief, clear' signs all around the car park in the Beavis case.

15. I ask the judge to take a look at the pictures provided by the claimant in their exhibits. Even during daylight as seen in the pictures, signage is absolutely tiny and hard to notice. Now with this in mind, during non-daylight hours with no means of car park lighting these same signs would have to be found with intent to find them. These same signs have now been updated upon a recent visit of mine to the same car park, they are now at least four times bigger rather than the small size at the time hence I am not able to provide evidence of them during night hours.


16. 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.

edwardo27

Redneck61 wrote: »

Just received witness statement documents through post today from claimant, seems like they’ve attacked every point of my defence and appointed a paralegal who just started working July 2019 lol :-). Guessing he/she are a special just for me

How have you seen their WS already before submitting yours? I have recieved a "notice of allocation to the small claims track (hearing) letter" and it asks both parties to add their WS by 22/08/2019. Theirs isn't included.

Redneck61

Hey guys just thought I’d let you know. I just had my court hearing today and BOOM - VCS got smashed lol.

I know I was pretty late in terms of getting help for the witness statement but I managed to a construct a decent one by the help of other posts and got it all sorted out!

The judge didn’t bother about my points about the hybrid notice etc I won due to my point about lighting being insufficient.

The judge asked the claimant representative directly what do you have to say about the lighting in the car park and she replied there was enough ambient lighting from outside from other sources.

It was hilarious, VCS’s representative seemed like a nervous newbie who insisted we have a chat maybe to come to an agreement before the hearing (LOL). I said not at all I would like to proceed as normal and let the judge decide. She said okay we won’t budge from our amount requested then of around £250+ (so inflated).

Long story short the judge of course had a look at the case and told me it is in my favour. I then whipped out my paper to claim costs .... I was claiming a number around £130. The judge said I believe the claimant did follow time guidelines etc etc so I can award you costs incurred today.

So I won around £7 (lol) and had to pay nothing. Good days!

Le_Kirk

Well done, a win is a win - even £7.