3D Parking / BW Legal County court claim

Le_Kirk

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out

Better as: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
The defendant quotes the words of the District Judges ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out

This makes sure that you are quoting from a case rather than issuing an instruction/order to the court.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

bib_bob_euroslap

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th July, you had until Wednesday 24th July - that was yesterday - to do the Acknowledgement of Service. Did you do the AoS by then? Please Confirm.

Having done the AoS in a timely manner, as you say, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 7th August 2019 to file your Defence.
T]

Thanks. Yes, application of service was done on time.

bib_bob_euroslap

Sorry to bump this again but my defence is due for submission by tomorrow, 7th August, and would appreciate any feedback on it.
Thanks.

Le_Kirk

Apart from making sure you QUOTE from previous case about Abuse of Process, as I mentioned in post # 12, it seems to cover all the usual defence points.

bib_bob_euroslap

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Apart from making sure you QUOTE from previous case about Abuse of Process, as I mentioned in post # 12, it seems to cover all the usual defence points.

Thank you, yes I have updated as per your previous suggestion

bib_bob_euroslap

Defence sent by the deadline and all went quiet until last week when I received a very brief letter from BW saying they intend to continue with the claim. Not sure if that’s a good sign or not?

DQ questionnaire received from County Court Business centre a few days ago.
Re which county court I want the hearing to take place; Are some courts considered more used to and therefore better for these cases than others? I read from some posts on here about claims being struck out at Southampton court, which won’t be my closest but I could travel to quite easily. Would it give me an advantage if I requested this court over another?

Le_Kirk

It's not just the court, you might be into Judge lottery as well. Isn't it a shame that we have to dodge around the courts in England just to find justice - shouldn't it be the same in every court.

Coupon-mad

You can't just forum shop for a 'good court'. You have to have reason to choose your court locality based on where you live (or work).

bib_bob_euroslap

So I have now received my court hearing date, 24th January. Witness statement needs to be filed by 23rd December, which I have started drafting and would appreciate any feedback on it...


In the County Court at XXXXX

Claim No. XXXXX

Between

3D PARKING LIMITED (Claimant)

and

MR XXXXXX (Defendant)


WITNESS STATEMENT



I, XXXXX, of XXXXXXXX, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter.

The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked ‘XXX1’. All references to documents in this statement are to Exhibit XXX1 unless otherwise stated.

Before I describe what happened on the day I parked in Hollybush Lane, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:

The Claimant has not adequately set out the legal basis of its Claim.
The Claimant's signage did not make it clear there are terms applicable to parking at the site and is in breach of the International Parking Community Code of Practice.
The basis of the claimants Claim is a breach of contractual terms. However it is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct and as it is trite law that any uncertainty in a contract should be resolved against the person who offered it under the contra proferentem rule.
The claim includes a £60 charge in addition to the £100 contractual charge alleged to have been agreed to, which represents an abuse of process and a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

On 31st July 2018 I parked my vehicle, registration no XXXXX, at the side of the road on Hollybush Lane to catch a train from nearby North Camp station. I have parked here on a few occasions previously on the basis that there were no restrictions to parking, as confirmed by the Google Streetview picture on page X of XXX1. This also shows the so called ‘car park’ is merely just a road.

On the date in question I was unaware that pay and display restrictions were now in place and I therefore did not purchase a pay and display ticket.

As I was entering Hollybush Lane I did not see any signs saying I was now entering a car park and as I was parking and leaving my vehicle I did not see any signs alerting me to the change of parking rules from unrestricted to pay and display, nor any signs telling me I had to pay to park here. Thus, I did not enter into any contractual agreement. Had I seen any such signs I would have duly bought a pay and display ticket.

Having revisited the site, after receiving the parking charge notice from the Claimant, I have seen that there is indeed signage present, however there are multiple flaws with this. The signs are so poorly displayed and positioned and the text displaying the terms is so small that the driver of a passing vehicle cannot easily read them. Additionally the terms stated on said signs are unclear:

The only sign showing drivers are entering the ‘car park’ is positioned above the driver’s eye level, so when turning in to Hollybush Lane the sign is in a blind spot of the driver. This is shown in the photographs exhibited at pages XX and the video X filed with the court.

The signage displaying the parking terms is positioned side on to the direction of travel as shown in the photograph at page X. The signs are on the opposite side of the road to where my vehicle was parked and behind a wooden fence on some scrub land, as shown in the photograph at page x. The signage states ‘By entering or remaining on this land…’ This implies one must travel past the front face of the sign in order to enter the land, which does not happen due to their side on position. There is also no definition of the area of land to which it relates. Anyone reading the sign could well assume it only applies to the land on which it is placed, which is separated from the road by the wooden fence. It is therefore not obvious to drivers parking on the road that the signs relate to parking along it.

There were no signs to alert drivers to the change of parking rules from unrestricted to pay and display

These facts are in breach of the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (Exibit xx),
Paras 8.1 and 8.2 state that:
‘The Operator must have clear signage located on the Private Land to confirm the Terms and Conditions in place.’
‘Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in Schedule 1.’


Schedule 1, pages xx-xx states that:
‘Entrance Signs should: a) make it clear that the Motorist is entering onto private land’
‘[Entrance] Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a Car Park. Otherwise the signage within the Car Park must be such as to be obvious to the Motorist.’
‘[Signs Displaying Terms and Conditions] The Operator must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the Creditor and the Motorist. ‘
‘Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges.’

On 16th August 2018, 16 days after the 31st July, the Claimant sent the parking charge notice by post.

The Claimant is part of an accredited trade association, the International Parking Community (‘the IPC’), which has its own Code of Practice. It was noted by the Supreme Court in Parking Eye vs. Beavis 2015 (Exhibit xx) that:

‘Since 2007, the policy of the Secretary of State has been to disclose the information for parking enforcement purposes only to members of an accredited trade organisation. The criteria for accreditation were stated in Parliament to include the existence of ‘a clear and enforced code of conduct (for example relating to conduct, parking charge signage, charge levels, appeals, procedure, approval of ticket working and appropriate pursuit of penalties’’ (Para 96, Parking Eye vs. Beavis 2015, Exhibit xx)

‘A competent lawyer representing a user in individual negotiation might be expected, among other things, to argue that the supplier should at least commit to following the code of practice’ (Para 311, Parking Eye vs. Beavis 2015, Exhibit xx)

On [DATE] I appealed the Claimant’s charge stating the above facts x and x and referred to the IPC code of practice (which is exhibited at pages XX of XXX1) regarding signage. However, the Claimant has rejected my appeals and numerous letters disputing the charge, each time failing to address the points that I raised and have instead replied with generic template letters and now electing to pursue this matter via litigation. I exhibit these letters at pages XX to XX.

On [DATE] I further appealed through the IPC’s Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and this was also rejected, as referred in the Claimant’s witness statement (paras xx-xx), however I later learnt the IAS do not appear to be a truly independent service as the IPC itself is a self-serving body funded by parking companies. It is therefore unlikely that the process would have been fair or robust.

I have conducted further research into the Claimant and their associates (Trace Debt Recovery and BW Legal) which has revealed that they are pursuing claims like these on an industrial scale using intimidation tactics and threatening court action to force people in to paying charges for which they are not necessarily lawfully liable. They have abused the courts, and threats of using the courts, as a cheap form of 'debt' collection and acquiring default CCJ's, in the knowledge and hope that many people would not have the determination to fight through the many threats.

The Claimant’s threats gave the impression that if I did not pay immediately then a CCJ was inevitable and that it would destroy my ability to borrow money and destroy my career prospects. There were many times I felt like giving in to the Claimant’s demands despite strongly believing I do not owe the money demanded.

The Claimant has added a further £60 to the original £100 charge applied under the banner of a ‘debt recovery charge’(Claimant Witness Statement, para xx), which represents an abuse of process and an attempt at double recovery. In the recent claim F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor struck out the claim as 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 is a tactic that has been used by multiple private parking charge companies, including the Claimant, and has most recently been demonstrated to not only be an abuse of process, but also to be in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This is detailed further in the Supplementary Witness Statement at pages xx.

The fact that the Claimant has inflated its Claim in the face of court action further increases the suggestion that it is reliant on individuals not defending themselves and abusing the courts in order to obtain default CCJs.

It is my position that the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. The issue the court is being asked to deal with is trivial and the court's valuable time should not have been taken up with this matter.

I have repeatedly drawn these matters to the Claimant's attention, but it has refused to see reason.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of 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:


Name:
Date: