Excel Parking Services County Court Claim - Help With Defence Please

Quentin

Magpie2121 wrote: »

I am defending as the driver.

Then remove the irrelevant reference to pofa (see #20)

nosferatu1001

Beamerguy - the driver is identified so please, please dont keep parroting POFA at them, It is confusing

OP - you cannot use POFA, and I am shocked you had not realised thi s- you *cannot* simply copy and paste without understanding. This is *your claim to defend*, not ours, and *you* must understand it.

What you CAN put is that, SIMILAR to the claim above, the additional charges are *not* included in any contract, have not been incurred (as their debt collector works on no collect no fee, and manifestly the collector has not collected, and you include proof of this from DRP website) and so this *remains* a sum they are not entitled to, and as such this claim is an abuse of process and should be struck out entirely.

Magpie2121

Is there any way I can send videos to the courts and claimant as part of my WS?

Cheers

Redx

I suppose you could put them on cdr or dvd to be viewed in almost any suitable player , or possibly on a usb stick or sticks

some people may take a phone or tablet or laptop with them on the day so the judge and the other side can view them

Magpie2121

Redx wrote: »

I suppose you could put them on cdr or dvd to be viewed in almost any suitable player , or possibly on a usb stick or sticks

some people may take a phone or tablet or laptop with them on the day so the judge and the other side can view them

Thank you Redx.

And finally, before I finalise my WS, can I include a breakdown of costs that I'd like to claim for attending the hearing including figures etc should I win?

Thank you

KeithP

Magpie2121 wrote: »

And finally, before I finalise my WS, can I include a breakdown of costs that I'd like to claim for attending the hearing including figures etc should I win?

Yes, you must do this, but not as part of your WS.

Have another look at post #2 of the NEWBIES thread - this time look for costs schedule. Needs to be sent to the court and claimant about three days before the hearing.

Take a payslip or other proof of loss of earnings with you to the hearing.

Magpie2121

Thank you all for your kind support and immense help.

Here is my final WS. I will have to post this tomorrow so it reaches the recipients by 11/07/2019. Therefore, if anyone has any final thoughts or input then now is the time to share:

In the County Court at XX
Claim No. XXX
Between
Excel Parking Services (Claimant)
and
Mr XX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement – Mr XX

---

1. I am the Defendant and driver of the vehicle in this case. 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. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of evidentiary documents marked as Appendix 1 – 5.

3. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

4. On 8th of October, 2018, the Defendant was working as a contractor for a company called Engie, based at Quorum Business Park.

5. Having been issued with a parking permit to demonstrate it had permission to park at Quorum Business Park, the Defendant parked in one of the bays in car park at Quorum Business Park.

6. After work on that day, the Defendant noticed its car had been issued with a parking charge despite having permission to park in the car park.

7. The parking charge stated that the vehicle did not display a "Valid TDR Permit".
However, the parking permit issued by Engie was clearly on display and this was evidenced as photographs of the permit were also taken by the warden.

8. Despite having a valid permit displayed, the Defendant checked the various signage displayed in all areas of the car park. It became apparent that all signage in the Business Park was exactly the same as per the attached photos (See Supporting Evidence Appendix Pages 1 to 4).

9. None of the signs stipulate that a particular area is designated to Engie permit holders or any other client, including TDR. Nor were there any other signs whatsoever in any other area(s) of the car park.

10. Therefore, it is has to be assumed that any bay within the Quorum Business Park car park can be used. This assumption is backed up by the fact the permit does not indicate a specific bay. In fact, none of the permits issued to Engie staff indicate a bay.

11. In addition and as per the photos, the font on the signage is of varying sizes, with the terms and conditions in one of the smallest fonts and not able to be read unless standing directly in front of a sign as evidenced by the Claimant. Even when stood directly in front of the sign from just a couple of yards, it is almost impossible to read in its entirety as the signs are erected at a height of around 10 feet(See appendix page 5). Therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest a motorist should be able to read and agree to the terms and conditions set out on the signage from a moving vehicle or from the space in which the vehicle was parked and as I did not come into close proximity to the warning signs to read them in their entirety, I cannot be bound by their terms

12. Regardless of any signage, there is nothing anywhere within the car park to determine which area or parking bay(s) is designated to whom.

13. It’s impossible to determine which area permits Engie staff and which permits any other client.

14. Paragraph 48 of the Claimants’ Witness Statement suggests that Engie were not authorised to permit its staff to park their vehicles in what they claim to be a TDR permit space, even though no sign states that any particular area of the car park belongs to TDR.

15. In this case, the Defendant should not be held responsible for any loss to the Claimant as the permit was issued by Engie themselves.

16. Nevertheless, the car park does not incur a cost to anyone that utilises it. Therefore the Claimant cannot claim to have made a loss.

17. 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.
18. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. 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.

19. 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. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

20. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms such as Excel Parking Services Ltd 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, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

21. 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.

22. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. I wish to point out a very recent case as below which was struck out due to an abuse of process:

Claim number: F0DP201T D
District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case that included an inflated amount:
It was ordered the claim be struck out as an abuse of process
The claim contained a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. The additional charge was deemed 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 was made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998 "

In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability for any sum at all.
The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

It is my position that no contract was entered into with Excel Parking Services Ltd, no breach of contract occurred, there has been no loss to Excel Parking Services Ltd and that the Claimant has no standing or cause of action to litigate in this matter.

The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Magpie2121

Hi guys, I require urgent help / advice please.

My hearing is in 3 days (30/08/2019) and I'm currently working in Poland.

I sent an email to the courts on 15th of August informing them that I'm working in Poland and will not be back until 31/08/2019.

I've been chasing them for a reply ever since and only today they've told me the following:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1- The E Mail dated 15th august 2019 does not comply with Civil procedure Rule 39.8 (i) and pursuant to CPR 39.8 (5) the Court returns the communication and has not considered the same.

a) Will my defence still be heard if I'm not present?

b) Will the claimant likely win if I do not attend?

c) Am I able to send someone else in on my behalf?

d) Can I request a video hearing?

This is very urgent as I only have 3 days now. Any advice will be much appreciated. Thank you