clam form - defence- help needed - ACE security services - Gladstone's

Coupon-mad

kanjar13 wrote: »

so basically safe to ignore mediation suggestion and start preparing WS etc?

Yes indeed.

Lilysil

Hi Keith

I submitted AOS but realised I have forgot to submit my defence by a day. I have had a lot going on in my personal life and I totally forgot to do this. Please can you help me with a solution, am I totally screwed now

Lily

Coupon-mad

How is this different from the other two cases here the same?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008958/received-claim-form-late-after-it-was-sent-to-a-previous-address-pcn-concerns-parking-at-a-friends

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6015545/filed-aos-but-forgot-to-file-defence


Are you reading other threads and learning from them? I worry you are not.

Tell us when you've filed that defence today. this is not something to ask us what to do, think about it...you DO NOT have time to ask us to check it either.

kanjar13

HI Guys looks like Lilysil has posed on my thread.

kanjar13

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT xxxx & xxxx
CLAIM No. Xxxxx

Between:

xxx xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx

- and -

MR xxx xxx OF xxxxx xxx (Defendant)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT – Mxxx xxx xxx

__________________________________________________ __________________________________

1. Preliminary

1.1 I, xxx xxx, of xx xxx ROAD, xxx, xxx xxx am the Registered Keeper in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

1.2 Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked 1, 2 etc., to which I will refer.

1.3 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.

1.4 The claim refers to an incident involving vehicle on xxx xxx oat the location of xxx xx xxx xxx.

1.5 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 already submitted.

2. Sequence of Events

2.1 On xxx of xxx xx xx my vehicle xxx xxxx was parked in a marked visitor bay allocated to guest visiting xxxxx xxxx

2.2 The vehicle was in no way contravening any Highway Regulations, and was de facto “authorised” as a visitor and permitted to park at xxx xxx.

2.3 The driver had collected a valid permit from the concierge office (See Exhibit 1 Permit) for the xx xxxx xxx. Which they believed would cover the time and would need a new permit from 8am the next day as it does not state otherwise.

2.4 Nowhere within the concierge office does it state any timings or signage regarding to the parking in xxx xxx. (exhbit 7 Picture of concierge office)

2.5 Over 1 month after this occurred, I received correspondence “Notice to Keeper” from ACE SECURITY SERVICES (letter dated xxx xxxx Exhibit JR2 NTK) demanding “Payment for Charge Notice” is overdue for “Invalid Permit”. This was the first communication I had received on the matter and the letter was very vague.

2.6 I sent a reply letter (Exhibit 3 Add first letter) and obtain proof of postage (Exhibit 4 Proof of postage) on the xxx xxx xxx to the Claimant ACE SECURITY SERVICES (Exhibit JR3) stating that I was the registered keeper and suggest that they cancel this notice as no evidence was included.

2.7 The Claimant ACE SECURITY SERVICES on the xx xxx. Xxx responded with (Exhibit 5) Stating the driver called on the day of the Charge Notice and I had lost the right to appeal. I as the registered keeper was not aware of any Charge Notice and was offered any discount.

2.8 On the xxx xxxx I received a “LETTER BEFORE CLAIM” from the Claimants solicitors, Gladstone.

2.6 The distinctly threatening and aggressive correspondence continued as the Claimant has pursued an entirely unreasonable and vexatious process designed to deny any reasonable opportunity for explanation or appeal process, which has led to the Court action now. I respectfully suggest that parking companies using the Small Claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demand against motorists is not something the Court should be seen to support.

kanjar13

3. Inadequate Signage

3.1 On entering xxx xxx, The driver did not see any clear or lit signage from my vehicle clearly indicating the parking restrictions Exhbit 6 (Need Picture entering xxxx xxx at 12am) When the driver stopped and parked my vehicle, there were no signs adjacent to the space, that could possibly be read from my vehicle. I believe that in the case of “Vine vs London Borough of Waltham Forest” the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they have not seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no signage directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been read from within the vehicle when parking, as in the case here. See Exhibit 7 (Need Picture from inside car looking at the sign).

3.2 Upon later investigation, the signage in place at xxx xxx it is difficult to read. A key factor in the case of “ParkingEye vs Beavis” was that the relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. Exhibit 8 Need picture of the sign from street level evidence

3.3 The sign does not conform to the IPC's Code of Practice:
a. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 4), which states the signs should be “clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”; The sign located near the site entrance is unlit and therefore impossible to see at night by a driver in a passing vehicle.
b. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 5), which states the signage ought to “have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be”; Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017) showed that the Claimant's signs (including the one shown by the Claimant in this case) fail to enter into contract with the driver as implied by the Claimant.

3.4 Nowhere on the sign does it inform the reader that by parking in xxx xxx, he/she is entering into a contract with the Claimant. The words “contract’ or “agreement’ do not appear at all within the sign. The phrase “Terms and Conditions” are not synonymous with a contract. Furthermore, the opening words of the sign appear to be designed more to ward off trespassers than to enter into a contract with the driver. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

3.5 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage ‘should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’ This, coupled with the fact that the sign is mounted at least 7ft off the ground, makes it very hard to read and impossible to read from a vehicle.

3.6 The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. The fact that there is no signage at the road entrance area to Boardwalk Place, I would question that the Claimant is deliberately obscuring this fact to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices solely for financial gain.

4. The Claimant Contract

4.1 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

4.2. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: It is unclear whether the Claimant holds a legitimate contract at this private road. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

4.3 The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

5 Declaration

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.

Statement of Truth

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


Signature

Date

kanjar13

Hi guys please see my draft witness statement above. Sorry had to post in 2 parts.

kanjar13

Hi guys,

Any help with this would be great.

Thank you in advance

kanjar13

Morning all,

Has anyone had a chance to review my WS?

kanjar13

Sorry to be a pain but my post has been left unanswered for a few days now and I’m wondering whether there is a reason for it. If there is I’d be grateful if someone could let me know why that is. Thanks