VCS Court Claim - Johnsons Cleaners

goingcrazy2019

I don’t seem to be able to post my witness statement. The forum won’t let me.....?

Umkomaas

goingcrazy2019 wrote: »

I don’t seem to be able to post my witness statement. The forum won’t let me.....?

Are you copying and pasting direct from Word? You need to C&P to Notepad first, then do a further C&P from that into the forum.

Or maybe your WS is too long for the message box? If so, you'll need to split it into 2 (or more) segments.

Or maybe it's both of the above?

goingcrazy2019

I’ve tried both. Neither seems to work. I’ll try splitting to 3 posts.

KeithP

goingcrazy2019 wrote: »

I don’t seem to be able to post my witness statement. The forum won’t let me.....?

Hundreds of people manage to do that every week.

Are you able to describe the problem in more detail than "the forum won't let me..."?

goingcrazy2019

It says I need to leave 60 seconds between posts (but I hadn’t posted anything in the minute before). Then is said it had blocked my IP address.

goingcrazy2019

In the County Court at XX


Claim No. XX


Between


Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)


and


XX (Defendant)

---

XX

---

Enclosed herewith are key statements in support of my defence against the imposed Parking Charge Notice dated XX

1. I, XX, 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.
2. I am not liable to the Claimant, Vehicle Control Services (VCS), for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

4. The vehicle was allegedly parked in a car park that is located on the site of XX between 21:22hrs and 21:26hrs on 24.11.18. At this time a “Notice to Driver/Parking Charge Notice (PCN)” was attached to the windscreen by an agent of the Claimant.


BREACH OF PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT (2012)

5. I received a ‘Parking Charge Notice/Notice to Keeper’ from the Claimant dated 30.11.18 stating a charge of £100 was being pursued for ‘parking in a restricted/prohibited area’. This was received 6 days after the ‘contravention’ date of 24.11.18. The timing of VCS access to my personal data is a breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA, 2012) Schedule 4 and as such, I, as the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be held liable for the parking charge notice.

6. The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), via which VCS gained my personal details, clearly states POFA (2012) legislation in their document “Release of Information from DVLA Registers” namely that “Companies that issue windscreen notices to drivers can only apply for keeper information after 28 days if the parking charge remains unpaid. Companies have a further 28 days to contact the keeper. If these timescales are not met, the keeper liability powers do not apply”. As a result of VCS accessing my personal data within 6 days of the ‘Notice to Driver’ they have rendered their pursuit of me as the Registered Keeper invalid.

7. Further, this access to my personal information is also a breach of the Independent Parking Community Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice (IPC, 2017, V.6). VCS are noted to be accredited by the IPC. VCS are in breach of a number of processes in the Code of Practice, namely Part C, Point 2.1 (g) “The Notice to Driver must…….explain that if the full amount of the charge is not paid within 28 days an application will be made to DVLA for the keeper’s details to enable the charge to be enforced”.As stated in this Witness Statement the alleged contravention date (date car was photographed) was 24.11.2018 and as evidenced in VCS Subject Access Request my personal data was accessed through the DVLA on 30.11.2018. This is further evidence that VCS have not followed due process.


BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL PARKING COMMITTEE APPEALS PROCESS


8. At the time of receiving the letter dated 30.11.19 I was unsure if this was a scam or phishing letter as I had not received such a letter before. I therefore sought advice from someone with legal experience. I was advised to appeal this parking charge to avoid aggressive and threatening correspondence, despite the stated appeal window having passed. I was directed to the IPC Code of Practice (Point 6.1 [e]) stating that the parking company should “allow for appeals to be made outside of the period which is usually allowed where you consider there to be exceptional circumstances for not lodging the appeal within the normal time allowed”.


9. I replied to the letter from VCS dated 30.11.19, on 4th January 2019 (see Exhibit JL1 Subject Access Request bundle) appealing the Parking Charge due to a lack of appropriate signage, the unclear definition of ‘XX Parking Only’ and the availability of parking permits. I also appealed the disproportionate charge as not being an appropriate estimate of loss. At the time of appeal, I was not fully aware of the POFA (2012) legislation and therefore did not direct VCS to their breach.


10. In my later dated 04.01.19 I advised that I would not respond to further letters from the Claimant unless the points raised in my letter were addressed. I received no communication back as to whether the appeal had been upheld or rejected and no information of how to appeal to an independent body. This is in breach of the IPC’s Code of Practice (Part B, 6.2) allowing individuals access to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).


11. I received a further letter dated 16.01.19 stating ‘DEMAND FOR PAYMENT’. This letter stated that it had added ‘debt collection costs’ of £60, taking the total demand for payment to £160. This additional fee added within 21 days of the appeal being lodged is in breach of the IPC’s Code of Practice (Part B, 6.2) allowing individuals access to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and allowing “a further 21 days” within which VCS “cannot add on any additional fees for non-payment”



ABUSE OF PROCESS

12. In addition to Point 11 above, debt recovery proceedings had not taken place therefore the £60 ‘debt collection costs’ have not actually been incurred by the Claimant and are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs and is an attempt at double recovery.

13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 for ‘debt recover costs’, for which no calculation or explanation is given and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts.


14. 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.


15. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport [IOW] County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firms claims. These include a BPA member Claimant (Britannia) and an IPC member Claimant (UKCPM) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. 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...''


16. The above case is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: “Upon it being recorded that Distract Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued [he] would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process”


LEGITIMATE COMMERICAL INTEREST


17. In their letter dated 16.01.19 VCS made reference to ‘ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67’ stating that “the Supreme Court held that parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest and are neither extravagant not unconscionable”. I would like to point out that according to their parking sign this parking area does not offer a free parking period, so the ParkingEye v Beavis case does not apply in this case.

18. The Claimant is stating that they had a legitimate interest to set the charge. However, the time of the alleged contravention was on a Saturday evening at 21:22hrs, as is shown from the pictures provided to me by the Claimant. There is no legitimate interest that is being protected as XX XX (the only business covered by VCS) was not operating at that time having closed at 18:00hrs, so it is unclear what legitimate interest is being protected at that time.

INABILITY TO FORM CONTRACT - NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

19. I visited the site during daytime hours to photograph the signage (Exhibit XX2). I also visited during dark hours to assess the appropriateness of the signage based on the IPC Code of Practice Part E, Schedule 1. Schedule 1 states that “if parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge”.

20. The photo taken after dark (Exhibit XX3) demonstrates the lack of appropriate illumination to make the signs visible. This means that, if VCS had followed POFA (2012) and were able to pursue me as the registered keeper of the vehicle, they would not be able to assert that a contract had been entered into by the ‘driver of the vehicle’. I also submit a video as evidence at the following link to confirm the lack of illuminate signage: XXXLINKXXX (Exhibit XX4). I reassert - no contract could legitimately be formed between the landowner/VCS and the driver or registered keep of the vehicle XX. If no contract could be formed, there is no breach of contract or parking conditions and no basis for legally pursing the sum of £185 plus interest.

21. On the photo taken by the agent of VCS at the time of the contravention (contained with the Subject Access Request, SAR) it can be seen that the camera flash has illuminated the signage. On another photo, within the SAR, a sign cannot be seen near to my vehicle due to a lack of appropriate lighting. Therefore, without access to additional lighting it would be impossible for someone to see the signs displayed. In addition, a sign placed very near to where the vehicle was photographed is placed on a council owned street lamp outside the boundary wall of XX on a public pavement (Exhibit XX5).

22. The IPC Code of Practice Point Part E, Schedule 1 also states that a sign should be displayed as a driver enters the car park to alert them to entering private land. The site does not contain a sign on entry to the car park (Exhibit XX6). As seen in Exhibit XX5 there is, in daylight hours, a sign not clearly displayed on the side of the building amongst other advertising signage. However, this is not placed clearly at the entrance. When entering this area from the XX Road you are entering from a fast roundabout, this sign does not give adequate notice to the driver that they are entering private land. At night this sign is not illuminated or under sufficient other illuminations to make the sign noticeable to drivers of vehicles.

23. Upon reading the signage as displayed in Exhibit 1, I noted that parking is allowed for “XX Customer Parking Only”. There is no indication of the parameters of this statement. I assume this would mean that being a customer of XX would qualify someone to utilise this car park. Therefore, if the signage had been visible and someone had proof of having been a customer of XX this would mean parking at any time of day would be abiding by the VCS Terms and Conditions. As a customer of XX (Exhibit XX7) I would assume this would enable me if I were the driver to park on this car park for short periods of time.

GRACE PERIODS

24. The IPC Code of Practice (2017), Part B, 15.1 state that “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs, so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”. The times stated on the photographs supplied in the Subject Access Request suggest the car was parked between the hours of 21:22 and 21:25. This amounts to 3 minutes and is not considered an appropriate amount of time as a ‘grace period’.

25. Further, the IPC code of Practice states in Part B at 15.2. that “Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired”and in 15.3 “The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that land.” VCS signage does not state that a grace period does not apply, therefore, presumable it does apply and the vehicle was parked for a period less than the grace period. Again, this confirms that a contract was not formed between the landowner/VCS and the driver of the vehicle.

IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE

26. As can be seen in Exhibit 1 the signage also states that “if a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed (with all details clearly visible) inside the front windscreen of the vehicle at all times”. I spoke to the staff at XX XX following the letter received from VCS on 16.01.19 and enquired about a permit or ticket. I was informed that no permits exist for customers.However, the wording on the signage suggests parking by permit. At the time of the alleged contravention a permit could not have been gained due to the shop being closed even if permits had been in existence. A contract in this case could not have been formed and therefore has failed by doctrine of ‘impossibility of performance’.

27. In the case PACE vs Lengyel (Claim Number C7GF6E3R) in the County Court of Manchester the claim was struck out for similar reasons in point 24 above, with District Judge Iyer stating: “It must have been obvious to the claimant that if it erected a sign stating that it was a term of the contract that the driver of any parked vehicle displays a permit, it must have known in advance that many drivers would simply be unable to do this. Therefore, insofar as there was any contract between the parties, it was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance.”

PROPRIETARY INTEREST


28. The Claimant, VCS is not the lawful occupier of the land. 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 in a written contract to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. In summary, I the Defendant believes that the Claimant has no right to enforce a Parking Charge Notice against me as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle XX. This is due to a failure to follow procedure under the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) Schedule 4.

In summary, I the Defendant believes that the Claimant has no right to enforce a Parking Charge Notice against me as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle XX. This is due to a failure to follow procedure under the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) Schedule 4.

If the Claimant had followed procedure and was entitled to pursue me for the parking charge, I have outlined above why the ‘breach of contract’ grounds to which the Claimant appears to be basing their case has no merit in a court of law. Namely, that no contract was entered into by the defendant due to a breach of a number of points in the IPC Code of Practice and points in contract law (for example ‘impossibility of performance). The IPC Code of Practice is a set of standards that VCS must comply with to be able to claim accreditation as an operator. Failure to comply with these standards renders VCS liable to be suspended from operating until they can prove issues of non-compliance have been corrected (IPC, 2017, Part E; and IPC, 2019, Schedule 4).


I believe the contents of this witness statement to be true

Date:


Signed

goingcrazy2019

Success - I fiddled around with a few things (I was on a Mac earlier so had to use something different than notepad). Thanks for your help!

1505grandad

A heads up - IPC = International Parking Community - you seem to quote several variations between paras 7 and 8

goingcrazy2019

Ooops thanks. Have spent two days solid working away at it and maybe have started to lose it a bit ��

Coupon-mad

Have you waited to see of their WS template of trash arrives first?

The NTK can't have been 'received' on the date they issued/posted it and it won't have bee posted till the following week anyway so you got it in December, so say that.

You seem to be missing the main heading, you need to be numbering your exhibits as attachments, and also I've made some suggested changes:

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am X X, of (address) and 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.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant, Vehicle Control Services (VCS), for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed, regarding an unfair parking charge and unrecoverable added sums.

3. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

4. The vehicle is shown by this Claimant, briefly stopped for 3 or 4 minutes in what was described by the Claimant as a Johnson's Cleaners Car Park. The photographs supplied in their reply to my Subject Access Request show that the car was captured between the hours of 21:22 and 21:25 in the pitch dark, and any hidden sign was unlit, except artificially by the ticketer's own torch/camera flash. In those minutes, a 'Notice to Driver/Parking Charge Notice' ('PCN') was attached to the windscreen by an agent or an unregulated self-ticketer rewarded on a 'bounty' per PCN basis, by this Claimant.


BREACHES OF THE POFA 2012 AND THE DVLA KADOE RULES

5. Some time in December, I received a postal 'Parking Charge Notice/Notice to Keeper' ('NTK') from the Claimant purportedly dated 30.11.18 but which was clearly not posted until the following week. I appealed as soon as possible, given that the NTK arrived just before the exceptionally busy Christmas period and bearing in mind VCS were closed over the holidays and had not posted it on the date it was printed. My appeal was submitted in the first week of January but was not even given consideration, and nor was I offered 'IAS' 2nd stage appeal.

6. It is clear that my name and address data was bought from the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Authority ('DVLA') prematurely by this Claimant. The timing of VCS accessing my personal data and issuing a premature NTK is a breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA, 2012) Schedule 4 [EXHIBIT X]. It neither meets the process described in paragraph 8 or paragraph 9 of the statute, and as such, as the registered keeper of the vehicle I cannot be held liable under the applicable law.

7. The DVLA's KADOE rules document 'Release of Information from DVLA Registers' [EXHIBIT X] states:
'Companies that issue windscreen notices to drivers can only apply for keeper information after 28 days if the parking charge remains unpaid. Companies have a further 28 days to contact the keeper. If these timescales are not met, the keeper liability powers do not apply'.


BREACHES OF THE IPC TRADE BODY CODE OF PRACTICE

8. VCS are in breach of the International Parking Community ('IPC') Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice (V.6, 2017-18) [EXHIBIT X] namely:

8.1. Part B,15. 'Grace Periods: 15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. 15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired. 15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that land.'

8.2. Part B,16. 'Postal Notifications: 16.1 Where notification of a parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper.'

8.3. Part C, 1.2 and 1.3: 'If you intend to be able to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle you must request Keeper details in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012...You must not imply that the registered keeper can be held responsible for the parking charge under the Protection of Freedoms Act unless the relevant time limits within the Act have been met.'

8.4. Part C, Point 2.1 (g): 'Notice to Driver (Non-ANPR cases)...The Notice to Driver must…….explain that if the full amount of the charge is not paid within 28 days an application will be made to DVLA for the keeper's details to enable the charge to be enforced'.

8.5. Part B, 6.1(e): 'You are required to have your own internal appeals procedures, where motorists are not directed straight to the IAS. As a minimum, you must: ...allow for appeals to be made outside of the period which is usually allowed where you consider there to be exceptional circumstances for not lodging the appeal within the normal time allowed'.

8.7. Part E: 'This schedule prescribes the signage characteristics you must try to adhere to. Entrance Signs should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. Text size: The size of text on a sign will be determined by a number of factors such as the position of it, to whom it is aimed and the information that it needs to convey. Text 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.'

8.8. Part E: 'Contrast and illumination: The colours used on signage should be such that the contrast between the background and the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible. Black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast...If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.'


NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST TO DISENGAGE THE PENALTY RULE

9. The Claimant is stating that they had a legitimate interest to set the charge. However, the time of the alleged contravention was on a Saturday evening at 21:22hrs, as is shown from the pictures provided to me by the Claimant. Johnson's Cleaners was not operating at that time having closed at 18:00hrs, so it is unclear what legitimate interest or deterrent value supports this predatory ticketing of a car in the hours of darkness, using hidden/unlit and wholly inadequate signs.


NO CONTRACT - SIGNAGE TERMS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE OR AGREE TO

10. I visited the site during daytime hours to photograph the signage (Exhibit XX). I also visited during dark hours to assess the appropriateness of the signage and the photo taken after dark (Exhibit XX) demonstrates the lack of appropriate illumination to make the signs visible.

11. I also submit a video as evidence at the following link to confirm the lack of illuminate signage: (Exhibit XX). I reassert - no contract could legitimately be formed between the landowner/VCS and the driver, and this is also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement for 'transparent and prominent' terms (see my Supplementary Witness Statement where a copy of Schedule 2 'the grey list of terms that may be unfair' is appended, because it is not just the added £60 term that is objectionable, in this case, it is the entirely inadequate signage itself. The Court has a duty to consider the test of fairness under that legislation (para 71) and consumer notices, such as in car parks, are never exempt even if they include a price term.

12. In the photo taken by the agent of VCS at the time of the contravention (contained with the Subject Access Request, SAR) it can be seen that the camera flash has illuminated the signage. On another photo, within the SAR, a sign cannot be seen near to my vehicle due to a lack of appropriate lighting. Therefore, without access to additional lighting it would be impossible for someone to see the signs displayed. In addition, a sign placed nearer to where the vehicle was photographed is placed on a council owned street lamp outside the boundary wall of XX on a public pavement (Exhibit XX).

13. The IPC CoP, Part E, Schedule 1 also states that a sign should be displayed as a driver enters the car park to alert them to entering private land. The site does not contain a sign on entry to the car park (Exhibit XX). As seen in Exhibit XX there is, in daylight hours, a sign not clearly displayed on the side of the building amongst other advertising signage. However, this is not placed clearly at the entrance. When entering this area from the XX Road, the car would be entering from a main roundabout. This sign does not give adequate notice to the driver that they are entering private land and at night this sign is not illuminated.

14. Whilst I have not yet seen their Witness Statement, VCS are known to use a template with cut & paste tweaks made per claim, so I believe this Claimant may try to rely on Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163. That case is fully distinguished, as it related to a car park with a barrier on entry and clear and brief terms. In this case, there is no barrier and no clear and prominent parking charge terms, so the only relevance Thornton has on this case is to support my defence, in that a driver cannot be bound by hidden terms that they had no fair opportunity to learn about at the material time of using the site.

15. Similarly, I believe the Claimant's template Witness Statement will misquote 'Vine v Waltham Forest'. The Court of Appeal in this case ruled in favour of the Defendant on the basis that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they have not seen. VCS routinely mislead courts, by mis-quoting Roch L.J. out of context where he was merely quoting from the Respondent's case. This was not the decision. Lord Justice Roch was simply reading one side of the argument, and he found in favour of the motorist. Again, the only relevance Vine has in this case is to support my defence, in that a driver cannot be bound by hidden terms that they had no fair opportunity to learn about at the material time of using the site.


ABSENCE OF ANY PERMIT SCHEME OR AUTHORITY - IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE

16. The signage (such as it is) states when viewed in daylight hours, that ''if a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed (with all details clearly visible) inside the front windscreen of the vehicle at all times''. I am a customer of the shop on occasion, and I spoke to the staff at Johnson's Cleaners following the letter from VCS on 16.01.19 and enquired about a permit or ticket. I was informed that no permits exist for customers. However, the wording on the signage suggests parking by permit. At the time of the alleged contravention a permit could not have been gained due to the shop being closed even if permits had been in existence. A contract in this case could not have been formed and was void for impossibility.

17. In the case PACE v Lengyel (Claim Number C7GF6E3R) in the County Court of Manchester the claim was struck out for similar reasons in point 24 above, with District Judge Iyer stating: ''It must have been obvious to the claimant that if it erected a sign stating that it was a term of the contract that the driver of any parked vehicle displays a permit, it must have known in advance that many drivers would simply be unable to do this. Therefore, insofar as there was any contract between the parties, it was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance.'' [EXHIBIT XX].

18. The Claimant, VCS is not the lawful occupier of the land. My defence put VCS to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner in a written contract to pursue PCNs by means of litigation. Authority for this predatory PCN is unlikely, to the extent of being absurd, since it would need to allow VCS to issue PCNs for for non-display of permits that do not exist, in hours of darkness when the shop is closed, without allowing any grace period at all to read woefully inadequate signs, and without any compliance of their signage terms with the IPC CoP, the DVLA KADOE, the CRA 2015, and the CPUTRs 2008.

19. The attached supplementary witness statement forms part of my submissions and deals separately with the fact - supported by two statute laws and the binding Supreme Court case law - that a parking charge already includes all costs of the operation and additional sums (even if they are prominently proclaimed on signs) cannot be added, as this would be counting the costs of the letters and business operations twice, constituting double recovery.

20. I state that this Claimant knew, or should have known, that the PCN and premature NTK offended against the POFA 2012 and the most basic grace period requirements, and that their signage was inadequate, the PCN unfair and predatory, and that to claim £160 for a PCN on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015.

21. I believe that relief from sanctions should be refused and my full costs will be sought, including ordinary and additional costs that the court has the discretion in the CPRs to grant on the indemnity basis. To be clear, such costs as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14 are claimed for wholly unreasonable conduct by this Claimant both in the pre- and post-action phases.


I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Date:


Signed:

I've taken out all the ABUSE OF PROCESS stuff as you need the newer version from post #14 of the abuse of Process thread, and because it is long and detailed with exhibits in its own right, I recommend that it put on a separate 'SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT - THE ADDED £60 IS UNRECOVERABLE' sheet.

Something like this one but don't repeat the Thornton & Vine wording as I've already added it above:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76516852#Comment_76516852

You cannot show a video as a link, you need a tangible format that can't be altered, e.g. USB stick:

XXXLINKXXX

You also need a costs schedule so search the forum for that too! Examples of all of the above are everywhere!