Two separate claim forms for two separate PCNs Excel

jerry2354

I have received a Notice of allocation to the small claims track but I can't figure out whether they have consolidated my two claims into one or not. Only one Notice of allocation letter was received with only one of the two claim numbers at the top but the letter its self said both claim numbers will be heard at the same date. The fee is only mentioned as £25 which leads me to believe that they have been consolidated, yet there was no explicit mention of this and both claims will still be heard? Should I further chase this up with the court? I've uploaded the redacted image of the letter here:

https /imgur.com/cUZ7aN0


Also, I complained to the ICO and they sent a letter to the chief exec of excel in may but have had no reply as of now.

The_Deep

Why not ask the court?

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.

jerry2354

Two claims? That's an abuse of process. If so, add a defence point fairly high up, stating this (thanks to bargepole for this wording):

“
The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims, numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, against the Defendant at or around the same date, and with substantially identical particulars. It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the Defendant potentially liable for two instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.
”You can also add:

“
The Defendant raised the issue of the two PCNs in a Subject Access request in the pre-action stage and pointed out that the events were duplicates as regards the facts, and that the PCNs must be dealt in the same claim. The Claimant has ignored this and issued two separate claims wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.
”You will be unlikely to have that noticed by a Judge this early, but then repeat it in a covering letter/email at each stage after that (see bargepole's summary of what happens when, in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread).

Do not miss a trick to ask for this AGAIN and AGAIN, if you have two claims, until finally your local Judge will likely issue an Order consolidating them.

I chased this up with the court and they said that the claims have not been consolidated into one as they are for two separate parking fines on two days, however they will be heard at the same time and will be subject to one £25 trial fee since the particulars are so similar in order not to waste time and resources. Is this what I wanted to happen? The above quote sounds like they should both be turned into a single claim but I don't see how when they are two tickets on two days? Thank you

jerry2354

Hi, I am yet to receive a witness statement from Excel with the deadline for mine soon approaching so I have gone ahead and written mine. I will struggle to access the forum or edit my statement this week so I'm sorry if I don't manage to reply straight away, but will do so as soon as I can. I would really appreciate any comments on it so thank you!


IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXX
CLAIM No: XXXX
BETWEEN
EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I, XXXX of XXXX, am the defendant in this case. I will say as follows:

2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief

3. 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.

4. I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court before.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. It is admitted that I was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. However, as I am not the only driver of this vehicle (Insurance Documents n.d.) I cannot be presumed to be the driver in the absence of any evidence. The claimant has produced no evidence I was the driver.

7. I have no liability, as I am the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. (POFA 2012 n.d.) in order to hold me responsible for the drivers alleged breach.

8. POFA 2012 (POFA 2012 n.d.) was enacted to provide private parking companys (PPCs) a legal process for them to follow which would allow them to transfer liability for parking contraventions on private land from the driver to the keeper, if the driver was not known, and the keeper did not provide the driver details when invited to do so by the PPC.

9. The claimant, through their own deliberate action chooses not to comply with POFA 2012. They cannot dispense with the statute then still ask the court to allow them to invoke keeper liability as if they had complied with it. If the court allowed this to happen then it would mean there was no need to enact POFA 2012 in the first place.

10. To comply with POFA Schedule 4, the following mandatory conditions have to be met in the Notice To Keeper (NTK):

POFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(f) states:

‘(2) The notice must— (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’

a. The first underlined part of Paragraph 9(2)(f) is incorrectly written in the NTK received (NTK n.d.) as:

‘if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice’

Where the ‘Issue Date’ is defined in the NTK received (NTK n.d.) as the date ‘posted’.

POFA Schedule 4. deliberately differentiates between postage date and date ‘given’ in Paragraph 9(2)(i):

‘(2) The notice must— (i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).’

And then defines what ‘given’ means in Paragraph 9(4)(b) and Paragraph 9(6):

‘(4) The notice must be given by— (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’

‘(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.’

The claimant’s NTK differs in its fundamental meaning to Paragraph 9(2)(f) and therefore the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of POFA.

b. Furthermore, second underlined part of Paragraph 9(2)(f) is incorrectly written in the NTK received (NTK n.d.) as:

‘if , after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and current address for service of the driver, we may pursue you (the Keeper) on the assumption you were the driver, for any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge.’

The above is contrary to POFA Schedule Paragraph 9 by simply assuming the keeper was the driver after a period of time i.e. in the rest of this case. Paragraph 9(2)(f) does not state that the keeper can be assumed to be the driver. Once again, the Claimant did not issue a NTK in accordance to POFA Schedule 4. This is a non-POFA Notice to Keeper and so the keeper cannot be held liable.

Further evidence to support the Claimant cannot assume the keeper being driver:

i. Excel v Mr B. C0DP33Q9 19 December 2016. Stockport in front of District Judge Dignan. As the driver could not be identified, there could not be a contract between the private parking company and any individual (Excel v Mr B. C0DP33Q9 n.d.).

ii. Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton. 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.’ (Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton n.d.).

iii. CS048 VCS v Quayle C1DP0H0J. Keeper not liable for driver’s actions if POFA not complied with (CS048 VCS v Quayle C1DP0H0J n.d.).

iv. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and Barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, ‘There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver (2015).’ (POPLA Annual Report 2015 n.d.).

c. POFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(c) states:

‘(2) The notice must— (c) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;’

Instead, the NTK received (NTK n.d.) states the contravention reason as:

‘Parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site

The Maximum period allowed at this site is minutes’

The maximum period allowed has been described as ‘minutes’ and according to the NTK, the vehicle was allegedly parked for ‘X minutes’. This would imply that the maximum period had not been breached as the time was indeed minutes. This does not explicitly describe, ‘the circumstances in which the requirement to pay [the parking charges] arose’ as required by POFA 2012.

If instead this was a typographical error, then the ‘other facts that made [the parking charges] payable’ and ‘the circumstances in which the requirement to pay [the parking charges] arose’ were not clearly described.

In either situation, the NTK does not meet the strict standards of POFA 2012 and so keeper liability cannot be claimed. Paragraph 9(2)(f) makes it clear that the creditor will only have the right to recover costs if all the applicable conditions under the Schedule are met, no matter how trivial.

11. For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not. For the purposes of defending this claim as the Registered Keeper, I visited the car park at a later date to view any signage which would have been visible to any driver at the time. From this, it is denied that the signs are capable of creating a legally binding contract and differ to the signs in the ParkingEye v Beavis case (ParkingEye v Beavis n.d.) (Photo of Bevis sign n.d.) for the following reasons:

a. The wording and the parking charge in the signs is cramped and the text is of small font, making it illegible from a moving vehicle (Sign with cramped text and small font n.d.). The font colour chosen by the Claimant is extremely bright (yellow on blue) and hard to read. All capitals are also used which further hinders reading from a passing vehicle. This is in contravention of Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which Excel Parking Services Ltd is a member). It states that (Code of Practice of the IPC n.d.):

‘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.’

Further, this claimant is known for incoherent and sparse signage, incapable of forming a contract. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v M R Cutts (Excel v Cutts at Stockport County Court in 2011, claim 1SE02795 (Excel v Cutts n.d.), DDJ Lateef dismissed the claim by Excel and ordered the company to pay Mr Cutts' £53.50 costs. The Judge personally visited the site to view the signs in situ and found that the key issue was that Excel had not taken reasonable steps to draw to Mr Cutts’ attention to the terms and conditions of using the car park. I will include in my evidence, Mr Cutts' own published article '‘Phoney fines and dodgy signs take drivers for a ride'' which is specifically about Excel's signs (Phoney fines and dodgy signs take drivers for a ride n.d.).

It is expected that this Claimant may try to counter that article about their signs but it is worth noting that the Judge agreed with Mr Cutts, who is something of an expert on clear terms as he manages the Plain Language Commission and is the author of Lucid Law, the Plain English Lexicon and the Oxford Guide to Plain English.

It is also worth noting that Simon Renshaw-Smith who runs Excel Parking Services, is in the public domain as having attacked the Judge’s integrity in the Cutts case. The Plain Language Commission's article states that Mr Renshaw-Smith wrote to Stockport MP Andrew Gwynne: ‘The recent decision by Deputy District Judge Lateef, is an embarrassment to the judicial system. Such an off the wall judgment leads one to question if there was indeed an ulterior motive. DJ Lateef is not fit to serve the Civil Courts'.

By contrast, in the Beavis case, the judgement stated, ‘The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it’.

b. The time of the alleged offence (XX:XX), was X minutes after sunset (XX:XX) (Time of sunset on XX/XX in XXXX n.d.) meaning it would have been dark enough for car lighting to be a legal requirement (Highway code rule 113 n.d.). Upon inspection, none of the signs in the entire car park were illuminated (Map of lighting n.d.) (Photos at night of all signs n.d.). This would have made signage difficult to see, contravening Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which Excel Parking Services Ltd is a member), which states that (Code of Practice of the IPC n.d.):

‘You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.’

This is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bevis case in which the judgement stated that, ‘the terms […] could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85’. The poor night-time visibility of the signs is not in keeping with ‘prominent proclamation’.

c. One of the entrance signs was ‘hidden’ flat against a wall on the inside of the left L-bend at the entrance to the car park, meaning it would not have been visible to any drivers, particularly those of right hand drive cars such as the one involved with the alleged incident. The driver would have been more distracted by the large ‘Car Park’ sign on the right side of the bend, which will be argued is not capable of creating a legally binding contract (Video of entering n.d.) (Hidden sign n.d.) (Map of signs n.d.) (Welcome to car park sign n.d.).

‘Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist.’

Once inside the car park, signage is sparse (Map of signs n.d.) (Photos of car park from the middle n.d.) and would depend on the chance of a driver parking at extreme ends of the car park in order to see any detailed signs or pay and display machines. This is in contravention of Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which Excel Parking Services Ltd is a member). It states that (Code of Practice of the IPC n.d.):

‘You are required to provide a sufficient number of signs on each site commensurate with its size and other characteristics to ensure that any parking conditions are adequately brought to the attention of the motorist.’

Again, this is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bevis case. The lack of visibility of the signs is not in keeping with ‘prominent proclamation’.

d. The only repeater sign in the central portion of the car park is so high up that it would not be possible to read the terms and conditions it contains from a vehicle and would likely be missed (Repeater sign in middle n.d.).

The terms on the main entrance sign are also too high up to be visible from a vehicle. Additionally, the terms contained are faded in a pale blue on white font, dwarfed by the size of the welcome text, which has no mention of any contractual obligation being entered into by the driver. This is in contravention of Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which Excel Parking Services Ltd is a member). It states that (Code of Practice of the IPC n.d.):

‘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.’

Again, this is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bevis case. The lack of visibility of the signs is not in keeping with ‘prominent proclamation’.

e. In relation to the entrance signs, none fully comply with Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which Excel Parking Services Ltd is a member). It states that (Code of Practice of the IPC n.d.):

‘Entrance Signs should:
a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).’

Both of the signs (Photos of two entrance signs n.d.) which are not ‘hidden’ fail to make any reference to private land, fail to refer motorists to the full terms and conditions and fail to sufficiently identify Excel Parking Services Ltd as described above.

Even the ‘hidden’ sign (Sign hidden round corner n.d.) fails to include the company number and jurisdiction, fails to refer motorists to other signs within the car park and fails to mention that ‘the motorist is entering onto private land’.

12. Given the confusing signage, and the fact that the car park is located within X meters of X pay and display car parks which are free for X minutes, I believe that any driver could be easily confused into believing that this pay and display car park follows the same terms as the other X (Map of local area n.d.) (Parking charge signs in neighbouring car parks n.d.).

13. The visible entrance signage and that of the only sign passed in the central portion of the car park also fail to comply with POFA 2012 Schedule 4. Paragraph 2(3)(b). This states that signage must:

‘(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.’

Instead, as well as not being ‘adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers’ (as explained previously), the repeater signs (Repeater sign in middle n.d.) (Repeater sign at entrance n.d.) at the entrance and in the middle of the car park both simply state:

‘This is a 24hr Pay and Display car park. Failure to comply will result in a parking charge notice being issued through the postal service and a charge of £100.00 being enforced’

It is not clear from these signs what the ‘relevant obligation’ of the driver is, as it is never defined what must be complied with. The driver is never instructed to purchase a ticket etc. and the signs fail to refer to any other signs for details of what must be complied with.

These signs also fail to explicitly specify £100.00 as being the ‘charge for unauthorised parking’, instead referring to a ‘parking charge notice’. As the signs do not meet the strict wording of POFA 2012, keeper liability cannot be claimed.

With regards to the large entrance sign (Welcome to car park sign n.d.), as well the terms not being ‘adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers’ (as explained previously), they also only state:

‘This is a 24 hr pay & display car park. Find space first, purchase valid ticket & display inside front windscreen with time & date clearly visible’

This fails to ‘specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking’ and so cannot be used to enforce a contract or comply with POFA 2012. The sign does not refer to any other signs for further conditions.

The ‘hidden’ entrance sign is inherently not ‘adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers’. Even ignoring this fact, the sign uses the same non-POFA wording to describe the parking charge as the repeater signs. The only difference is that it then describes the terms and conditions below. The terms on this, the only remaining entrance sign, are confusing and fail to specify the relevant obligation of a non-disabled car driver, only specifying that tariffs apply to disabled badge holders and motorbikes (Hidden sign n.d.). It is also not clear which of the ‘bellow’ text are terms and which are irrelevant to the contract, a point made in Mr Cutts’ article (Phoney fines and dodgy signs take drivers for a ride n.d.)

It is argued that all remaining signage in the car park is not visible to drivers and so not ‘adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers’ and not POFA 2012 compliant.

As a result of these further POFA 2012 violations, keeper liability cannot be claimed.

14. On XX/XX/XX and XX/XX/XX, I wrote to Excel Parking Services Ltd with regard to a Subject Access Request. While some data was supplied, the request for a copy of the pay and display machine logs with partially redacted registration details on the date in question was rejected. This has been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office as the logs could contain the Defendant’s vehicle registration number, even if entered incorrectly. The defendant is yet to see any evidence of ‘parking without payment’ as specified in the NTK. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question.

15. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Debt Collection Costs of £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant since no debt has been collected. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

16. Furthermore, POFA 2012, Schedule 4, at Paragraph 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.

17. The Particulars of Claim state that the Claimant is seeking recovery of interest. The date from which this is claimed, the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation and the daily rate at which interest accrues after that date are not specified. As such, the claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.

18. A similarly poorly pleaded and evidenced ‘private parking ticket’ claim was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 without a hearing, due to a the law firm’s template particulars being held to be ‘incoherent’, failing to comply with CPR 16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law'.

19. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

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

Coupon-mad

Are you using the one WS for both claim numbers, as they will be heard together? Make sure you put BOTH claim number at the top so that is clear to the court.

(Photo of Bevis sign n.d.)

Beavis.

Remove your #18 and replace it with something mentioning these two judgments and attach these 2 judgments printed out as evidence as well:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76252097#Comment_76252097

The point is you need to know WHY a PPC cannot add sums to the parking charge.

jerry2354

I was going to create two statements but your suggestion sounds better so I’ll do that.

Ah yes I missed that. I should’ve mentioned that the references are all just placeholders with names I made up and then generated by Word. I will properly put in them in place later.

Okay, I will make that change when I can, thanks Coupon-mad

jerry2354

Hi, So I've received their witness statement on the day of the two week deadline but they've only included evidence for the first ticket/claim, yet one of their witness statement points states that they were right to pursue it as two separate claims. The rest of the WS seems to refer to a single event. It seems as though they are not bothering/forgotten pursuing the second ticket/claim. I presume that this is the case as both are being held at the same time and so they have missed the 14 day deadline for any evidence and so couldn't pursue the second case on the day without pay and display machine logs etc? Or could they just bring the second lot of evidence on the day? Thanks

jerry2354

Hi, I've produced my skeleton argument and would appreciate it if anyone could comment on how to improve it. I'm worried its a bit long but I have tried to reference to my WS when possible. Thank you very much in advance...



IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXX
CLAIM No: XXXX and XXXX
BETWEEN:
EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF XXXX

1. The Defendant asks the court to dismiss the claim due to the below grounds:

Lack of Liability

2. The claimant is not clear about whether they are pursing the Defendant as Keeper or Driver. See Claimant’s Witness Statement (WS) paras X and X for contradiction.

3. If as a driver it is for them to prove that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant has made no admission that they were driving and puts the claimant to full proof.

4. If as a Keeper, they need to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

5. The Claimant has repeatedly stated they are not using POFA 2012, as per paras X and X of their WS.

6. Furthermore, their Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not POFA 2012 compliant as per the Defendant’s WS para X, nor is there adequate signage to comply with POFA 2012 as per the Defendant’s WS paras X and X.

7. The Claimant instead states in their WS that they are relying on the Law of Agency. An appeal at Manchester County Court on 08/06/19 with the same Claimant (Smith V Excel Parking Services C0DP9C4E/M17X062) before His Honour Judge Smith, stated that POFA 2012 is precisely where in law, an operator can hold a keeper liable for unpaid parking charges. The Claimant had chosen instead to use the general law of agency, quoting Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films. The Judge found that this was not relevant to that case and allowed the appeal. Being on appeal, this case is persuasive.

8. If, as the Claimant suggests, the driver of a vehicle is the agent of the registered keeper who is therefore liable the parking charges, why did Parliament find it necessary to introduce legislation that a parking company could recover payment from the registered keeper only if it met certain conditions i.e. POFA 2012.

9. Furthermore, the only X other drivers of the vehicle are the parents of the Defendant and the parents of the Defendant’s partner as stated in the Defendant’s WS para X. It is trite law that family arrangements are not commercial unless specifically intended to be and therefore there can be no agency agreements.

10. The Signage only ever refers to the ‘you’ or ‘the driver’ and nowhere is it stated or implied that the registered keeper would incur the charges on behalf of the driver.

Lack of Contract

11. It is for the claimant to prove that a contract had been entered into.

12. In the Defence, the Claimant was put to strict proof that they have a contract from the Landowner to pursue charges and take enforcement action in court for parking charges. The claimant has not been able to provide this. They have merely produced a statement signed by their Commercial Director stating that they have this right. There is therefore no evidence that they have this legal right. The fact that they have not produced this evidence that would significantly help their case suggests, on the balance of probabilities, that this contract does not exist.

13. The Claimant’s WS referenced Thorton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971 2 QB 163. The case provides that the signage must be sufficient to create the contract. In this case it was not. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the sign is much clearer and found to be sufficient. Furthermore, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking was a barrier car park where the driver would stop and take a ticket and was shown a clear sign at the barrier. The car park in this case is not.

14. The Claimant referenced Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2383, 2390 as signs being ‘the only method’ of stopping unauthorised parking. Other methods of enforcement, such as ticketed barriers, are viable. Furthermore, it is argued that in this case, the signage is not ‘sufficient and adequate’ as was stated in Vine v Waltham Forest LBC.

15. The design of all signage is intentionally hard to read making the less important parts larger than they need to be and making text smaller in favour of unused space, using poor colour schemes and without sufficient illumination given the time of the events (Defendant’s WS paras X and X). No signs clearly highlight the charge of £100 as was done in the Beavis case.

16. The signage at the entrance to the car park is impossible to read while driving due to either size or being hidden behind a wall (Defendant’s WS para X) while the rest of the signage was at the far ends of the car park. Therefore, no contact could be entered into.

Procedural Basis

17. The Claimant filed two separate claims on the same date with identical particulars bar the date of the alleged contraventions. This amounts to an abuse of process, attempting to waste the court’s time and making the Defendant liable to two instances of costs. This was made clear to the defendant in the pre-action stage (see the Defence and Defendant’s Exhibit X).

18. The two cases were then consolidated into a single hearing by the Judge. The Claimant’s WS produces no evidence, be that photographs, documents or pay and display machine logs to prove lack of ticket for the second claim which was alleged to have occurred on XX/XX/XX (Claim No XXXX). Having missed the deadline to submit all evidence, the second claim cannot be pursued.

19. The claim made via Money Claims Online (MCOL) is broad and unspecific. It does not utilise the 1080 character limit instead using a mere X characters. MCOL explicitly allows claimants to submit further particulars outside the platform.

20. There is no explanation in the particulars for the additional £60 which cannot be recovered under POFA 2012 (Defendant’s WS para X). There is also no breakdown in the particulars for any interest which has also been claimed (Defendant’s WS para X).

21. As well as the cases highlighted in the Defendant’s WS paras X and X, many County Court Judges have refused all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing:

22. In Claim number F0DP163T on 11/07/19, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

23. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10/06/19, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. The Judge stated: ‘IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. 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 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye 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...’

24. The Claimant’s Witness Statement is inconsistent. Para X contradicts with para X and X on the use of POFA 2012. A further contradiction is pointed out in para X of this Skeleton Argument.

Statement of Truth

I believe the facts stated in this Skeleton Argument are true.


XXXX

XX/XX/XX

Coupon-mad

Or could they just bring the second lot of evidence on the day?

No, and if they tried, you would object!

You need to add the Caernarfon VCS case to the list of cases struck out for adding fake costs, especially as VCS are a sister firm to Excel, same owner.

jerry2354

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, and if they tried, you would object!

You need to add the Caernarfon VCS case to the list of cases struck out for adding fake costs, especially as VCS are a sister firm to Excel, same owner.

Thanks Coupon-mad. I will change para 21 to the below then:

21. From the two cases detailed in the Defendant’s WS paras X and X, it is worth highlighting the recent case of VCS Ltd v Davies, Claim number F2QZ4W28, as VCS are a sister company to Excel Parking Services Ltd, both directed by Simon Renshaw-Smith. The similarly artificially inflated claim was struck out as an abuse of process without a hearing, due to the additional charge being deemed a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss and so unenforceable in law. The judge stated that the whole case was, ‘nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the supreme court in Beavis’. In addition to the above cases, County Court Judges have refused all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as the following cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing:

I was going to add this point below point para 18, do you think it would be reasonable?

The Claimant has also not included any evidence of calibration or the accuracy of either the equipment used to time the duration of the vehicle in the car park or that of the pay and display machine to show it was functional at the time of the alleged events.

[STRIKE]Also, I will be submitting my skeleton to the court and Excel three days before the hearing as recommended but have read that the costs application and costs schedule (for normal and punitive) should be sent at the same time as the WS? Will doing this three days before be too late, especially if pushing for punitive costs?[/STRIKE]
Edit: Have seen in Loadsofchildren's timetable post that costs need at least 24hrs so will send that later