Claim Form (County Court Business Centre) - Excel Parking

Le_Kirk

Is something missing here **?

5. Having parked the vehicle, and having previously (and subsequently) used the car park, I began walking **the** the** car park exit while using my mobile phone to pay for parking via the aforementioned app.

In the context of this alleged parking infringement, what do you mean by promissory estoppel? Who promised you something and then reneged on that promise? Do you mean the RingGo App?

Carthesis

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Is something missing here **?In the context of this alleged parking infringement, what do you mean by promissory estoppel? Who promised you something and then reneged on that promise? Do you mean the RingGo App?

Thanks for the comments.

The first point - you're not missing anything - it's a typo. Should be "to the car park exit".

The second point - generally that there was a promise to pay in exchange for parking freely without redress. I have paid, and yet I'm still going through this rigmarole. Perhaps it's a bit tenuous...

Le_Kirk

Carthesis wrote: »

Thanks for the comments.

The first point - you're not missing anything - it's a typo. Should be "to the car park exit".

The second point - generally that there was a promise to pay in exchange for parking freely without redress. I have paid, and yet I'm still going through this rigmarole. Perhaps it's a bit tenuous...

Worth a try then. I hadn't thought about it in that context before but then IANAL.

Carthesis

I might yet change it tbf.

Any other comments? Anyone have any thoughts on whether admitting to being the driver is likely to cause me issues given the period of time since the event?

Carthesis

I've made some amendments based on some further information I have discovered.

I am "My Name", of "My Address", the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a bundle of documents marked BR1 through BRx, to which I will refer. I will say as follows:

1. The Claimant asserts that I owe the sum stated on the Claim Form in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for an unspecified contravention at the date and location also shown. The Claim Form gives no particulars, but the Defendant assumes the Claimant asserts the Defendant entered into a contract, subsequently breached that contract and must pay a contractual charge, with further undefined and unexplained additional charges.

2. I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:

a. Payment for parking was made using a cashless system (RingGo), which makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display;

b. The payment service did not indicate any failure to make payment and responded as if payment had been made;

c. The failure of any aspect of the payment service is not the responsibility of the Defendant;

d. Further, the Defendant submits that no losses have been incurred by the Claimant, as payment for the parking period has been made - refer to Item BR1;

e. Notwithstanding the above, the pursuit of the Defendant as “Registered Keeper” (RK) is believed to be erroneous as the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012) Schedule 4 Paragraph 8 have not been met.

3. The facts are that the vehicle in question, registration AAxxABC, of which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, was parked on the material date in Thingy-Wotsit Car Park (“the car park”). I can confirm that the Defendant was the Driver of the vehicle at this time, and that I was using this location for parking during work hours on an irregular basis due to the convenience of being able to pay for parking via the RingGo app.

4. On arriving at the car park on the alleged date at approximately 08:50, I drove to the far end of the car park to find a “space” (a location in which, as with the rest of the car park which is divided into widely separated areas, is unmarked). The approximate location of the vehicle within the car park is indicated on the plan of the car park provided as Item BR2.

5. Having parked the vehicle, and having previously (and subsequently) used the car park, I began walking the the car park exit while using my mobile phone to pay for parking via the aforementioned app. This is a multi-step process via the app which involves firstly selecting the correct location on one screen; then selecting the correct vehicle registration and the required duration of parking on the next screen; and finally confirming the payment on the final screen before being presented with confirmation of a successful transaction. This process is illustrated in the current version of the app in Item BR3. On confirming the payment, the app displayed a screen confirming the payment, after which I replaced my phone in my pocket and continued to walk to work.

6. Later in the day, at approximately 15:30, I received a notification of an email from RingGo, which I took to be confirmation of the payment made. Unfortunately, I paid no heed to this typical and expected notification, nor the delay in it being received. This email did in fact contain the receipt for the parking period, which is included as Item BR1.

7. On returning to the vehicle later that evening at approximately 17:30, I was obviously both confused and dismayed to discover a red and white envelope bearing the legend “this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice” on the windscreen. Opening this envelope, I found a piece of paper directing the driver of the vehicle to the “MyParkingCharge” website. This website is shown as Item BR4, although I note that despite the assertions of the windscreen notice to the contrary, this website makes clear references to “the processing, management and collection of Charge Notices”.

8. Based on previous experience, and knowing that I had paid for the relevant parking period, I did not immediately challenge the Charge Notice (which I will now refer to as a “Notice to Driver” (NtD), this being that the windscreen document was, despite assertions otherwise) and instead chose to wait for the Notice to Keeper (NtK) which would allow me to additionally rely on POFA2012. The NtK was received on or about the 26th November 2018, with an issue date of 22nd November. I note that this falls without the period specified under POFA2012 for an NtK following an NtD, which requires receipt of the NtK between 28 and 56 days after the alleged incident. I also note that Keeper details were obviously requested from DVLA outwith these timescales, seemingly in contravention of POPFA2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 11 (1) (b).

9. I subsequently contacted the Claimant via posted letter, explaining the circumstances and providing proof of payment for the relevant parking period. I have included a reprint of the letter as Item BR5, however I am unable to evidence postage of the letter. I therefore accept that the lack of response from the Defendant could be due to non-receipt of the letter in question.

10. Once it became evident that despite my attempts to resolve this issue the Claimant was electing to pursue this matter via litigation, I placed a Subject Access Request (SAR) with the Claimant under GDPR. A copy of this letter is provided as Item BR6, with the partial information supplied by the Claimant provided as Item BR7 which includes email correspondence with the Claimant’s “Debt and Litigation Manager”. I note that the submitted information was not submitted within the legally mandated timescales given in GDPR, and further note that some elements of my request were not fulfilled, namely provision of pay and display terminal (PDT) records; payment records received via the RingGo app; and a copy of the original windscreen NtD. I note on reviewing these documents that the claimed amount has increased from £100 to £160, which appears to be an additional charge which is not permitted under POFA2012 Schedule 4, Para 4(5) and (6), which specifically prohibits increasing the costs in this way. I also refer the Court to a judgement in Southampton Court by DJ Taylor (Claim No. F0DP201T, 10th June 2019) where this is highlighted as “abuse of process”, and a subsequent judgement by DJ Grand (Claim No. F0DP163T, 11th July 2019). A copy of the “General Form of Judgment or Order” for the latter case is included as Item BR8.

11. On the basis of the above, 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.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature:

Date:

Carthesis

Also, a Schedule of Costs:

(the formatting has cone a bit awry due to copy and paste into the forum)

---

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

---

Ordinary Costs


Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 26-09-2019: £95.00
(salary adjustment for 5 days purchased = £971.16 p/a = £194.23. Costs capped to £95.00 per person per day pursuant to Practice Direction 27 para. 7.3 (1))

Return mileage from home address to Court: £25.20
(2 journeys of 28 miles at £0.45 per mile)

Parking near Court: £5.00
(estimate for daily parking)

Sub-total: £224.43

======

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

Research, preparation and drafting of documents: £57.00
(3 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour pursuant to Practice Direction 46 (paragraph 3.4) and CPR Rules 45.39(5)(b) and 46(4)(b)))

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £15.00

Sub-total: £72.00


====== ======

TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED: £296.43

====== ======
Notes on costs

This Claimant is a professional parking company. Issuing PCNs and chasing/suing for payment is what they do. Not only that, but by their own admission, they pursue many of these cases to court. Therefore, they are demonstrably experienced in litigation of this nature, and consequently must know exactly what they are expected to do and must be conversant with the court rules, the statutes which govern their business models (in this case POFA2012) and the approved CoP of their ATA.

The defendants are ordinary citizens, the vast majority of whom have no experience of the law and have never seen the inside of a court room.

Because of this, I would argue that the bar is set high for this Claimant as to what is expected from it in terms of "reasonableness" in the litigation, as per CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g). This is exacerbated further by the Claimants unreasonable, vexatious and mendacious behaviour in attempting to artificially inflate the costs that are claiming which is specifically and unequivocally prohibited by POFA2012, and has been upheld by other courts in similar circumstances.

Carthesis

Excel have decided to discontinue the case, without having seen my WS or any documentation other than the fact i had submitted a defence.

They posted a discontinuation notice to me on the same day i sent the bundle to the court and to them, so they have wimped-out for some reason.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant! ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST - YOU WIN! :T

Carthesis

Not really sure why - having taken it so far, they wimped out before even seeing my bundle, which they would have gotten 2 days after the date on the discontinuation notice, but hey-ho. It's one more thing off my mind.

Just a shame that them having discontinued means i don't stand a chance of getting costs back from them.

beamerguy

Maybe the penny has dropped with Excel that they are not the smart scammers they thought they were.

With the VCS spanking recently over Abuse of process and Excel being a kissing cousin, it would be wise to take a low profile

Still, expect many more spankings ahead if they keep trying to scam people with a fake £60