Gladstone Solicitors Claim form for parking ticket

Le_Kirk

there was a queue of cars

4. As evidence I attach witness statement from my partner who was with me, confirming that we parked and complied as instructed by the car park. This was an unexpected and non-agreed charge

What does this mean?

Mattmay247

Ah thanks just updated and corrected that

1505grandad

How is the name of the claimant stated on Court docs - your post #16 may be a clue.

Mattmay247

In the County Court at
Claim No.

Between
HX CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
and
XXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

Exhibit MM01 - Photograph from Google maps demonstrating the narrow roads at the entrance of the car park causing delays for maneuvering motorists.
Exhibit MM01.1 - A marked Colour coded aerial view photograph of the locations of where I parked (Red) , payment machine (Green) , entrance to the casino (Purple) and also the entrance of the car park (Yellow).
Exhibit MM02 - Witness statement of my partner that was there on the day.
Exhibit MM03 - Transcript of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943.
Exhibit MM04 - My cost schedule.


1. I am XXXX of XXXX.
The Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On 15.07.18 I visited the car park , and parked my vehicle registration no, XXXX in the car park.

3. On 15.07.18 I was in Southend for a day out at the beach. It was a hot and sunny day so it was very busy. It was my first visit to this car park and I was not previously familiar with it, or the road layouts outside it or how busy they could be.

3.1. Exhibit MM01 demonstrates how narrow the passages are upon entry of the car park. Barely enough space for two cars to pass and time consuming when the car park is full with maneuvering cars as it was on the day in question.

3.2. I first carefully and sensibly drove through the car park to which was very busy, and found the car park very narrow and not much space to safely drive through. There was a queue of cars waiting for spaces. I remember waiting for other cars to manoeuvre in and out of spaces before trying to navigate to a free parking space. I managed to find a space at the back and then carefully parked after a long delay of cars waiting and maneuvering.

3.3. After finally parking the car, I then walked around to try find the signage and spent a further carefully 3-4 minutes reading the signs.

3.4. I then walked over to the payment system where I attempted to pay several times but the machine kept rejecting my coins. I then walked back to my car to try find other coins that the machine would possibly accept. After finding additional coins I furthermore walked back to the machine and attempted to pay again but the payment system kept spitting the coins out.

3.5. After two separate failed attempts for the payment machine to accept my coins. I then walked into the onsite casino to try to find someone that could change up money. After finding someone I walked back to the machine and then tried for the third time. Which the payment machine finally accepted.

3.6. Exhibit MM01.1 shows a marked aerial photograph of locations of the space I parked in, the payment machine, the casino and the entrance of the car park. To demonstrate how time consuming the events of the day had been going back and forth throughout the car park at the marked points in the exhibit.

4. As further evidence I attach a witness statement from my partner who was with me. Confirming the events of the day are true, that we parked and complied to the best of our abilities. Showed in exhibit MM02.

4.1 It is asserted that my witness statement and those of my partner are the only ones from parties with personal knowledge of the events of that day and that any statement made by this Claimant or their legal representative are not facts within their personal knowledge, given the fact that only myself and my partner were there to bear witness.

5. The fact I made reasonable endeavours and cannot be penalised under UK contract law is also a circumstance supported by trite law. Authority for this is the case of Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, where it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

5.1. Even if the Court believes a contract potentially existed, the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 applies. It states at 1.(1) ''money due but not paid before frustration ceases to be payable'' ; a contract may be discharged on the ground of frustration. The unforeseeable frustration brings a contract to an end forthwith and automatically. Which I have supplied the transcript as Exhibit MM03

6. Due to frustration of contract, where matters were outside my control due to a possible payment machine error the contract was never properly or fairly made.

7. 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. Exhibit MM04.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature


Date

Udated version. Hopefully any better?

Redx

3.3 , move carefully to before reading , so it makes sense

Other than that , this is now how I believe a WS should be , I am not saying it's the final draft , but I believe it's close or close enough

Wait for other comments , meanwhile phone the Court at Luton , plus start drafting your costs schedule too

Mattmay247

Phoned the court & I got allocated the Royal Court of Justice as Luton is backed up so they've rented a room out in London for it. Paperwork all goes to Luton. Here is my cost schedule. I do not know if this is okay or if I need to go more in depth but here's the draft. All other exhibits are all in order.

In the County Court at Luton

Claim No
Between
HX CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
and
XXXXX (defendant)

---

Schedule of costs

---

Printing of 3 copies of witness statement defence, exhibits and postage
Estimate £25.

One day off work to attend hearing on @£10 per hour X 8 hours
£80

Cost of cheapest travel via train from Luton to London Blackfriars to attend court and return on 24th September.

£29.50


Total costs claimed
£134.50

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine.

With your WS you have this typo twice (this is not the English spelling!):

maneuvering

And you need to add a point or two to your WS to explain why the C cannot recover a made up £60 'costs' plus £50 solicitors' fees on top of the 'parking charge'.

See my reply and wording given on beamerguy's ABUSE OF PROCESS thread for how to word it - basically the Beavis case, the POFA, the CPRs and the Claimant's own Code of Practice mean that they can only pursue the 'parking charge' (max £100 as stated on their Notice to Keeper. Not add more costs never incurred, that is 'double recovery').

Mattmay247

You guys are all legends. I'll research and add it!

Le_Kirk

Mattmay247 wrote: »

You guys are all legends. I'll research and add it!

Fixing this for you: -

You guys and gals are all legends.

Mattmay247

In the County Court at Luton
Claim No. XXXX

Between
HX CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
and XXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

Exhibit MM01 - Photograph from Google maps demonstrating the narrow roads at the entrance of the car park causing delays for maneuvering motorists.
Exhibit MM01.1 - A marked Colour coded aerial view photograph of the locations of where I parked (Red) , payment machine (Green) , entrance to the casino (Purple) and also the entrance of the car park (Yellow).
Exhibit MM02 - Witness statement of my partner that was there on the day.
Exhibit MM03 - Transcript of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943.
Exhibit MM04 - Transcript of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Exhibit MM05 - My cost schedule.


1. I am XXXX of XXXX
The Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On 15.07.18 I visited the car park , and parked my vehicle registration no, XXXX in the car park.

3. On 15.07.18 I was in Southend for a day out at the beach. It was a hot and sunny day so it was very busy. It was my first visit to this car park and I was not previously familiar with it, or the road layouts outside it or how busy they could be.

3.1. Exhibit MM01 demonstrates how narrow the passages are upon entry of the car park. Barely enough space for two cars to pass and time consuming when the car park is full with manoeuvring cars as it was on the day in question.

3.2. I first carefully and sensibly drove through the car park to which was very busy, and found the car park very narrow and not much space to safely drive through. There was a queue of cars waiting for spaces. I remember waiting for other cars to manoeuvre in and out of spaces before trying to navigate to a free parking space. I managed to find a space at the back and then carefully parked after a long delay of cars waiting and manoeuvring .

3.3. After finally parking the car, I then walked around to try find the signage and spent a further 3-4 minutes carefully reading the signs.

3.4. I then walked over to the payment system where I attempted to pay several times but the machine kept rejecting my coins. I then walked back to my car to try find other coins that the machine would possibly accept. After finding additional coins I furthermore walked back to the machine and attempted to pay again but the payment system kept spitting the coins out.

3.5. After two separate failed attempts for the payment machine to accept my coins. I then walked into the onsite casino to try to find someone that could change up money. After finding someone I walked back to the machine and then tried for the third time. Which the payment machine finally accepted.

3.6. Exhibit MM01.1 shows a marked aerial photograph of locations of the space I parked in, the payment machine, the casino and the entrance of the car park. To demonstrate how time consuming the events of the day had been going back and forth throughout the car park at the marked points in the exhibit.

4. As further evidence I attach a witness statement from my partner who was with me. Confirming the events of the day are true, that we parked and complied to the best of our abilities. Showed in exhibit MM02.

4.1 It is asserted that my witness statement and those of my partner are the only ones from parties with personal knowledge of the events of that day and that any statement made by this Claimant or their legal representative are not facts within their personal knowledge, given the fact that only myself and my partner were there to bear witness.

5. The fact I made reasonable endeavours and cannot be penalised under UK contract law is also a circumstance supported by trite law. Authority for this is the case of Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, where it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

5.1. Even if the Court believes a contract potentially existed, the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 applies. It states at 1.(1) ''money due but not paid before frustration ceases to be payable'' ; a contract may be discharged on the ground of frustration. The unforeseeable frustration brings a contract to an end forthwith and automatically. Which I have supplied the transcript as Exhibit MM03

6. Due to frustration of contract, where matters were outside my control due to a possible payment machine error the contract was never properly or fairly made.



7. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous.

7.1. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

7.2. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

8. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

9. Purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

10. 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.

11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). 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 and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery. Exhibit MM04.

12. 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 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. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''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...''

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

14. 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 (Exhibit MM05) 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
Ready to send?