Parking Ticket Back In June Of Last Year Now Resulting In Court

BeadyRoller

Thank you. By extras do you mean printing this off:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gexc6psfmi8y6d8/VCS%20Claim%20Struck%20Out%20-%20Abuse%20of%20Process.jpg?dl=0&m=

And using it as evidence?

What do I need to copy from the Southampton case?

Coupon-mad

the signs seem obvious now

Do they? What do they say and where is the £100 contract on them?

BeadyRoller

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Do they? What do they say and where is the £100 contract on them?

You are right. I just meant that as you enter the car park there is a sign which may seem quite noticeable to some but in my case it definitely wasn't as I have explained in my Witness Statement.

Coupon-mad

But it tells you nothing useful at all, not even what the time limit is. Do you know what those other signs looks like? CEL cases are very often won on unclear small print in the signs, with the £100 hidden or in tiny font.

BeadyRoller

Having looked at the sign properly you are right, it doesn't even mention how long I'm allowed (this was the sign as I entered the car park).

https://imgur.com/a/rHgXeHe

BeadyRoller

Right this is what I have so far...

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
and
BeadyRoller(Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am BeadyRoller of (ADDRESS), the defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On (Date) I visited Starbucks on (ADDRESS), and parked my vehicle no.XXXXX in the car park.

3. I drove in to the establishments (Starbucks) car park focussed on getting a cup of coffee, finding a space to park my car and making sure I was being a safe driver as car parks can often have pedestrians crossing them to get to their destination.

4. It didn't even cross my mind to check for any parking signs outside as I was using the car park for it's intended purpose and didn't know such petty rules were in place.

5. The signs must have been incredibly inadequete and poor as I never noticed one sign or notice while I was at and leaving the establishment (Starbucks). So unless I happened to look in the direction of where a sign was placed, there was no way of me knowing there was a time limit on my stay.

6. While inside, again, I never saw one sign which notified me that I could only stay at the establishment (Starbucks) for a certain amount of time.

7. I didn't agree to any contract as I never saw any signage and had no idea there was any such rule which limited my time in the establishment (Starbucks).

8. I spent my money inside the establishment (Starbucks) which I can prove, see attached picture Exhibit A, I also had two further cups of coffee which were paid with cash.

9. I was never notified by any staff member inside the establishment (Starbucks) that there was a time limit to my stay and they seemed happy for me to keep spending my money.

10. The car park during my stay was nearly empty apart from a couple of other cars, so my car being parked in a space had zero impact on the establishment (Starbucks) or other visiting customers.

11. I rang the manager of the establishment (Starbucks) up a few months after receiving the claim to see if there was anything he could do, and he said that if I had contacted him earlier, he would of been able to have the claim cancelled for me.

12. The manager stated on the phone that he was sorry this had happened to me and wished there was more that he could do about it. This proves that even the establishment (Starbucks) had no issue with me parking for the amount of time I did on the day I visited.

13. I find the extra costs on the claim are disproportionate and disingenuous, this is why:

14. 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.

15.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.

16. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

17. 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 and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.

18. 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.

19. Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html

“at para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

at para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.''

at para 198. ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

20. Any 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) 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. 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. Another case where a judge struck a claim out for adding sums was a recent one in the Southampton court in Case number F4DP5264 & F4DP5279. Judge Giddins stated "this court is now systematically striking out claims for those costs". Judge Giddins went on to say "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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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".

25. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly 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 District 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.''

26. 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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

27. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

28. 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.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature
Date

---

From what I understand the evidence I need to send off is:

- Proof of purchase which I will provide with a screenshot of my bank statement.
- A picture of these cases https://www.dropbox.com/s/gexc6psfmi8y6d8/VCS%20Claim%20Struck%20Out%20-%20Abuse%20of%20Process.jpg?dl=0&m=
- https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndl5rf4urx02gtj/UKCPM%20v%20Esplanade%20Ltd%20-%20judgment.jpg_large.jpg?dl=0&m=
- Unsure on what I need to add from the Southampton case that Redx mentions.


Does this look ok?

Redx

in the abuse section, add the details from the thread where the Southampton Judge stated that these costs are thrown out, it was this week and was one of 2 defence points that the defendant won, where he cited case numbers and also cited the name of the judge (not Taylor or Grand this time , but Giddins , so adds to their details) - making 3 of those plus the Canarfon case , so 4 in total

BeadyRoller

I have added this...

Another case where a judge struck a claim out for adding sums was a recent one in the Southampton court in Case number F4DP5264 & F4DP5279. Judge Giddins stated "this court is now systematically striking out claims for those costs". Judge Giddins went on to say "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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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".

Redx

correct, add it to 23 , or as para 24 and renumber from there up to say para 28 instead of 27, depending how it looks, the more cases and judges you write about , the better it looks as a consensus


edit it into your previous WS above so the whole thing can be checked

BeadyRoller

Edited my Witness Statement above with the new paragraph.