POPLA refused my appeal - should I write back?

Umkomaas

The forum isn't getting any easier today!

Le_Kirk

Ok, so I haven't got a printer/scanner and can't readily get to one.

Do you have a library close by?

nosferatu1001

The CCBC has accepted just emails before now, so a wet signature is NOT required

Easiest option - sign name on VERY white paper, take a photo, insert it as a picture into your defence in the appropriate space, and then export as PDF. Done.

DoaM

As above, take a photo of your signature. You can then insert it as an image into the Word document and then save as/print to PDF for sending to the court. (And also to the Claimant?)

nosferatu1001

just the ccbc

nuremburger06

I've received notification of my hearing date in May. I've drafted the below witness statement and schedule of costs. I would be grateful if someone could review them for me please. Also, was wondering if a page with a list of the exhibits is ok and am I only allowed to claim costs for the time spent on the witness statement or the whole appeal? I would quickly calculate the total time to be between 9 and 12 hours (3 hours each time for initial appeal, second appeal, defence and witness statement).

In the County Court at xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx

 

Claim No. xxx

Between

xxx (Claimant)

and

xxx (Defendant)

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

I, xxx, of xxx, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked xx to xx which I will refer.

On the day in question, I was called to Manchester for work at very short notice. Upon entering the car park via the single main entrance, I noticed two signs that indicated parking for the rail station (exhibits xx and xx). To a normal person, this signage would reasonably indicate that he is entering the rail station car park.

I parked my car immediately outside the rail station where there is a sign that indicates that it is the rail passenger pick-up and drop-off area. This further led me to believe that I was using the car park dedicated to rail users. I quickly checked the parking arrangements on the Northern Rail website and purchased an all-day parking session using the RingGo application (exhibit xx).

I was somewhat shocked to receive a PCN from the Claimant. I subsequently visited the rail station and a member of staff showed me the ‘boundary’ between the rail station car park and the Peel Centre car park.

The Claimant has provided photographs from 2018 of the entrance to the rail station car park. It is my view that these photographs support my grounds for appeal further, as one would only see those signs if they drove past the rail station entrance (on the basis that they were aware of the invisible boundary between the two car parks) and on to the rail station car park. There is nothing at the main entrance or near the parking bays in the Peel Centre car park that highlights that it is not the rail station car park.

The Claimant has relied on PDFs (and not actual photographs) of signage that state the maximum stay period is 4 hours. These photographs were taken in June/July 2018 and do not provide an accurate account of the actual signage that is currently in place. The current signage states a maximum stay time of 5 hours (exhibit xx).

Therefore, the documents provided by the Claimant are unreliable and cannot be considered for the purposes of this appeal. Subsequently, the Claimant’s submission that the Defendant overstayed by 1 hour and 58 minutes is also wrong and reiterates my position that the signage is unclear, confusing and unreliable.

There are a number of signs displayed in the car park setting out the terms but none of these signs contain any information whatsoever that distinguishes between the land of the rail station car park and the ‘private land’ to which the current claim relates. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a rail station user with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract was ever agreed and no contract ever existed between the Defendant and the Claimant.

I further reiterate that there is insufficient signage to explain that the area immediately outside the rail station entrance is actually the Peel Centre car park and not the rail station car park.

Owing to the lack of adequate signage, no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally.

The Court is respectfully invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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

 

 

Signature of Defendant: xxx

 

 

Name: xxx

Date: xxx

In the County Court at xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx

 

Claim No. xxx

Between

xxx (Claimant)

and

xxx (Defendant)

 

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

 

Ordinary Costs

Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at court on xxx £95.00.

Return mileage from home address to court (24 miles x £0.45) £10.80.

Parking near Court £5.00.

Sub-total £110.80.

 

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

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (3 hours at litigant in person rate of £19 per hour) £57.00.

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £15.00.

Sub-total £72.00.

 

Total costs claimed £182.80.

Coupon-mad

OK, so that's the main WS done (except you have not challenged landowner authority or required a detailed site boundary map!) but you also need a supplementary one with the legal arguments and exhibits against the fake added (double recovery = unrecoverable) £60, as a safety net to make sure that is not granted under any circs, even if you lose.

Also, you need to change the costs heading to SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENT and date and sign it, and put the claim number heading at the top.  This is new advice we've recently changed, to mimic a solicitor's Summary Costs Assessment form, which breaks the time spent down into hours and is signed & dated.

To see examples, look at recent witness statement threads by @keypulse and @gbbe

Also you should ask for the hearing to be adjourned until a hearing in person can take place later in the year, because a telephone* hearing disadvantages a Litigant in Person, given it removes all the visual cues and reassurance of a Judge at court, and the Claimant uses a legal rep who is well used to the process and will steal the floor if the case is conducted over the phone in May, which you are absolutely not happy with. 

And you do not accept the case being heard 'on the papers' either for similar reasons, given that parking firms initimiate people and mislead the courts with a huge bundle of irrelevant papers that you will then have no proper face to face chance to expose as a template pile of 'evidence' that is out of date and full of holes, and you wish to get justice and to explain in person about how these adjacent car parks really look.

You can claim for all your time BTW, if you successfully argue the C has acted 'wholly unreasonably' (see other threads).


*NB - Please don't reply here, saying your case is not suggesting a telephone hearing.  They will...so head it off at the pass now!

nuremburger06

Thanks Coupon-mad for your helpful advice. I've amended my WS suitably and also included the extra bits that I previously forgot.

Part 1

In the County Court at xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx

Claim No. xxx

Between

xxx (Claimant)

and

xxx (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I, xxx, of xxx, am the Defendant in this matter. I represent myself as a litigant in person. I have carried out a good deal of research in preparation for this case, however I trust the Court will excuse me if my presentation is less than professional. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. Included with this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked xx to xx which I will refer as evidence. 

Introduction

3. The land which forms the basis of the claim consists of a retail and shopping complex and a large car park. Blackburn rail station is also located on this site and there is a shared entrance to the site from the main road.

4. On the day in question, I was called to Manchester for work at very short notice. Upon entering the car park via the single main entrance, I noticed two signs that indicated parking for the rail station (exhibits xx and xx). To a normal person, this signage would reasonably indicate that he is entering the rail station car park. It is not set out in clear terms which car park belongs to who. Additionally, the terms on the signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. Furthermore, the signage upon entry to the car park does not include sufficient detail regarding the terms and conditions, or when and where parking permits are not valid. In any case, the signage at the entrance is at best an invitation to treat. Therefore, no contract could be formed and any additional terms and conditions on further signage do not need to be accepted.

6. I parked my car immediately outside the rail station where there is a sign that indicates that it is the rail passenger pick-up and drop-off area. With no signs to the contrary, I content that I was using the car park dedicated to rail users. 

7. I quickly checked the payment arrangements on the Northern Rail website and purchased an all-day parking session using the RingGo application (exhibit xx).

8. On 15 February 2019, after obtaining my details from the DVLA, I received the parking charge notice from the Claimant. I subsequently visited the rail station and a member of staff showed me the ‘boundary’ between the rail station car park and the Peel Centre car park.

Appeal stage

9. I wrote to the Claimant on 21 February 2019 to appeal the charge and made my position very clear. This is that their signage at the site was woefully inadequate and could not possibly form any kind of contract they seemed to think we had in place. I also advised them that I had taken photographs to prove that their signage was inadequate and would happily supply these if required.

10. The Claimant responded and rejected my appeal. My offer of supplying them with photographs of the signs was ignored. The option to appeal to an ‘independent alternative dispute resolution service’ body called POPLA was offered to me in the Claimant's rejection email. 

11. Some quick research on my part indicated that the overwhelming majority of appeals that go to POPLA are rejected. Despite this, I responded to POPLA along the same grounds. Unsurprisingly, POPLA rejected my appeal. In their lengthy response, my grounds of appeal were not considered.

Lack of adequate signage

12. The Claimant has provided photographs from 2018 of the entrance to the rail station car park. It is my view that these photographs support my grounds for appeal further, as one would only see those signs if they drove past the rail station entrance (on the basis that they were aware of the invisible boundary between the two car parks) and on to the rail station car park. There is nothing at the main entrance or near the parking bays in the Peel Centre car park that highlights that it is not the rail station car park.

13. The Claimant has relied on PDFs (and not actual photographs) of signage that state the maximum stay period is 4 hours. These photographs were taken in June/July 2018 and do not provide an accurate account of the actual signage that is currently in place. The current signage states a maximum stay time of 5 hours (exhibit xx). 

14. Therefore, the documents provided by the Claimant are unreliable and cannot be considered for the purposes of this appeal. Subsequently, the Claimant’s submission that I overstayed by 1 hour and 58 minutes is also wrong and reiterates my position that the signage is unclear, confusing and unreliable. 

15. There are a number of signs displayed in the car park setting out the terms but none of these signs contain any information whatsoever that distinguishes between the land of the rail station car park and the ‘private land’ to which the current claim relates. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a rail station user with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract was ever agreed and no contract ever existed between the Myself and the Claimant. 

16. I further reiterate that there is insufficient signage to explain that the area immediately outside the rail station entrance is actually the Peel Centre car park and not the rail station car park. Owing to the lack of adequate signage, no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally.

Abuse of Process

17. The claim is made up of, amongst other ‘charges’, an additional £60 ‘contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions’.

18. 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. 

19. The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the CPRs, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'.

20. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was 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.

21. I reasonably believe that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 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.

22. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'contractual costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.

23. Whilst I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land, I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of the Claimant whereby they insist people going about their daily business have entered into some kind of contract with them, based on vague, misleading and inadequate signs. Nor do I appreciate the tactics of BW Legal who have sent me many harassing and distressing letters, making veiled threats towards my credit rating and even my employability.

24. The Court may be interested to know that I received from the Claimant, a ‘notice of pending County Court Judgment’ dated 13 January 2020. In this letter the Claimants states that I failed to respond with any proposals for payment or the reasons why the debt is disputed. This is not true. I have staunchly denied ever being liable to any sum to the Claimant and have stated this in several exchanges with the Claimant. The material fact is that the Claimant has chosen to ignore my written submissions and resorted to scaremongering and numerous threatening demands for payment in an attempt to force me to pay. This letter is a blatant attempt to compromise proceedings by stating that a judgment will be filed when a hearing date had not even been set. 

25. I submit that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this case against me. Their actions and the actions of BW Legal have brought me considerable vexation and distress. As a litigant in person I have had to learn the relevant law from scratch and spend a considerable amount of time researching case law online, revisiting the site, processing and printing evidence, along with drafting my defence and this witness statement. I have no intention of claiming for each and every one of the hours I have spent on this, but will be asking for a consideration to cover 20 hours of my time as detailed in my costs schedule.

The Beavis case is against this Claim

26. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. 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 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.

27. This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. And at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

28. In the Beavis case it was said at para [205]: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

29. 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...'' 

30. 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.'' 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.''

nuremburger06

Part 2

The POFA 2012 and the ATA Code of Practice are against this Claim

31. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) 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' (further, 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.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') is against this claim

32. Further, the purported added 'contractual costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

33. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (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 in 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.''

34. That decision in Wales was contested in a N244 application by VCS, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30 Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on, and despite parking firms continuing to include it in their Particulars, most advocates have now stopped pushing for it at hearings. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances, and further, he ordered that the Claimant must now produce a statement of how they pleaded claims prior to Beavis, and subsequently.

35. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.

36. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' robo-claim model, and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, 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 I am 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 the Beavis case. 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...''

37. BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated conduct in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.

38. That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:

(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).

(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.

(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

39. At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. It was successfully argued that the parking firm's consumer notice stood in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. Using the statutory duty upon the Courts to consider the test of fairness and properly apply schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 it was irrelevant whether or not the consumers' defences had raised it before, which they had not. The same issues apply to this claim.

40. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims is, in other cases, aware that if the Defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''

41. Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the CRA 'core exemption'. The CMA Official Government Guidance to the CRA says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' The parking industry is the exception to this rule because they have no consumer 'customers' yet are consumer-facing. Their intention is very clearly in many cases (including this case) for a consumer not to see the onerous terms hidden in their notices and it is averred that no regard is paid to consumer law.

42. The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expanded at 1.20: ''A consumer notice is defined broadly in the Act as a notice that relates to rights or obligations between a trader and a consumer, or a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability to a consumer. It includes an announcement or other communication, whether or not in writing, as long as it is reasonable to assume that it is intended to be seen or heard by a consumer. Consumer notices are often used, for instance, in public places such as shops or car parks as well as online and in documentation that is otherwise contractual in nature. [...] Consumer notices are, therefore, subject to control for fairness under the Act even where it could be argued that they do not form part of the contract as a matter of law. Part 2 of the Act covers consumer notices as well as terms, ensuring that, in a broad sense any wording directed by traders to consumers which has an effect comparable to that of a potentially unfair contract term is open to challenge in the same way as such a term. There is no need for technical legal arguments about whether a contract exists and whether, if it does, the wording under consideration forms part of it.''

43. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out multiple parking ticket claims from various firms all due to the adding of the false £60 costs to £100 parking charge, that already indisputably (in law and case law) includes those costs.

44. The Judge determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' further, in issuing his Orders striking out several £160 parking claims without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

45. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is my 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, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.

46. I submit that the Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

47. I further submit that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. I deny breaching any of the Claimant’s purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

48. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, I shall seek full costs at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Rejection of telephone hearing or the case to be heard on the papers

49. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Courts are offering telephone hearings to adhere to the social distancing regulations. I respectfully invite the Court to adjourn this hearing until a hearing in person can take place later in the year. A telephone hearing disadvantages the Litigant in Person, as it removes all the visual cues and reassurance of a Judge at Court.

50. The Claimant will use a legally qualified representative who is well used to the process and will hold a clear and unfair advantage if the appeal is heard over the telephone in May. 

51. For similar reasons, I also do not agree to the case being heard on the papers. Private parking firms like the Claimant often intimidate people and mislead the courts with a huge bundle of irrelevant papers that I will have no proper face-to-face opportunity to expose as a template pile of 'evidence' that is out of date and full of holes. I wish to get justice and to explain in person about how these adjacent car parks really look.

52. The Court is respectfully invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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

Signature of Defendant: xxx

Name: xxx

Date: xxx

nuremburger06

And here is the amended schedule of costs

In the County Court at xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx

Claim No: xxx

Hearing date: xxx

SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENT

Ordinary Costs

Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at court on xxx £95.00.

Return mileage from home address to court (24 miles x £0.45) £10.80.

Parking near Court £5.00.

Sub-total £110.80.

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

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (20 hours at litigant in person rate of £19 per hour) £380.00.

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £25.00.

Sub-total £405.00.

TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED £515.80.

Signature of Defendant: xxx

Name: xxx

Date: xxx