Claim form received HX incomplete VRN

KeithP

No need to assume.

You will have already read Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread and seen this:

Note: Gladstones are currently including a 'request for special directions' asking the Court to hear the case on the papers only, without an oral hearing. You should oppose this, and include the following text in D1: “The Defendant opposes the Claimant’s request for special directions, and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the defendant’s home court, pursuant to CPR 26.2A(3)”.

whiskeytoothpaste

Thanks Keith P. It is a DQ N180 from Gladstones. In box D1 they have said 'PURSUANT TO PD27 (2.4) SEE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION AND N159. If the defendant does not consent- Claimant's home court.

We have not received our N180 from the court yet- Is this usual?

KeithP

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

We have not received our N180 from the court yet- Is this usual?

In post #5 above I wrote:

• Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.

You know that the Claimant has twenty-eight days from receiving your Defence to consider their options.

You don't know when the CCBC sent your Defence to the Claimant, neither do you know what sort of delay there might be in the CCBC in dealing with the Claimant's response and notifying you.

Perhaps I can again refer you to post #5 above, this time to item 8 in the list:

• Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

whiskeytoothpaste

Understood. Thank you.

whiskeytoothpaste

Court date for November.
Just written first draft of witness statement.

Coupon-mad

Good, when you are ready, show us the draft and your planned evidence list. Also, at this stage we now tell people to file & serve their costs schedule with the WS & evidence.

whiskeytoothpaste

List of Appendices
A Copy of the Pay and Display Ticket for this claim
B Initial appeal explaining that I had input my registration number
C​Terms and conditions do not state that VRN MUST be printed on ticket and (see C)
D​No instructions visible which advise consumers of any action to take if VRN is not printed
E​Amended sign showing sticker but still no reference to (C and D)
F Appeal rejection which asserts I did not enter correct VRN
G​Letter outlining my condition which was sent to the claimant
H Letter to the claimant requesting Pay and Display data log / evidence of alternative vehicle in the car park with VRN ‘Xx’
I Examples of pay and display data provided to other defendants by HX Parking
J Evidence of industry practice to over-inflate charges and abuse the court process.
Introduction
1) I am Xxxxxxxx and I am the defendant in this matter and was assigned the vehicle Xxxxxx to use as a company vehicle on X of x 2018. My address is xxx The claim is denied for the following reasons.
• I did not exceed the time I paid for.
• I entered the full VRN at the pay and display machine.
• The signage while instructing the entry of a VRN does not say it is to be checked on the printed pay and display ticket.
• The signage is inadequate despite recently being made more prominent.
• The operator is turning a blind eye to the number of faults and misprinted tickets/VRNs being uploaded to their ANPR systems and are capitalising on their own machines faults.
• The Claimant knows and has proof that my vehicle’s time was covered by a 2 hours payment.
• I believe the operator is using predatory tactics to ensnare car park users into unfair PCNs which is a serious breach of the IPC Code of Practice.
• I question HX Car Park Management Ltd’s authority to operate on this car park and require proof of their written authority from the landowner.
Events leading to an unfairly issued PCN
2) The reason given for the PCN was “No payment was registered for the above vehicle”
3) It was my misfortune to encounter a Pay and Display machine which was not operating correctly at this point in time.
4) I did purchase a ticket that day. My purchase was in good faith costing £2.00 for 2 hours parking. The PCN showed ANPR captured photos when the vehicle arrived and another of the vehicle leaving proving that I stayed less than the 2 hours which I had paid for. I have kept the ticket as proof See Appendix A
5) No financial loss was suffered by the claimant, nor was there any unpaid parking time either before the ticket was purchased or at the end of the parking period.
6) My original appeal was rejected even though I explained that the machine accepted my full registration number before issuing the ticket and proving that I had made payment for all of the time that I remained on the car park. See Appendix B
7) Neither the main Terms and conditions board, nor the instructions on the pay and display machine warn users of the car park that they must check that their full VRN is displayed on the ticket. There is no instruction to check that the VRN is printed on the ticket in order to ‘validate’ the payment. There is no instruction regarding action to take if the VRN is missing or misprinted. See Appendix C and D
8) Pay and Display machine signage has been amended since the material date relating to these proceedings, See Appendix E, yet still fails to provide the vital information that VRNs must be printed on the ticket to ensure it is valid and what to do should this not happen.
9) My Appeal was rejected by HX Car Park Management Ltd for the reason “The PCN was issued due to no payment being registered for the vehicle. As per your evidence, you did not enter the correct registration number which means that it is not a valid payment […]”. See Appendix F. This is an untrue statement as I did enter the full registration number. It is not my fault that the payment machine was not working correctly and failing to register or misprint the details I entered into the terminal display. How can the claimant hold me responsible for the faults on their machines?
10) The Claimant accuses me of a breach of contract. However, if the pay machine is not functioning correctly then the contract is voided under the doctrine of impossible performance. The driver is being asked to do something she simply could not do; use a faulty machine. The ability of the driver to comply with the terms and conditions was entirely beyond my control. A pay and display machine is just that: the simple and most effective way for a driver to pay for their parking. I did everything any reasonable motorist would do. I attempted to comply with the operators terms and conditions. I keyed in my registration and I successfully paid. I cannot be financially penalised as a result of the operator failing to maintain their pay and display machines and an operator who offers no guidance on what actions are to be taken should their machines fail to print the full VRN on the ticket.

11) I only learnt that the ticket machine had printed ‘Xx’ from my full registration number Xxxxx after I had appealed.

12) I requested a log of the pay and display data for the date in question under paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the pre-action protocol in point 4 of my letter posted on 21/02/2019 (see Appendix H). I had seen such lists provided to other defendants (see Appendix I) which clearly show regular incorrect VRN recording. However, Gladstones response dated 15th March simply stated ‘please see the whitelist in the bundle’. No such list was provided. It is unfair that they failed to supply the information requested or reasons why they would not supply it. In any case Appendix I clearly demonstrates the regularity of the machine failures.
13) In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, 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.

Signage

14) Nowhere do the terms and conditions state that “your full registration must be displayed on your ticket” so I thought no more about it. If we look at photos of these tickets we can see there is no pre-printed field name saying Vehicle Reg. In fact, the field where the VRN is supposed to be printed actually says ‘M/C IDENDITY’. It is not obvious that there is anything missing from my ticket at all. How could one possibly know that this field refers to your registration?
15) The Claimant, HX Car Parking Management Ltd does not identify themselves as the Creditor on any of their signage. This is a requirement of the IPC Code of Practice:
“Other Signs
You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver.
Such signs must;
1) Identify yourself as ‘the Creditor’;”
See Appendix C, D & E


The Claimant’s Predatory Tactics and Abuse of Process
16) I have learned from other people using this car park that there are many faults with these machines and it is not uncommon for tickets to be issued with only 2 or 3 characters printed on even though the driver has entered the full VRN. HX are aware that xx is part of my VRM and that I paid the correct amount. However, they will not admit that their machines are responsible for this error and 100’s of people have experienced the same fault.
17) As already mentioned it was my misfortune to have encountered a faulty machine on that particular day, but since my PCN and appeal rejection I have learned that I was not the only person to have fallen victim of this unscrupulous parking injustice. I have since read local newspaper reports and very many social media posts describing these same faults recurring at this very small car park. It is of note that MP for Workington Sue Hayman called for a boycott of the carpark in the local press and is launching ‘mass legal action’ against HX Parking as a result of the countless PCNs issued due to these machines.
https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/wiganers-anger-over-parking-fines-1-9264243

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/16739229.workington-mp-calls-for-vulcans-lane-car-park-boycott/

https://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/17505136.mp-to-launch-mass-legal-action-against-unfair-parking-charges/
18) Further investigations show that people using HX Car Park Management Ltd’s car parks in Wigan, Halifax and Workington have been suffering the exact same faulty machines and misprinted tickets. This has to be too much of a coincidence. On the balance of probabilities, given the small number of car parking spaces and the high number of faults that these machines have caused, it cannot have escaped HX Car Park Management’s notice that there is a problem here.
19) I have knowledge of many recent court cases involving the Claimant and drivers at the Workington, Halifax and Wigan car parks where these faulty Parkeon machine caused PCNs to be issued.
Name
Location
Reason
Claim No.
Hearing Date
Outcome for Defendant
Tol Larmour
Vulcan Ln
Misprint
E8GF4R8E
14/01/2019
Won
Tony Charalambous
Westgate
Misprint
E4GF3Z3C
22/01/2019
Won
Jason Brown
King St
Misprint
E5GF3K2A
27/02/2019
Won
Philip Scala
Vulcan Ln
Misprint
E3GF7Q6Y
25/03/2019
Won
Barrie Bryce
Vulcan Ln
Misprint
E1GF55RK
03/06/2019
Won
? Dickinson
Vulcan Ln
Misprint
E1GF46RK
03/06/2019
Won
Bessie Wood
Westgate
Misprint
E1GF38RK
10/06/2019
Won
Mary Kendall
Vulcan Ln
Misprint
E1GF68RK
11/06/2019
Discontinued
Helen Paine
Vulcan Ln
Misprint
E1GF43RK
11/06/2019
Discontinued
Chris Dempsey
Vulcan Ln
Misprint
F6GF563Z
12/08/2019
Won
Karen Quin
Vulcan Ln
Misprint
F7GF75M5
14/09/2019
Discontinued
John/Natalie Hatchard
Vulcan Ln
Misprint
F5GF803R
11/09/2019
Won
Jayne Maiden
Westgate
Misprint
F5GF773R
13/09/2019
Won
​
In all cases the Judges found for the defendants for the reasons that the drivers had acted reasonably and that on the balance of probability the machines were at fault.
Furthermore, the Claimant has recently discontinued further hearings at very short notice in the West Cumbria Court. This only goes to prove their flagrant disregard for the defendants and their abuse of the Small Claims Process.

20) I would draw the court’s attention to case law with Claim No. C8DP11F9, EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD v Ms S. DISTRICT JUDGE BURROW ruled:-
“I am satisfied that the ticket then produced is the ticket that she has produced to the court. It was through no fault of hers that this ticket displayed the letters “QQ” instead of her registration number. She obtained a ticket. She made the payment to obtain that. She displayed that ticket. It shows the relevant time of entry. It shows the amount that she has paid and it shows the registration number that the ticket machine produced. It would have been unreasonable to expect the defendant to do anything further beyond that as far as I am concerned. The registration number is not accurately reflected but that is through no fault on the part of the defendant and I find on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had inputted the correct registration number and she had then displayed the ticket that was issued and so to all intents and purposes had fully complied with the terms and conditions applicable to this car park. Accordingly, I am going to dismiss the claim.”
This claim is exactly the same as mine and the hundreds of other claims that HX is trying to pursue.
21) Ironically, HX Parking claim on their website that they are a new breed of ethical parking operator. I’m afraid that my experience, and that of the scores of other victims, this is certainly not evident through their unethical practices. My consultant provided a letter, which I forwarded to Gladstones regarding the undue stress that their behaviour has caused me which has resulted in an increased medication for my condition which is outlined in the letter. See Appendix G
22) Their behaviour would appear to be predatory tactics which are totally contrary to the IPC Code of Practice. I would quote from the Code Vs 6
14. Predatory Tactics
14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code. Lack of consumer information regarding the VRN and misprinted tickets is not transparent and does nothing to help consumers recognise whether their purchased tickets are valid or not.

23) I believe there are over 60 people currently reporting this problem on social media groups and I am able to collect and present statistics and even witness statements and video evidence that is available which clearly shows that the parkeon machines misprint tickets from many of these people who are all being pursued by HX Car Park Management, should the court require it.
24) By taking advantage of my misfortune to use a faulty machine on the day the Claimant is operating contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The act says that:-
“The consumer could be at a disadvantage when a term gives the business the right to decide how the contract is interpreted or whether any breach has occurred.”
“If a business reserves the right to decide what a term of the contract means, then it is effectively in a position to alter the way it works to suit itself.”
“Concerns also arise in relation to terms that could allow the business to impose sanctions on consumers for what it chooses to regard as their breaches, whether the law would regard the consumer as being in breach or not.”

25) I would also challenge the Claimant to tell the courts how many of their PCNs are issued for this reason. It has become evident that this parking operator has a modus operandi which involves two unfair methods of issuing tickets on their car parks across the country. One is the use of the 10 minute rule, the other is faulty payment machines which misprint the ticket and does not upload the full Vehicle Registration Number to their servers.

26) These unfair practices have come to light thanks to social media and local newspaper articles. I will be happy to provide many examples and witness statement in my evidence before the court. This doesn’t bode well for a company who describe themselves as committed to ethical car park management, and as great advocates of a fairer and less profit-orientated approach to car park management. This has not been my experience.

27) The Claimant has brought a claim for £243.00 for a contractual parking charge of £100. This gross inflation of the amount is an abuse of process and not supported by the decision of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case). I believe this is a clear attempt at “double recovery” to circumvent the restrictions of the Small Claims track.

28) I refer to the recent case of UK Car Park Management Ltd v Esplanade Limited (E8GF1V7V) where, on the 21/11/2018, Judge Grand sitting at Newport ordered that the claim be struck out:

29) A more recent claim from the 13th June 2019 case number F6GF424Z concerning UKCPM v Mr Craig Longhurst, was before Judge Grand at Southampton County Court. See Appendix J

30) I have also noticed that on Monday 21st October 2019 that HX Parking Management LTD had 9 such hearings listed at The County Court West Cumbria before DDJ Forrester.





Questioning the Claimants Rights to bring this claim to court.
31) Proof of planning consent is required for the signage and should be provided to note that the claimant is following legislation in place for their Vulcans Lane site.

32) The Defendant questions that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to HX Car Parking Management Ltd. Does HX Car Parking Management Ltd have the locus standi to bring this matter to court?
​

Statement of Truth

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

………………………………………

whiskeytoothpaste

The long list is in a table format.
I'm unsure how to set out a cost scedule and what to claim for

KeithP

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

I'm unsure how to set out a cost scedule and what to claim for

Have a look at the examples linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

whiskeytoothpaste

Thanks. My ip address has been banned. It was unbanned and even though I've not posted, it's banned again. It's to do with cut and pasting word.