UPDATE - CASE WON Preparing for court - Witness Statement queries

Sand26

Hi Helen,

Thanks for starting this thread and to all who contributed. Your case is very similar to my own and I have my own court date on 20th Sept with One Parking Solution & Gladstones as the solicitors. I was about to contact a solicitor for help but will now spend the weekend working through this thread in detail. I'd already decided that win or lose someone has to stand up to this. I also have another in the pipeline that I took a different approach to by getting in touch with the firm (SABA - paymypcn - ZZPS) immediately - usual result but after a morning of phone calls and pages of contemporaneous notes I contacted my MP who also wrote to the firm on my behalf. Both cases are very shaky - maybe I need to start my own thread. Anyway thanks again - Ian

Redx

Yes please , start your own threads (plural)

One per case, then you will receive help and good advice

Fruitcake

Ian_Lock wrote: »

Hi Helen,

Thanks for starting this thread and to all who contributed. Your case is very similar to my own and I have my own court date on 20th Sept with One Parking Solution & Gladstones as the solicitors. I was about to contact a solicitor for help but will now spend the weekend working through this thread in detail. I'd already decided that win or lose someone has to stand up to this. I also have another in the pipeline that I took a different approach to by getting in touch with the firm (SABA - paymypcn - ZZPS) immediately - usual result but after a morning of phone calls and pages of contemporaneous notes I contacted my MP who also wrote to the firm on my behalf. Both cases are very shaky - maybe I need to start my own thread. Anyway thanks again - Ian

You do need to start your own thread, but well done on fighting this.

Helen, you need to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam, especially the part where evidence was altered. National, and local press for your area and the area where the alleged event should also be contacted.

The_Deep

Well done. If you do not get your costs, why not invoice the PPC, and, if they ignore, take them to court yourself. It will cost you very little, but d considerably more for the scammer.

Fruitcake

As above; if you don't bet your costs or costs for unreasonable behaviour, send them a LBC and drag them (all parties concerned) through the small claims court if the don't comply.

Anyway, well done and thanks for letting us know the outcome.

Coupon-mad

Sand26 wrote: »

Hi Helen,

Thanks for starting this thread and to all who contributed. Your case is very similar to my own and I have my own court date on 20th Sept with One Parking Solution & Gladstones as the solicitors. I was about to contact a solicitor for help but will now spend the weekend working through this thread in detail.

I'd already decided that win or lose someone has to stand up to this.

...maybe I need to start my own thread. Anyway thanks again - Ian

Ian, start a new thread about this one before you write your WS.

And if your court hearing is in Sussex and you want support, send me a pm.

BrownTrout

Yes you can trust CM for support privately

rajon

helencooke01 said:

Hi Coupon-mad

Thanks, I have re-read your earlier post and digested it, sorry in my haste earlier I didn't fully understand the point about 'without prejudice'. I have removed those areas from my WS and where they were linked into my evidence.

Where there are points about the Traffic Management Act etc, do I need to reference the relevant parts of these documents in my evidence?

I have also redrafted my WS as you suggest and also drafted a covering letter asking the Judge to strike out the claim.

Both are below and I would be most grateful for any further feedback.

Thanks

Helen
______________________________

WS Cover Letter

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXX

CLAIM No. XXXXX


Between:

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (Claimant)

- and -

Mrs XXXXX (Defendant)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT COVERING LETTER – Mrs XXXXX
__________________________________________________ __________________________________


To Whom It May Concern
The Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing), dated 14 May 2019, clearly states that:
‘By 30 May 2019 the CLAIMANT must send to the Court and the DEFENDANT copies of all the documents he intends to rely upon at the final hearing. These must be in a bundle with each page clearly numbered. The Claimant MUST bring the originals of those documents to the final hearing’.
To date the Defendant has not yet received any such documents from the Claimant and so the Defendant would respectfully request that the Judge strikes the claim out for abuse of process, vacates the hearing and grants the Defendant costs on the indemnity basis.
This is due to the 'wholly unreasonable and vexatious conduct' of the Claimant, whose sparse particulars were nothing like enough to sustain a claim under any rule of law, and their continued disregard for the Defendant and court. In addition to this the PCN was a predatory one based on ONE MINUTE of photos and no grace period allowed to even read the signs, which breaches the IPC Code of Practice and the Consumer Rights Act regarding transparency of terms and the doctrine of good faith. The Defendant requests that the Claimant’s behaviour should be viewed as meeting the bar for unreasonableness.
There are a number of features that when present together might mean that costs should be granted on an indemnity basis.

These being:
1a) The failure to supply information that has been requested.
1b) A failure to properly set out a case in respect of liability pre-litigation.
1c) An unwillingness to discuss the case and narrow issue.
1d) A claim that is unreasonably made and without merit.
1e) A failure to follow the standard Small Claims track directions

Any denial of bad practice and unreasonable behaviour by the Claimant is just that, not fact as has been evidenced to the court. Based on the above the Defendant will be seeking their costs (CPR Rule 27.14(2g) on an indemnity basis due to the unreasonable and vexatious stance of a UK CPM Ltd. Please see below a breakdown of costs.
________________
Updated WS

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXX

CLAIM No. XXXXX


Between:

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (Claimant)

- and -

Mrs XXXXX (Defendant)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT – Mrs XXXXX
__________________________________________________ __________________________________

1. Preliminary

1.1 I, XXXXX, of XXXXX am the Registered Keeper in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1.2 Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked HP1, HP2 etc., to which I will refer.

1.3 The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

1.4 The claim refers to an incident involving vehicle XXXXX on 9th May 2018 at the location of Whittle Square, Gloucester.

1.5 I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, and this is my Witness Statement in support of my Defence already submitted.

2. Sequence of Events

2.1 On 9th May 2018 my husband briefly stopped my vehicle XXXXX in the parking complex at Whittle Square, Gloucester, near Domino’s Pizza.
2.2 The vehicle was in no way contravening any Highway Regulations, and was only temporarily stopped for a couple of minutes, safely without obstructing or obscuring any vehicular traffic.
2.3 My husband was collecting a pre-ordered item which meets the definition of loading in the Traffic Management Act, Traffic Orders and Highway code, and he had no reason to think that Whittle Square was not governed by the usual rules of the road, or that it was privately managed, or that any loading ban applied because there were no such signs & lines.
2.4 Almost 3 months after this occurred, I received correspondence from Trace Debt Recovery UK Limited (letter dated 24 July 2018) demanding “OUTSTANDING PAYMENT” for “parking charges”. This was the first communication I had received on the matter and the letter was very vague.
2.5 Due to the lack of any correspondence from PCM (UK) Ltd and the fact that notice was not ‘given’ they have clearly failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. See Exhibit HP1.
2.6 The distinctly threatening and aggressive correspondence continued as the Claimant has pursued an entirely unreasonable and vexatious process designed to deny any reasonable opportunity for explanation or appeal process, which has led to the Court action now. I respectfully suggest that parking companies using the Small Claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demand against motorists is not something the Court should be seen to support.

3 The Parking Bay

3.1 On entering Whittle Square, my husband looked for an available loading space close to Domino’s Pizza. He identified the area in question as suitable for stopping based on the points listed below.

3.2 There is no raised kerb to restrict access to this area from the highway. See Exhibit HP2

3.3 There are no road markings, such as yellow lines, adjacent to this area to indicate this is not a parking bay. See Exhibit HP2

3.4 The area in question is in common usage as a parking bay and indeed my husband stopped briefly behind another vehicle. Over the past few months I have recorded numerous vehicles using this space, to demonstrate it is in common use as a parking bay. See Exhibit HP2

4. Grace Period

4.1 The photos provided in PCM’s SAR response cover just over a period of 1 minute. The Parking Charge Notice appears to be in contravention of the IPC Code of Practice which states that a grace period must be allowed for a driver to locate signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. See Exhibit HP3, Exhibit HP3a.


5. Inadequate Signage

5.1 On entering Whittle Square, my husband did not see any signage from my vehicle clearly indicating the parking restrictions. When my husband briefly stopped my car, there were no signs adjacent to the space, or in the vicinity that could possibly be read from my vehicle. I believe that in the case of “Vine vs London Borough of Waltham Forest” the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they have not seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no signage directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle when parking, as in the case here. See Exhibit HP3, Exhibit HP3b

5.2 The signage in place at Whittle Square is difficult to read. A key factor in the case of “ParkingEye vs Beavis” was that the relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. See Exhibit HP4

5.3 The signage does state that “Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay”. My normal understanding of a “marked bay” would be the use of white painted lines to indicate the bay, as in the adjacent area. See Exhibit HP 5

In this case, the “bays” appear to be defined using contrast paving, but the use of the same colour and style of paving for the whole of this area, as indicated in Exhibit HP6, did not in any way suggest to my husband that he had stopped in anything other than a parking bay.

5.4 Upon later investigation, I believe the signage and operating practice of the Claimant in use at Whittle Square fails the Claimant’s own accredited parking operator scheme (The Independent Parking Committee (IPC)), on the basis that the signage on entering the site “should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land” and include a very large “P” to alert the motorist to the fact that the signage relates to parking restrictions. There is no “P”, however sized, on the signage in use. See Exhibit HP 7

5.5 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage ‘should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’ The text on the signage, particularly that which refers to ‘contractual terms’ and a ‘parking charge’ is very small. This, coupled with the fact that the sign is mounted at least 7ft off the ground, makes it very hard to read and impossible to read from a vehicle.
5.6 Having visited the site numerous times recently I have noted that the signage both at the entry to Whittle Square and in place around the location have changed since 9th May 2018. There is additional and revised wording and images. It is my belief that this is an attempt to redress the deficiencies and ambiguous nature of the previous signage. See Exhibit HP7. Further alterations include the addition of steel bollards to restrict vehicular access and the addition of painted markings to identify emergency access. See Exhibit HP8

5.7 The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘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’. The fact that there is no signage around this area and that it is known that other motorists use this area as a legitimate parking bay (see Exhibit HP2), I would question that the Claimant is deliberately obscuring this fact to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices solely for financial gain.

6 Declaration

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.

Statement of Truth

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


Signature

Date

hi, i am currently at WS stage with PCM. My event seem identical to yours. i have taken a photo recently of lack of signage at the entrance of the private land but being 1.5 year since the parking event i think your Exhibit HP4 may be closer the date of my parking event. would it be possible to get a copy of Exhibit HP4?. thanks.

Umkomaas

hi, i am currently at WS stage with PCM. My event seem identical to yours. i have taken a photo recently of lack of signage at the entrance of the private land but being 1.5 year since the parking event i think your Exhibit HP4 may be closer the date of my parking event. would it be possible to get a copy of Exhibit HP4?. thanks.

You'll be lucky if she even sees your post. She hasn't visited the forum in almost 9 months. Try a PM.