County Court Claim - Private PCN from UK CPM

Amis95

Hi Guys,
I have been really unwell recently (bed bound a the moment) but have tried my best to come up with a WS which I am sure you all will think is rubbish at this stage. I tried to look up and find planning permission information for signage and any contract the PCO has with the landlord but failed to find anything. thank you for the endless support, I am in so much appreciation.

In the County Court at
Mayors and City of London Court

Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

Witness statement of Mr XXXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit AM01, Exhibit AM02 and so on.

2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

3. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

4. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg – XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by several family and friends.

5. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on 11.06.2018 at 19;05 on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on 14.06.2018 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit AM__.

6. As the claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The claimant has failed to comply with the IPC Code of Practice (See Exhibit AM__) as follows:

7. The Notice to Keeper says that Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the vehicle because ‘it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at 93-101 Greenfield Road that we are authorised to manage on the 11th June 2018 at 19:05. The terms and the conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park you are bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if you breach these terms and conditions.’ The claimant is put to strict proof that the car was parked and the terms were offered to the driver.

8. Claimant’s claim that the car is parked, yet the two pictures provided in the Notice to Keeper shows picture one was taken at 19:05:40 and second at 19:05:43 which cannot prove that weather the car was parked, giving way or turning around. This also goes against the IPC Code of Practice Part B 15.1 which states ‘Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.’

9. The claimant never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs). As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for. Despite asking for it on subject access request on 25.10.2019 (See Exhibit AM__), the claimant failed to respond and provide copies of the supposed contract. The claimant also failed to respond to a second subject to access request sent on 10/12/2019 (See Exhibit AM__).

10. The claimant failed to comply IPC Code of Practice Part B 2.2 which states ‘Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code’ (PART E Schedule 1 – Signage).

11. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence.

12. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was stationed in an area where there are no marked bays to prove that the car was parked and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures.

13. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs during the day and even worse to see at the night as there are no adequate light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit AM__

14. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit AM__

15. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road rather than forward), that is affixed around 12 foot high off the ground which can barely be noticeable or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit AM__

16. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but it was not possible to get within 10 feet of the sign due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier and at this distance the tiny, illegible whatever terms could not be read. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit AM__

17. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.

18. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges". See Exhibit AM__

19. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

20. The claimant is yet to provide evidence of relevant planning permission from the local authority to put up signage in the car park.

21. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, (See Exhibit AM__) 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. The claim includes an additional £71.69, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

22. 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.

23. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''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...''

28. 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.

29. 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.
30. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow the full costs recovery order due to the claimant’s unreasonable claim as per CPR 27.14.2(g). My costs schedule will be submitted separately, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signature: _______
Date: ______

1505grandad

I don't think para 9 is relevant as the signs are not personal data and therefore not applicable to a SAR.

It is a good idea to be consistent so Claimant should all have capital C - there are some with lower case.

The Abuse of Process paras should be on a supplementary WS with the very recently updated paras in post #14 of Beamerguy's AoP thread.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for:

Jack Chapman signature and read ALL threads. Add to the SRA complaints about that fake signature and template WS written by Gladstones, not UKCPM.

Supplementary Witness statement and copy what others have done re the false, unrecoverable £60 add on 'costs' that cannot be reclaimed using two statute laws and the case law of P/Eye v Beavis.

Costs schedule and submit that as well, copying from the examples.

...and then go to post #14 of the ABUSE OF PROCESS thread by beamerguy, and use the most up to date words I edited only this week, that include the Warwick case and the November Southampton update.

Amis95

Thanks Guys, will get you an updated version this weekend.

Amis95

Hi @Coupon-Mad
just trying to understand your points above,
I am replacing my paragraphs with post #14 of beamerguy tread abuse of process that you quoted with the evidence you given.
I will draw up a costs schedule

I haven't found any re Jack Capman signature when I searched the forum.

can you confirm this is all that you wanted me to do?

@1505grandad - thank you for the point about para 9 and consistency, I will take it on board,

Redx

It's Jack Chapman signature , so find that info

Umkomaas

I haven't found any re Jack Capman signature when I searched the forum.

It's Chapman.

Use Jack Chapman as your keywords and follow the standard advice I give for effectively interrogating the forum.

HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.

Amis95

Hi Guys,
I have searched for Jack Chapman Signature were lots of threads come up asking other defendants to search for jack chapman. I think I understand what's going on here. I have also found the template complaint written by Coupon-mad for the SRA. As I haven't received their WS yet, I am not sure who will sign it. If it has the same name, I will send a complaint and if you advice then I will add it to my Skeleton Argument.

I am done with the WS but refraining from posting it today as I have been working all day and then wrote it up. so tomorrow with a fresh pair of eye, I will check it and post it here. thanks for all the support as usual.

Heres a copy of NTK if you guys want to take a look - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/l32erokjhujzs78/AACsmIYrzqhiDUXKXWI9ceYpa?dl=0

Umkomaas

If you haven't stumbled across this, here's the Genesis.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6059841

Amis95

@umkomaas, thank you so much!!!! I didn't find it. I will add this on skeleton argument once I see their witness statement.