County Court Claim - Private PCN from UK CPM

Amis95

Hi Guys,
I received a witness statement from UK CPM over the weekend.
you can have a look here - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/l32erokjhujzs78/AACsmIYrzqhiDUXKXWI9ceYpa?dl=0

Many issues noticed:
1. Jack Chapman is the Witness
2. Gladys letter says they are not attending court
3. they are referring the defendant (me) as the driver
4. no mention of POFA so no show of evidence that I am the driver and no evidence how they can claim against the keeper
5. a pdf document of the signage was provided so no pictures that there was even a sign on that day
6. they only have the two pics of the back of the car so nothing else to show if there is a driver inside, or a valid permit is actually displayed or not.

I am starting on the Skeleton Argument so will share this with you soon. I have until the 2nd of Jan to do it.

thanks for the support as always.

Coupon-mad

What terrible 'evidence'!

And quelle surprise, you have the same facsimile sig of 'Jack' (if he exists):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76507752#Comment_76507752

Complain to the SRA copying and adapting the wording on other threads, then you can validly state in your WS that you have reported the Claimant's solicitors to the SRA and that Gladstones are being investigated for multiple potential forged signatures, where at least one case proved that Jack Chapman could not possibly have seen/signed his purported WS.

And these template exact-match 'statements' are being written by freelance statement-writers employed by Gladstones, and the parking firms then deliberately set out not to send the 'witness' to be questioned at trial. If they did, this Jack Chapman would have to answer to the issues but if he exists, he never appears. This is a matter the SRA are currently and actively investigating.

Amis95

Hi Coupon-mad,

thank you, their WS in my case has exactly the same signature. wow!

I have sent the complaint to the SRA.

I will share my Skeleton Argument with you shortly. can you tell me I need to send it the Gladys too? or is it just an email to the court?

Thanks

KeithP

Everything you send to the court must be sent to the claimant too.

Amis95

Hi Guys, heres my best shot of the skeleton argument. beginning to feel a bit overwhelmed with this thing but still determined

In the County Court at
Mayor’s and City of London Court
Claim No. XXXXXXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

Skeleton Argument of Mr XXXXXXX, Address: XXXXXXX

PREAMBLE

1. This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated on 06/01/2020.

2. The Claimant’s legal representative informed that the Claimant’s witness will not attend the hearing, presenting a significant disadvantage for the Defendant. The author of statement will invariably not be there to give evidence. If he doesn't turn up in court the statement is inadmissible evidence as the Defendant can't question him upon its validity.!

3. The witness and the accompanying witness statement is not credible. It contains invalid, false and vexatious statement which can be shown in this skeleton argument. Moreover, it displays a laissez-faire attitude towards submitting a truthful, factual witness statement.

4. The Defendant will highlight to the Court that the claim is not only fundamentally misconceive and flawed, but that the claimant behaved unreasonably.

5. The witness statement by Jack Chapman is contradictory, confusing and particularly troublesome as detailed below.

THE ISSUES

6. The Defendant has identified the following areas of dispute:

(a)!! The Claimant’s witness statement is not signed hence it is invalid

(b)!! The identity of the driver

(c)!! The presumption of the driver

(d)!! The burden of proof

(e)!! No signage so no contract

(f)!!! Keeper Liability

(g)!! No locus standi

(h)!! Conduct

SUBMISSIONS

7. The Defendant admits that they were not the driver at the material time of the PCN.

8. The Defendant submits that the bright, alarmist letters were seen as a scam or spam, and recognised at the material time that they were not from an authority such as council or the police. The Claimant referenced nothing in relation to holding the Defendant liable under statute.

9. It is submitted that the Defendant did not appeal the PCN and was under no obligation to do so as the keeper. The Defendant correctly assumed at the material time (and to-date) that the issue was of no relevance to them.

10. It is submitted that it is impossible for the Defendant to speculate whether the signs were
present at the material time as they were not the driver.

11. The Defendant submits that there are pictures showing the vehicle bearing the same mark to which they are the registered keeper, but cannot adduce any further information.

12. The Defendant submits that it would not be in the interest of Court time to rebuff each and every individual accusation by the Claimant that the Defendant was the driver.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS

13. As detailed in the Claimant’s witness statement, the primary argument for issuing the claim against the Defendant is predominantly based on a crucial but rebutted piece of information; the Defendant was the driver at the material time of the PCN.

14. Furthermore, the remainder of the points raised in the defence are particularly specific in application. The Defendant will show that the claimant failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, has failed to show evidence of the contract/signage and was granted no locus standi for the land and signs can be evidenced as prohibitive, illegible and confusing.

15. Any single one of the above is fatal to the Claimant’s case.

THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT IS NOT SIGNED HENCE IT IS INVALID

16. The witness statement appear to not actually be signed by Mr Jack Chapman, and a formal complaint has already been sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) about a similar UKCPM case where this exact same UKCPM 'electronic signature' was exposed by a lay representative last month, to be a facsimile and that UKCPM could not have signed the statement on the date stated under the facsimile signature, or at all.

17. In the two cases in October, Claim Nos. E9GF9M7K and E4GF8M1R, UKCPM -v- Mrs A, before Deputy District Judge Chohan at High Wycombe statements purported to have been signed by 'Jack Chapman', an employee of the Claimant Company, could not have been. A comparison of the signatures on these two statements showed that the signatures are 100% identical in every respect, down to the last pixel. It was highly improbable, if not impossible, that any person would sign his name twice in a completely identical manner on two separate occasions, three months apart. The same signature in this case too. See Exhibit AM17

18. The complaint to the SRA continued: ''The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this, is that Gladstones have copied, traced, or otherwise forged Mr Chapman's signature, and that in fact Mr Chapman has never seen or signed these statements. This is particularly relevant in the case of the second statement, which was emailed to the Defendant on the day after it was created. Gladstones are based in Knutsford, Cheshire, whereas the Claimant company are situated in West Sussex. Unless they couriered it by helicopter, it is clear that Mr Chapman could not have signed it.

19.This is a significant and serious act of dishonesty, for which Lesley Layton of Lance Mason Solicitors was struck off the roll in 2017. See Exhibit AM18

20. The complaint, currently under investigation against Gladstones, suggested that the SRA needs to take urgent action on this matter, as it is more likely than not that this is an ongoing and regular practice. See Exhibit AM19

21. In the case of UKCPM v Mrs A on 17th October, Deputy District Judge Chohan at High Wycombe struck out both conjoined claims. He also agreed that the two factors of late service, and a defective WS, crossed the threshold of unreasonable behaviour, and awarded Mrs A her full costs in the sum of £331.80, which he said was a very reasonable figure.

22. My case has the same facsimile signature from a person who was not a witness. It is a templated statement and 'Jack' from UKCPM is not here to be cross examined, being conspicuous by his absence.

23. The statement refers Mr Jack Chapman’s address as ‘Ground floor, 19 New Road,’ which is the 1st part of UKCPMs address in Brighton but the postcode W1B 3HH is postcode in London which shows the address incorrect. This is a repeated error in UKCPM’s template witness statement with fraudulent signature. See Exhibit AM20

THE IDENTITY OF THE DRIVER

24. The Defendant refutes the many allegations by the Claimant in their witness statement that they were the driver at the material time either directly or by presumption. The Claimant has no evidence to the contrary and the accusations are merely ‘hear-say’ and conjecture; not a factual reciting of a witness who was present at the material time.

25. The Claimant’s Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS), International Parking Community! code of practice Part C para 1 clearly indicates that the only possible way for the Keeper Liability is Sought by using the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 12) which the Claimant is not relying upon. The Defendant knows that the Claimant has no grounds in pursuing the keeper let alone assuming him as the driver.

THE PRESUMPTION OF THE DRIVER

26. It is clear in trite law that where there is no forensic and/or reliable evidence, that a registered keeper of a vehicle cannot be declared the driver at any given point in time. In fact, in some instances they may barely drive the vehicle at all.

27. The Defendant brings to the Court’s attention POPLA Lead adjudicator and Barrister Mr. Henry Greenslade’s statement regarding keeper liability in the POPLA Annual Report of 2015: “there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

28. District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds in the case of Excel v Lamoureux [2016] C3DP56Q5 although only persuasive, comes to a comparable conclusion as Mr Greenslade: “The Defendant denies he is the driver and the claimant has absolutely no evidence that he was the driver. There is no assumption in law that the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle. That is trite law…” See Exhibit AM21

29. District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds then concludes judgement by stating: “The claim against Mr. Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver”.

30. In the County Court at Liverpool Claim No. C1DP0H0J, Deputy District Judge Gourley dismissed the case between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) and Sarah Quayle (Defendant) due to the Claimant failure to provide evidence that the keeper was in fact the driver. See Exhibit AM22

31. The Claimant had no entitlement to proceed on the presumption that the keeper is also the driver.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

32. The Defendant has no obligation to prove that they were not the driver. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove that the Defendant was the driver.

33. Section 172 (2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it clear that the registered keeper of a vehicle is required to furnish the police with the identity of the driver under statute: “(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police…”

34. There is no such statute requiring the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge on private land. In any event, the Defendant does not know the identity of the driver, only that they themselves were not driving.

35. Mr Henry Greenslade comments on this particular issue in the 2015 POPLA Annual Report:
“…a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 [POFA 12] to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time”.

36. The fact that compliant notices leverages statute, it is pertinent to apply his comments to non-compliant notices.

37. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the burden of proof for identifying the driver should not lay with the Defendant.

NO SIGNS SO NO CONTRACT

38. The Defendant is bemused by the witness’s statement evidence of the signage which they refer to be as the contract which was breached at the material time. The Defendant has the right to believe that there were no sings at the material time because all the Claimant can provide is a template PDF copy of what the sign should look like and a google map with dots showing where the signs should be. This template is shocking and has no basis to be of hard evidence which the Claimant’s witness statement rely on. This makes the Claimant’s witness statement invalid as they have failed to provide evidence which they are relying on to claim a breach of contract by driver.

39. The claimant provided two pictures of the vehicle which does not prove that the car was parked neither does it prove that it doesn’t have a valid permit, or it is in a designated parking bay as referred to Claimant’s witness statement, Para 5.

40. The pictures of the car provided by the Claimant does not show that the driver is in the car or not hence the claim of driver parking and exiting the vehicle is invalid.

41. The information relating to the site provided is usually be second hand knowledge from interpretation of the office files which has no validity to be hard evidence.

42. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that no contract could have existed with any driver at the material time as the Claimant failed to show hard evidence of signage at the material time.

KEEPER LIABILITY

43. Liability can only be transferred lawfully by strictly following Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which was enacted into statute to prevent this very issue and ensure lawful transfer of liability for private land owners. UK CPM chose not to utilise this statute and therefore attempts to transfer liability unlawfully. Mr Henry Greenslade comments on this within the 2015 POPLA Annual Report: “The only presumption that anyone else is liable for such a charge is under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”.

44. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that UK CPM have failed to make the Defendant liable for any parking charges.

NO LOCUS STANDI

45. In this event, the contract agreement that the Claimant has with the Leaseholder cannot be valid as it does not have an end date. The alleged PCN took place over 2 years later following the agreement and the Claimant has failed to show evidence that the agreement was valid at the material time.

46. The Defendant therefore legitimately brings into question as to where the Claimant submits the vehicle was parked, the validity the original particulars of claim and/or the authority of the disclosed contract agreement.

47. The Defendant believes the Claimant had no interest in the land, no legal standing to enter into a contract or to litigate in their own name on behalf of the lawful occupier.

CONDUCT

48. The Defendant’s conduct and defence was entirely with merit.

49. Due to the ‘robot-issued’ nature of the claim particulars, the Defendant was unnecessarily disadvantaged in regards to the pertinent facts and information of the claim.

50. The Claimant claims that their IPC AOS code of practice allows include an additional £60 however, the Defendant clearly indicated in their witness statement that this is against POFA 12 and the Consumer Rights Act! 2015 schedule 2.

50. The Defendant had no choice but to serve a fully comprehensive and inclusive defence in response to the claim and therefore should be used in determining the facts.

51. The Defendant’s view is that the witness statement is merely a ‘copy and paste’ exercise by the Claimant by reason that several paragraphs are not related to this case and propagates irrelevant points.

52. The Claimant seeks to apportion liability to the Defendant for not replying to their letters
or identifying the driver, and suggests that this conduct caused the Claimant costs.

53. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the Claimant has been wholly unreasonable. It is also argued that the conduct of the Claimant cannot be overlooked and has therefore put forward a statement of costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(g) for consideration by the Court.

54. The Defendant would like to ask that the case is dismissed with no relief from sanctions and that my full costs are granted on the indemnity basis, including (as well as my ordinary costs for attendance) my hours of time at the Litigant in Person rate (£19 per hour for xx hours spent in extensive research, reading reams of cut & paste template Gladstones paperwork and preparing my own documents and evidence).

Signature:

Date:

Coupon-mad

Lovely example of a thorough skeleton argument IMHO. As long as that assists you on the day (and you file & serve it now) it's all good.

Amis95

Hi Coupon-mad,
I am so pleased with the positive feedback from you. thank you so much for taking your time, especially I know we are all busy celebrating Christmas and new year with families. I really appreciate it. Happy New to you all.

Amis95

Hi all,
So it's time, I have all the paperwork ready in a bundle including the evidence of documents sent to all parties. My hearing is at 2pm tomorrow so will let you know of the outcome tomorrow evening.
Just want to say a massive thank you for all the support, would have not been able to come this far without you.

Amis95

Hi guys,
You probably already guessed the outcome of this already, yes I won!!!!!! But the judge ripped their rep apart and I didn’t have to say anything to be honest.

So, here is how it went.
Surprised but not surprised, they did send a young girl to represent them. I went to the court half an hour early, dressed smart (made a difference), and reported to the reception. She heard me say my name so came and approached me. Then she said let me find a meeting room, and went off to find one. When she came back, I asked for what? She said we can have a chat, I replied no need, I am clear on everything. So she sat next to me in awkward silence.

Luckily, we didn’t have to wait for long. The judge from the beginning was very friendly with me and explained procedure and confirmed documents. She complimented the fact that documents were very well organized. I knew I hand delivered my WS to the wrong court as I had two letters with two court addresses. Luckily, she explained it works under one umbrella, to my relieve!

For some reason she didn’t get my skeleton argument, but she said she was sure I sent it. So she gave us 5 min to read it and then asked me if there was anything else I need to say. I just made my main points clear so the judge asked the claimant for their story.

The poor girl started to waffle through it only to be stopped straight away and asked to explain about Jack Chapman signature. So she sent us out giving the rep a chance to call and find answer.
We came back, the rep couldn’t reply clearly, so the judge (unsatisfied) asked her to continue. She went on to the landlord contract to which the judge stopped her again and asked who is the landlord, again failed to answer.

The judge also said the £60 in not lawful and claimant rep said they no longer are seeking it (so only the £100).

The rep carried on to the signage and after further waffle, judge stopped her again and said stop referring me as the driver because I clearly said I am not the driver and you have provided no evidence of it.

The judge then said, your pictures isn’t enough to prove that the car is parked and your WS says the breach is - no valid permit and parking outside of designated bay but the Jack’s WS doesn’t mention this. You took a picture of the back of the car so no evidence of valid permit, and no marking on the floor (the judge laughed out load at the rep, saying sorry but this not your fault and your Witness is not here to answer this). I think you and I know your own WS has been your own failure so I don’t need to listen to the defendant any further so I am going to dismiss the claim. The rep tried to say I ambushed and said they didn’t receive it so I pulled out an email from Glady confirming receipt and also the email to court. As we were leaving the court room, the judge did warn the rep about the signature of Jack and said I am seeing more and more of these.

So there you go, a simple point I made about the fact that we can question if the car is parked, and taking a picture of the back of the car, which is not in a bay was enough. The judge said even if everything else is correct, all signage, keeper liability etc, she was not satisfied with Jacks WS and burden of proof is always on the claimant.

It was a bizarre experienced really, I wanted to say so much, but the judge ripped the rep apart on her own points instead while I am sitting there smiling the whole time. A very enjoyable experience. There were so many times, the rep didn't have an answer and tried to move on but the judge did't let her. to be honest, at one point I felt sorry for her.

Anyway, I was awarded £225 for the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour and by that time the rep was finished to argue my schedule of costs. So, we walked out, she took my bank details, and sat on the phone arguing with someone about what the judge said. She was clearly getting a earful by the sound of it. I rubbed it in a little more and said hope your day gets better

This is all thanks to you guys! I can’t imagine anyone doing this without the forums and the information you guys set out on the Newbies Thread. Thank you so much!!!!!

so in the words of Coupon-mad - another bites the dust

Coupon-mad

I was awarded £225 for the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour and by that time the rep was finished to argue my schedule of costs. So, we walked out, she took my bank details, and sat on the phone arguing with someone about what the judge said. She was clearly getting a earful by the sound of it.

Haha, brilliant, you got costs for unreasonableness!

and this:

As we were leaving the court room, the judge did warn the rep about the signature of Jack and said I am seeing more and more of these.

ANOTHER UKCPM ONE BITES THE DUST!

:T