Finding the Data Officer for Parking Charge Limited

lass2019

The !!!!!!s have paid it!

I've put together a witness statement but I'm a bit concerned it's a bit like my defence statement! Would really appreciate any pointers. I included the claim F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019 re abuse of process. Should I include more examples? And am I correct to include in my evidence POFA schedule 4 and CPR?

Many Thanks!

I, XXX of XXX am the Defendant in this claim.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief. I am unrepresented and have no experience with Court proceedings. I trust the court will excuse my inexperience if I have not set out the documents in the way that the Claimant has.

2. I intend to put forward my case with the following witness statement and the attached paginated documents marked XXX to which I will refer to in this document.

3. Prior to recalling my actions on XXXX when I parked in The University of Cambridge Primary School car park, I outline that the summary of my defence to this claim is that:
(a) I held a parking permit for Cambridge University Primary School Car park.
(b) The Claimants signage is incapable of forming a legally binding contract.
(c) The Claimant has not provided proof of the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
(d)The Particulars of Claim and Parking Charge Notice (PCN) fail to state the correct location of the alleged contravention.
(e) The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery, and is considered an ‘Abuse of Process’.

4. At the time of the alleged contravention I was employed at the University of Cambridge Primary School as a peripatetic teacher. The school advised me to use their car park and issued me with permits, which I displayed in my vehicle.

5. I later received a PCN from the Claimant demanding £100 (or £60 if paid in 14 days) for a breach of the car park terms and conditions by parking without displaying or holding a correct or valid permit. Please see page XXX for a photograph of the permit I held on 10/12/18, the date of the alleged contravention.

6. Using the PCN reference they gave me and my vehicles registration I tried to appeal the claim online. However, the Claimants webpage repeatedly found the details were invalid, as shown by a screenshot on page XXX. This made me question the validity of the PCN in its entirety and the legitimacy of the issuer, especially considering I knew I hadn’t committed a contravention since I had a permit. I didn’t trust the PCN and decided to ignore any further contact.

7. Later when the Claimants representatives BW Legal contacted me I emailed them a photocopy of the parking permit as shown on page XXX. Despite emailing this to them several times they continued with their claim. I also alerted them to the Claimants appeals system failure, which they also chose to ignore.

8. On speaking to the staff at The University of Cambridge Primary School I was told PCNs are frequently given to staff there but that a letter from the Headmaster suffices to stop any further action. On page XXX is the letter from the Headmaster at the school confirming I had been issued with a permit and had permission to park there. I emailed this letter along with another copy of my permit to BW Legal but they continued to harass me for payment.

9. After making a Subject Access Request (SAR) twice I finally got the photographs taken of my car held by the Claimant in a size big enough to inspect. However, due to the light hitting my vehicles windscreen it is difficult to clearly make out what can and cannot be seen.

10. Despite displaying the permit I began to worry that the permit may have fallen down. There are no photo’s of the car seat or floor which is presumably where it would have been if it fell. It seems entirely unreasonable to me that a claim should be upheld should it be the case the permit fell.

11. With this in mind I inspected the single small sign at the site, please see page XXX page XXX. I then discovered that the Claimant did not fully comply with their obligations within the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice of which they are member and obligated to follow its requirements. The BPA code of conduct states in section 18.2 “as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”
The site has only one small single entrance sign with the terms and conditions, no other signs exist at the site and this is directly against the stipulations of the BPA. In addition, the terms on the Claimant's single small sign are displayed in a font too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and placed some 8ft high.
Industry standard signs recommend a minimum height of 3 inches in a bold font to have any readable impact at 30 feet. Anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

12. On reading the terms and conditions on the sign I noticed that it states ‘Registered Permit Holders Only’. As seen on page XXX there is nothing in the terms and conditions that require a permit holder to display their permit. Therefore, the photos the Claimant took are irrelevant and no contravention or breach took place.

13 Please note on page XXX and page XXX during an email conversation with BW Legal I brought their attention to the fact that the Claimants sign does not require permits to be displayed. BW Legal replied they would seek further instruction from the Claimant on this matter and get back to me. To this date I have not received any response.

14. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. Page XXX shows an email I sent to BW Legal dated XXXX asking for the contract between the Claimant and the Landowner. This was supplied with redactions, please see page XXX and page XXX

15. This contract does not meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, which requires two signatures from each party or one Director's signature and a witness, with each signatory’s position in the company shown.

16. The contract letter on page XXX has only a Directors’ signature with the name redacted but no witness signature. The site address is left blank making it impossible to know what land this contract is referring to.

17. The contract Appendix on page XXX has two signatures from each party but it does not state what company the Director XXXX is from. The site referenced here is called ‘North West Cambridge Development’. This is vague and unrelated to the site in question.

18. Because of the many failings of the contract supplied by the Claimant I uphold that they have no right to issue parking charge notices or to pursue payment by means of litigation.

19. When I received the Particulars of Claim I saw that it failed to state the correct location. On checking the original PCN I discovered the same. The site the Claimant states the alleged contravention took place is ‘Cambridge University’. However, I was parked at Cambridge University Primary School. Cambridge University does not exist as a single location or car park. It is a campus University and exists across some 31 colleges and numerous other buildings. A contravention cannot occur at a non-existent location.

20. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal, have now artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £60 to £243.28. There appears to be added costs with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

21. The Claimant describes a charge of £50 as "legal representative costs’’ not
"contractual costs". Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 27.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.

22. There is also an added charge of £60 with no explanation of how this sum has been calculated. This is a gross abuse of process.

23. In Claim number: F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019. District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from BW Legal that included a false amount of £60 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 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...''

24. To further support my case and my defence I attach following additional exhibits:
(a) Protection Of Freedom Act (POFA) Schedule 4
(b) Civil Procedure Rules


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

Signed:

Dated

Coupon-mad

The !!!!!!s have paid it!

Of course they have, why do people always want to check. Of course they would.

Would really appreciate any pointers. I included the claim F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019 re abuse of process. Should I include more examples?

Take it out of your WS as the case moved to a hearing last week, as shown in CEC16's thread, and you need a skeleton argument to cover it all...

Read the PCL thread where someone won in court TODAY! (no link).

Read CEC16's thread (never will I link a thread where I'm saying who wrote it!)

Read the abuse of process thread post #14 where I've covered the wording needed and given links to the orders and evidence you need to append with it.

Read the examples on here already this week (search for the word skelly).

lass2019

The CEC16 thread is dramatic! Great outcome!

Have copy and pasted most of the wording in the abuse of process thread post #14.

Should I attach POFA, CPR and CRA to my evidence, or just take it with me for reference?

Here's my ws now, it's pretty lengthy!

In the County Court at XXXXX
CLAIM NO: XXXX
Between
PARKING CHARGE LIMITED (Claimant)
and
XXXXX (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXX of XXXX am the Defendant in this claim. Attached to this statement are paginated documents marked GF1 to which I will refer. I will say as follows:

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief. I am unrepresented and have no experience with Court proceedings. I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

2. I intend to put forward my case with the following witness statement and the attached paginated documents marked GF1 to which I will refer to in this document.

3. Prior to recalling my actions on 10/12/18 when I parked in The University of Cambridge Primary School car park, I outline that the summary of my defence to this claim is that:
(a) I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking.
(b) The Claimants signage is incapable of forming a legally binding contract.
(c) The Claimant has not provided proof of the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
(d) The Particulars of Claim and Parking Charge Notice (PCN) fail to state the correct location of the alleged contravention.
(e) The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery, and is considered an ‘Abuse of Process’.

4. At the time of the alleged contravention I was employed at the University of Cambridge Primary School as a peripatetic teacher. The school advised me to use their car park and issued me with permits, which I displayed in my vehicle when I parked there. I was issued a permit on XXX a photocopy of which can be seen on page 1.

5. I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from the Claimant demanding £100 (or £60 if paid in 14 days) for a breach of the car park terms and conditions for parking without displaying or holding a correct or valid permit.

6. Using the PCN reference they gave me and my vehicles registration I tried to appeal the claim online. However, the Claimants webpage repeatedly found the details were invalid, as shown by the screenshot on page 2. This made me question the validity of the PCN in its entirety and the legitimacy of the issuer, especially considering I knew I had a permit. I didn’t trust the PCN and decided to ignore any further contact.

7. When the Claimants representatives BW Legal contacted me I emailed them a photocopy of my parking permit. Despite emailing this to them several times they continued with their claim. I also alerted them to the Claimants appeals system failure, which they also chose to ignore.

8. On speaking to staff at The University of Cambridge Primary School I was told PCNs are frequently given to staff there but that a letter from the Headmaster suffices to stop any further action. On page 3 is the letter from the Headmaster at the school confirming I was issued with a permit and had permission to park there. I emailed this letter along with another copy of my permit to BW Legal but they continued to harass me for payment.

9. After making a Subject Access Request (SAR) twice I finally got the photographs taken of my car held by the Claimant in a size big enough to inspect. However, due to light hitting my vehicles windscreen it is difficult to clearly make out what can and cannot be seen.

10. Despite displaying the permit I began to worry that the permit may have fallen down. There are no photo’s of the car seat or floor which is presumably where it would have been if it fell. Should it be the case the permit fell, it seems entirely unreasonable that a claim should be upheld.

11. I inspected the single small sign at the site, please see page 4. The Claimant does not fully comply with their obligations within the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice of which they are member and obligated to follow its requirements. As shown on page 7 the BPA code of conduct states in section 18.2 “as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.” The site has only one small single entrance sign with the terms and conditions, no other signs exist at the site and this is directly against the stipulations of the BPA.

12. In addition, the terms on the Claimant's single small sign are displayed in a font too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and placed some 8ft high and seen on page 5. Industry standard signs recommend a minimum height of 3 inches in a bold font to have any readable impact at 30 feet. Anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

12. The singular sign states ‘Registered Permit Holders Only’ (please see page 6). The Claimant does not request the permit holder to display their permit. Therefore, it cannot be a contravention or breach if a permit cannot be seen. The photos the Claimant took of my vehicle are irrelevant.

13 Please note on pages 8, 9, 10 and 11 in an email conversation with BW Legal I brought their attention to the fact that the Claimants sign does not require permits to be displayed. BW Legal replied they would seek further instruction from the Claimant on this matter and get back to me. To this date I have not received any response.

14. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Claimant supplied their ‘contract’ with redactions; please see page 12 and page 113

15. This contract does not meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 Section 44 (Please see page 14 and 15). This requires two authorised signatures from each party or one Director's signature and a witness, with each signatory’s position in the company shown.

16. The contract letter on page 12 has only a Directors’ signature with the name redacted but no witness signature. The site address is left blank making it impossible to know what land this letter is referring to.

17. The contract appendix on page 13 has two signatures from each party but it does not state what company the Director David Hyde is from. The site referenced here is called ‘North West Cambridge Development’. This is vague and does not directly reference the car park in question.

18. Because of the many failings of the contract supplied by the Claimant I uphold that they have no right to issue parking charge notices or pursue payment by means of litigation on behalf of the landowner.

19. The Particulars of Claim fail to state the correct location. On checking the original PCN again I discovered it also fails to state the wrong location. The site the Claimant states the alleged contravention took place is ‘Cambridge University’. I was parked at Cambridge University Primary School. Cambridge University does not exist as a single location or car park. It is a campus University and exists across some 31 colleges and numerous other buildings. A contravention cannot occur at a location I was not parked at or at a non-existent location.

20. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £60 to £243.28. The fees on the Particulars of Claim are as follows:
£60 ‘costs’.
Interest payment £8.28.
Court fee £25
‘Legal representatives costs’ £50.

21. The Claimant describes a charge of £50 as "legal representative costs’’ not
"contractual costs". Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 27.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court, Please see page XXX.

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

23. I do not believe that the Claimant has incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover ‘costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under CPR 44.3 (2) ''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.

24. The Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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''. Ad at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

27. 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.''

28. The POFA 2012, Schedule 4 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.

29. Further, the purported added '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.

30. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (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 [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''
Please see page 17.

31. 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. 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.

33. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another 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. 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 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 the Beavis case. It is an abuse of process”

34. BW Legal made an application objecting to two cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor, (Claim number: F0DP201T) 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'.

35. 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, claim number F0DP163T. 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.

36. 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.

37. A transcript will be publicly available shortly. 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, 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.''

38. Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the 'core exemption' as set out in the CRA 2015. The CMA Official Government Guidance 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.

39. The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expended 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.

40. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and 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.

41. I am of the view that this 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.

42. The court is invited to dismiss the claim for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon and Southampton cases and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and 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.

Signed:

Dated

lass2019

Hi,

Would someone be able to have a check over of my WS above please?

Also, I'm not sure if I should attach the relevant pages of POFA, CPR and CRA to my evidence, or just take it with me for reference?

Coupon-mad

Remove #10 as it's speculation that could cast doubt on your case & help theirs!

Remove #21 because (sadly) they can claim a fixed £50 in legal costs and the abuse of process issue is all about the costs - alleged to be a ridiculous £60 - being counted twice.

This double negative needs putting right!

I discovered it also fails to state the wrong location.

Typo here, presumably you mean p13?

please see page 12 and page 113

You should take with you, 3 copies of Sch4 of the POFA with 4(5) highlighted, and 3 copies of the CRA Sch2 'the grey list' with 6, 10 and 14 highlighted. No need to file or serve statute law in advance.

No need at all to print off the CPRs, or the Beavis case which is binding case law the Judge will be able to check if he/she wants to read the 6 paragraphs you mentioned in this WS.

lass2019

Thank you very much. Will let you know how it goes.

lass2019

FYI
I've sent in my WS and received the Claimants via BW Legal today. I've tried to summarise below and have included what they've said in response to my Defence saying the claim has been artificially inflated.

Summary is they obviously uphold:
That their signage is in line with BPA - it's odd that in the photo's they have included as evidence, the T&Cs can't be read.
The signs form a unilateral offer. They cite VCSL vs Alfred Charles Crutchley (2017)
They have the authority to issue charges on the land.
They say my Defence is full of generic arguments found online and therefore question its merit
With regards to my parking permit which I have as evidence they say I was not on a whitelist - first time I've heard them use this term. And they question the validity of the letter I have from my employer saying they issued my permit.

Below is their response to:

Defendant's allegation that the claim has been artificially inflated

67.The signage clearly states that a PCN in the sum of £100.00 would be issued for a breach of the Terms and Conditions.

68. The Claimant is also seeking recovery of its debt recovery costs in the sum of £60.00. This forms part of the Terms and Conditions, which were agreed by the Defendant by parking in the Car Park. On the basis any additional costs are agreed, it is the Claimant's position that the £60.00 is recoverable from the Defendant. Had the Defendant paid the PCN, within the 28 day period, then the Claimant's need to instruct solicitors (incurring expense) to recover the PCN charge would have been avoided.

69. Under the BPA Code of Practice, Part B, Section 23 - Recovering unpaid parking charges states, "Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted."

70. The additional £60.00 levied by the Claimant in relation to its debt recovery costs falls within the scope of the above provision and is therefore considerer reasonable, and in any event, recoverable from the Defendant.

71. Without prejudice to the paragraph above, the Claimant relies on the Court of Appeal ruling in Chap/air Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798 which states "that does not alter the fact that it remains a contractual entitlement which the court will enforce subject to its equitable power to disallow unreasonable expenses. There is nothing in the rule making powers in respect of the CPR which enable the rules to exclude or override that contractual entitlement and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the judge had jurisdiction to assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR
27.14."

72. From a mitigation point, the Defendant had an initial period of 14 days from the date of the PCN to pay the sum of £60.00, failing which the charge would revert to the original amount of £100.00. Given that the Defendant failed to exploit the opportunity to pay a reduced amount, the Claimant is well within their rights to pursue the Defendant for the full amount of the PCN including its debt recovery costs and the costs of these proceedings.

Le_Kirk

It might be written in the BPA code of practice but that is a set of "rules" written by the organisation for the organisation. It is not LAW and that is what the court will (or at least should) consider. Just because a defendant has submitted (in the claimant's view) generic arguments found on-line doesn't mean they have no worth or are not correct. The very fact they are on-line is an indicator that they have some worth because people are using them time and again. It indicates to me that BW Legal are running scared.

lass2019

UPDATE: I WON

Hearing was today at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court, with Judge Paul. Claim Number F4DP3A8A

Here's how it went down...
The hearing was set for 12pm but we didn't get seen until 2.20pm! Was out by approx. 2.50pm

The Solicitor for BW Legal introduced himself asked if I had any questions or if I wanted to talk - I replied no. As the time marched on he asked to have a copy of my Witness Statement which I gave him. The BW Legal solicitor who drafted their WS was off work so he was taking her place.

When we went in, I felt a bit on the back foot since I didn't know how to address the judge properly or the correct etiquette - BWLegal man was bowing all over the joint. I was incredibly nervous and it took me a while to get my thoughts in order.

The judge started with the Claimants case. For a while it was unclear whether they were disputing whether they recognised the ticket I had or disputing that I had a ticket. Either way, no ticket could be seen in the photos they had and the judge wasn't having any 'it may have fallen' excuses.

I raised the point about the signage saying 'Registered Ticket Holders Only' with no requirement to display but the Claimants WS said I needed to be on a 'Whitelist' to qualify as 'registered' - news to me. At this point the Judge said there was a lack of info about whether the school has the authority to issue valid permits and who exactly is on the whitelist. He said if it wasn't for such a small amount he would adjourn the case until more info could be presented. He asked us if we were happy to push through even though 'you may be out of pocket'. He started to suggest that I may have a claim against the school and the claimants case seemed a valid one. It wasn't going my way.

However, I had asked the Claimant to provide evidence of a contract between them (Parking Charge Ltd) and the landowner. This had been supplied to me in a hugely redacted form. But, and here's the glorious part, in THEIR OWN WS EVIDENCE a lesser redacted contract was presented between the landowner and Parking Advance Ltd. Who are they? Well they're not Parking Charge Ltd! The judge seemed to enjoy the 11th hourness of this. He asked the solicitor to respond because 'this devastates your case...your witness statement says the defence is wholly without merit, when in fact, it has rather a lot of merit wouldn't you say?' It went quickly after that and he dismissed the case.

Afterwards the judge went on record to commend the BWLegal solicitor on his conduct and manner (which I took as a dig at my naivet!) and he wanted the solicitor to know the loss wasn't down to him but rather the person who drafted the WS. Bit odd this I thought. However, he had been quite nice, helping when I got flustered trying to find correct page numbers.

Things I learnt: They judge will not have read anyones WS so don't assume they know what you're talking about - slowly guide them through your thought process and evidence and learn how to address them correctly!

Thanks for the help everyone! May I never have to do this again! Phew!

Le_Kirk

Well done on the win - howsoever gained. It looks like BW shot themselves in the foot, something we advise posters about doing on here, maybe BW should take that advice as well.

May I never have to do this again!

I am sure you won't now you have personal experience of what you (might) have to go through.