Court Claim Received - Found in favour of VCS :-(

Le_Kirk

Yes, "we are so confident that we are offering a reduction!" The advice is usually to make it "without prejudice save as to costs" so it cannot be used in the court case unless you lose.

danonj

Something along the lines of this?

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SAVE AS TO COSTS

Dear Sir or Madam

RE: <CLAIM NO> – Parking Scammer vs Innocent Motorist.

With regard to the above Claim and in response to your letter dated XXth Oct 2019.
I am confident I have a strong defence against your claim and as such will not accept your offer of a reduced settlement charge of £XXX.00.

I will however, make an offer in return for your consideration. I offer to pay an amount equal to 3hrs parking at the currently advertised rate of £X.XX. Should you fail to accept my offer and I am successful in defending your claim against me, I will be claiming for my costs of appearing in court. As I work as an independent contractor, these costs will include my day rate of £XXX.

Yours faithfully
Innocent Motorist

danonj

Here's my witness statement, please let me know what you think.

In the County Court at xxxxxxxxxxxx
Claim No. xxxxxxxxxxxx
Between
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
and
(Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I am (Defendant), of xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:
2. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked to which I will refer.
3. The essence of the defence to this claim is that:
a) The Defendant did not enter into contractual agreement with the Claimant whether by express, implied or by conduct.
b) The Defendant was rendered (by the fault of the Claimant) unable to enter into a valid and binding contract as the Defendant was unable to fulfil the consideration element of the contract due to the failure of the Claimant ’s equipment and inadequate signage. The contract is therefore frustrated and void.
c) The Defendant considers that they did everything in their power to find an alternative means of payment and made reasonable endeavours to comply with the contractual terms.
4. When the Defendant arrived at the xxxxxxxxxxxxx car park in xxxxxx on xx xxxxxx 2015, there were no signs displayed at the car park entrance (See Items A & B, taken from google street view dated both prior to and after xxx xxxxx), it was approximately 16:30 and they had an appointment at 16:40.
5. The Defendant parked the vehicle near the entrance (See Item C, marked with a green box showing the approximate parking location) and attempted to buy a ticket from the pay and display ticket machine (See Item C, marked with a red box showing approximate location of the PDT machine) however the coins fell through the machine. The same happened when the Defendant tried again.
6. The Defendant noticed that there was a message displayed on the machine’s screen stating “NOT IN USE”. The time was approximately 16:33. The Defendant looked around the car park but couldn’t see another machine to use, nor signs providing directions to another machine. There was no option provided to pay by any other means. As the machine was displaying a message it was understood by the defendant that it was functional and that “NOT IN USE” meant that charges were not applicable at the time. While returning to the vehicle the Defendant noticed a number of parked cars that were not displaying tickets, appearing to confirm the understanding.
7. The Defendant then left the car park via the route shown (see Item C, with the route marked in Blue). The are no signs displaying the terms of parking within a readable distance along the route taken to exit the car park.
8. It was never the Defendant’s intention to avoid payment and the Defendant strongly refutes any suggestions made by the Claimant that this was the case.
9. At approximately 18:15 the Defendant returned to the vehicle, to find a yellow packet attached to the vehicle’s window labelled “Parking Charge Notice”. The Defendant checked the PDT machine, which was now displaying a message on the machine’s screen stating “PAY WITH COINS”.
10. The Defendant sent an email (Item D) at 19:05 the same day to the email address supplied on the PCN left on the vehicle, explaining the issue found with the machine when attempting to pay for parking. Other than an automated acknowledgement, no response to the Defendant’s email was received.
11. It was not until week commencing xx xxxxx 2019 (3 years x months later) that the Defendant received a letter (Item E) with “LETTER BEFORE CLAIM” written in large red emboldened lettering. The Defendant attempted to follow the instructions within the letter, which provided directions to download a reply form, but the link provided did not work.
11.1. The letter stated “Despite our best endeavours to recover payments…”, the Defendant disputes that the Claimant made best endeavours to recover payment, given that they had been provided an email address and no emails other than the automated response were received by the Defendant. During the 3 years and x months since the PCN was left on the vehicle, the Defendant is not aware of any attempts by the Claimant to make contact to recover payment.
12. The Defendant submitted a SAR (Item F) to the data protection officer of Vehicle Control Services Limited on xxx xxxx 2019, this was acknowledged on xx xxxx 2019 and further information was requested to prove the ID of the Defendant. This was provided immediately by the Defendant on the same day.
12.1. A response to the SAR was not received until xxx xxxx 2019 (Items G & H) (outside of the 1 calendar month period required by data protection law).
12.2. The response to the SAR appeared to be incomplete. The response did not include a copy of the email sent from the Defendant to the Claimant on xx xxxx 2015 (Item D), but did include a copy of a letter dated xx xxxx 2015 from the Claimant addressed to the Defendant (Item labelled “xxxxxxxxx.pdf”), which included the following statements “We acknowledge receipt of your appeal (representations) received xx xxxxxx 2015” & “We have noted your comments regarding the ticket machine not functioning.” which suggests the email (Item D) was received.
12.3. The Defendant did not receive the letter from the Claimant dated xx xxxxx 2015 (Item labelled “xxxxxxxxxxx.pdf”).
12.4. The response to the SAR did not contain any other copies of correspondence sent from the Claimant to the Defendant attempting to recover payment or otherwise.
13. The Defendant also, on xx xxxx 2019, wrote to Vehicle Control Services Limited informing them that a SAR had been submitted to their DPO and the Defendant required a restriction of data processing and the case to be put on hold (Item I).
14. A further request was sent to the Claimant on xx xxxx 2019 (Item J) specifically requesting:
a) Copies of all letters and emails sent and received
b) A Pay & Display Ticket machine record for the day of payments made
c) All data held and all evidence that the Claimant would rely on, including a full copy of the Notice to Keeper
d) A list of all PCNs that are considered outstanding against me and/or the vehicle registration number
The Claimant responded to this request on xx xxxxx 2019 (Item K) but provided no further information. The response stated:
“We advise that we have issued you with the information and documentation that we hold in the matter. The original response to your SAR contains all the personal data that we hold for you, inclusive of any letters or emails sent/received.”
15. A further request was sent to the Claimant on xx xxxxx 2019 (Item L) specifically requesting:
a) Any and all evidence that you may rely on in court with regard to this case.
b) A copy of the notice to keeper
c) The PDT machine record for the day of payments made (VRNs may be partially redacted if required).
d) A copy of the contract with the landowner under which the Claimant asserts authority to bring the claim.
e) Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of the alleged contravention.
16. The Claimant responded to this request on xx xxxx 2019:
a) No copy of the notice to keeper was included
b) No copy of the PDT machine record for the day was included
c) No copy of the contract with the landowner under which the Claimant asserts authority to bring the claim was included. The response stated “We will not disclose the contract at this stage, as it is a commercially sensitive document.”
d) Photographs of the signs displayed were included, but no information regarding the sign size, font size and height at which they were displayed was included.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of 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.


Name:
Date:

1505grandad

Witness Statements are written in the first person i.e. "I" not "The Defendant"

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for VCS demolished to see that it is important to wait for VCS' WS then demolish it, and how to do that. Not just the narrative.

Meanwhile send that offer but you MUST add a short deadline (and tell them your WS & evidence are all in hand and urge them to cancel as they have no cause of action).

danonj

The deadline for submission is November 5th, I suspect VCS are waiting until the last minute to submit their WS, so that I have less chance of being able to counter it.
I assume I would receive their submissions via post?

Coupon-mad

Yes to all of the above. They normally send it the day before.

But you could have already demolished it by now. I was trying to make it clear you DO NOT need to see it, to know what it will say and the case law to shoot down. It's already done to death on other VCS threads.

I hope you are not sitting there with no idea what VCS will send? Please don't be that person who has no idea despite the forum showing you all about it, all over the place! You have EVERY chance of having written something to counter it before you even see it.

For the sake of a decent keyword search, this is already here for you.

danonj

I'm with you.
Wasn't sure if assuming that they will use the exact template WS was the right move, but based on what you're saying they're too lazy to change their tack and it is.

Do I submit this or wait for their WS just in case they submit something new?

Here's my amended WS (Points 19 onwards are copy paste from previous VCS WS)

---

In the County Court at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Claim No. xxxxxxxxxx
Between
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
and
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I am xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience. I will say as follows:

2. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked to which I will refer.

3. The essence of the defence to this claim is that:
a) I did not enter into contractual agreement with the Claimant whether by express, implied or by conduct.
b) I was rendered (by the fault of the Claimant) unable to enter into a valid and binding contract as I was unable to fulfil the consideration element of the contract due to the failure of the Claimant ’s equipment and inadequate signage. The contract is therefore frustrated and void.
c) I consider that I did everything in my power to find an alternative means of payment and made reasonable endeavours to comply with the contractual terms.

4. When I arrived at the Crown Street car park in Leeds on xxxx 2015, there were no signs displaying the terms of parking at the car park entrance, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice and the Claimant’s statement in the Particulars of Claim (See Items A & B, taken from google street view dated both prior to and after xxxx 2015), it was approximately 16:30 and I had an appointment at 16:40.

5. I parked the vehicle near the entrance (See Item C, marked with a green box showing the approximate parking location) and attempted to buy a ticket from the pay and display ticket machine (See Item C, marked with a red box showing approximate location of the PDT machine) however the coins fell through the machine. The same happened when I tried again.

6. I noticed that there was a message displayed on the machine’s screen stating “NOT IN USE”. The time was approximately 16:33. I looked around the car park but couldn’t see another machine to use, nor signs providing directions to another machine. The machine I attempted to pay at was marked with a large white sign marked with a blue P. I could not see any other similar signs displayed in the car park.

7. There was no option provided to pay by any other means. As the machine was displaying a message, I understood that it was functional and that “NOT IN USE” meant that charges were not applicable at the time. While returning to the vehicle I noticed a number of parked cars that were not displaying tickets, appearing to confirm the understanding.

8. I then left the car park via the route shown (see Item C, with the route marked in Blue). The are no signs displaying the terms of parking within a readable distance along the route taken to exit the car park.

9. It was never my intention to avoid payment and I strongly refute any suggestions made by the Claimant that this was the case.

10. At approximately 18:15 I returned to the vehicle, to find a yellow packet attached to the vehicle’s window labelled “Parking Charge Notice”. I checked the PDT machine, which was now displaying a message on the machine’s screen stating “PAY WITH COINS”.

11. I sent an email (Item D) at 19:05 the same day to the email address supplied on the PCN left on the vehicle, explaining the issue found with the machine when attempting to pay for parking. Other than an automated acknowledgement, no response to my email was received.

12. It was not until week commencing xxxx 2019 (3 years xx months later) that I received a letter (Item E) with “LETTER BEFORE CLAIM” written in large red emboldened lettering. I attempted to follow the instructions within the letter, which provided directions to download a reply form, but the link provided did not work.
12.1. The letter stated “Despite our best endeavours to recover payments…”, I dispute that the Claimant made best endeavours to recover payment, given that they had been provided an email address and no emails other than the automated response were received. During the 3 years and xx months since the PCN was left on the vehicle, I am not aware of any attempts by the Claimant to make contact to recover payment.

13. I submitted a SAR (Item F) to the data protection officer of Vehicle Control Services Limited on xxxxx 2019, this was acknowledged on xxxxx 2019 and further information was requested to prove my ID. I provided this immediately on the same day.
13.1. A response to the SAR was not received until xxxxx 2019 (Items G & H1 through to H12) (outside of the 1 calendar month period required by data protection law).
13.2. The response to the SAR appeared to be incomplete. The response did not include a copy of the email sent from myself to the Claimant on xxxx 2015 (Item D), but did include a copy of a letter dated xxxxx 2015 from the Claimant addressed to myself (Item H1), which included the following statements “We acknowledge receipt of your appeal (representations) received xxxx 2015” & “We have noted your comments regarding the ticket machine not functioning.” which suggests the email (Item D) was received.
13.3. I did not receive the letter from the Claimant dated xxxxxx 2015 (Item H1).
13.4. The response to the SAR did not contain any other copies of correspondence sent from the Claimant to myself attempting to recover payment or otherwise.

14. I also, on xxxxxx 2019, wrote to Vehicle Control Services Limited informing them that a SAR had been submitted to their DPO and that I required a restriction of data processing and the case to be put on hold (Item I).

15. A further request was sent to the Claimant on xxxxxx 2019 (Item J) specifically requesting:
a) Copies of all letters and emails sent and received
b) A Pay & Display Ticket machine record for the day of payments made
c) All data held and all evidence that the Claimant would rely on, including a full copy of the Notice to Keeper
d) A list of all PCNs that are considered outstanding against me and/or the vehicle registration number
The Claimant responded to this request on xxxxxxx 2019 (Item K) but provided no further information. The response stated:
“We advise that we have issued you with the information and documentation that we hold in the matter. The original response to your SAR contains all the personal data that we hold for you, inclusive of any letters or emails sent/received.”

16. A further request was sent to the Claimant on xxxxxxx 2019 (Item L) specifically requesting:
a) Any and all evidence that you may rely on in court with regard to this case.
b) A copy of the notice to keeper
c) The PDT machine record for the day of payments made (VRNs may be partially redacted if required).
d) A copy of the contract with the landowner under which the Claimant asserts authority to bring the claim.
e) Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of the alleged contravention.

17. The Claimant responded to this request on xxxxxx 2019:
a) No copy of the notice to keeper was included
b) No copy of the PDT machine record for the day was included
c) No copy of the contract with the landowner under which the Claimant asserts authority to bring the claim was included. The response stated “We will not disclose the contract at this stage, as it is a commercially sensitive document.”
d) Photographs of the signs displayed were included, but no information regarding the sign size, font size and height at which they were displayed was included.

18. The photographs of the signs provided by the Claimant (Items N06 through N22) are dated xx Jan 2015. I draw the court’s attention to Item N12, which shows signs displayed on a wooden fence. In photographs provided by the Claimant from the date the PCN was issued, (Specifically Items H7 & H8) there are no signs on the same wooden fence. I therefore put it to the court that Items N06 through N22 cannot be relied upon as an accurate representation of the signage on the date the PCN was issued.


19. Yousra Ibrahim, representing the Claimant, has been employed by the company since July 2019. As the alleged contravention took place in November 2018, none of the statements provided in her witness statement can be of her own knowledge. She is not aware of the alleged offence, the location, the signage or the facts in this case.

20. The Claimant wishes to rely on Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 to attempt to try and prove individuals may enter into contracts with a sign. That case is fully distinguished from this case in question as that relates to a car park with a barrier on entry. The sign is clearly visible to motorists entering the car park and they are able to read the sign and decide whether they want to enter the car park while they take a ticket and wait for the barrier to open. In this case, there is no barrier so the case above has no relevance on this case.

21. In Paragraph 32 of the Claimants Witness Statement, the Claimant refers to ‘Vine v Waltham Forest’. The Court of Appeal on this case ruled in favour of the Defendant on the basis that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. It would appear that the Claimant is attempting to wrongfully persuade the court by mis-quoting Roch L.J. The full quote is this;
“Alternatively, and this is the ground principally urged upon us by Mr. Mott, the question whether a person voluntarily assumes a risk or consents to trespass to his or her property is to be judge objectively and not subjectively. Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method landowners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property.”
As you can see, Lord Justice Roch was simply reading one side of the argument. Roch L.J. found in favour of the motorist in this case. Therefore, this case can be immediately dismissed as it has no bearing on this case in question.

22. Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (the IPC) and breached the trade body’s Code of Practice, specifically Part B, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2.
Paragraph 2.1 “Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.”
Paragraph 2.2 “Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code.”

23. Paragraph 36 states the Claimant is intending to rely on the ParkingEye v Beavis case. This case can be fully distinguished from my case due to the following facts;
a. There was no contractual offer made giving a licence to park nor any promise made, or contract agreed based on any prominent signs or properly marked lines.
b. There is no comparable legitimate interest or commercial justification for charging more than the landowner could claim by way of restitutionary damages.

24. The claimant is intending to rely on Chaplair v Kumari to attempt to justify an unknown £60 “debt recovery charge”. This case is distinguished from the case above by the following facts; the Beavis case established that a parking firm cannot seek or plead a sum in 'damages'. Chaplair v Kumari is also distinguished. Far from supporting this attempt at double recovery, Chaplair was a decision about contractual fees set in lease terms, whereas parking charges are capped by the Protections of Freedoms Act (the POFA)/the will of Parliament at the sum on any Notice to Keeper, and not higher, and the Beavis case confirmed this by only allowing £85 and no bolt on 'damages' or imaginary debt collector costs.

25. The Claimant is also intending to rely on Vehicle Control Services Limited v Crutchley (paragraph 53) which can be dismissed as it was a case based on “stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited”. There is no relevance to this case.

Abuse of Process
26. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

26.1. 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.”
26.2. 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.
26.3. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third-party debt collector during the process.
26.4. 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 and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.
26.5. 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.
26.6. Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. 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, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case. The Defendant refers to the following paragraphs given in the judgement on the 4th of November 2015 in ParkingEye v Beavis:
at para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''
at para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.''
at para 198. ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''
26.7. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that roboclaim 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.
26.8. 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.
26.9. 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 that their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.
26.10. 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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firms claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating:
''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process (Exhibit HC21). 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...''
26.11. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies Exhibit HC22) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:
“Upon it being recorded that Distract 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 v 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 and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”

27. 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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

28. 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.

29. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of 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.


Name: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:

Coupon-mad

Do I submit this or wait for their WS just in case they submit something new?

Wait. My prediction is, Saturday. They often like to wreck people's weekends.

danonj

Their WS has arrived
I've not read through it properly yet, but a quick scan revealed no surprises. Nice of them to give me some time to properly craft my WS in response.