Help with new claim please!!

Coupon-mad

with a valid parking disability certificate.

There is no such thing.  Only call it a Blue Badge.

Your WS is a good start but you need to read the other UKCPM Jack Chapman threads as you are missing that crucial point about telling the Judge why that facsimile signature is unacceptable and that you've reported Gladstones to the SRA.

And you now need to read the email to the local court and the solicitor, that I suggest people send at WS during COVID_19, to save printing ink and to try to get the claim struck out.    

I posted that suggested email and list of exhibits and Draft Order and other attachments, earlier today, in the Telephone Hearings thread I started ... no link given!   

Dizzie1988

Coupon-mad said:

with a valid parking disability certificate.

There is no such thing.  Only call it a Blue Badge.

Your WS is a good start but you need to read the other UKCPM Jack Chapman threads as you are missing that crucial point about telling the Judge why that facsimile signature is unacceptable and that you've reported Gladstones to the SRA.

And you now need to read the email to the local court and the solicitor, that I suggest people send at WS during COVID_19, to save printing ink and to try to get the claim struck out.    

I posted that suggested email and list of exhibits and Draft Order and other attachments, earlier today, in the Telephone Hearings thread I started ... no link given!   

Many thanks again coupon-mad all help is appreciated. I have added points about SRA. Regarding the telephone hearings thread they have not said this will take place,  just that it will be adjourned, so I can leave this bit out now? I am also a doctor working for the NHS so I could have used that if they advised a telephone hearing. 

I have already complained to SRA James Allen and received acknowledgement email that they will investigate. 

Apologies I cannot add/edit my 1st draft I am getting this error:

• Body is 1207 characters too long.

Any advice?

nosferatu1001

I would suggest stating you are a frontline worker in the WS, it makes it clear. 

WHat are you editing? If its a post on the forum, then yes it doenst let you put too many characters in. You need to be very, very clear in what you are writing, as we cant see wht you were looking at...

Redx

Edit your draft WS on your pc , split it into two or more sections and repost each as a separate post below

Coupon-mad

I would certainly state in your WS that you are a frontline NHS Doctor and that you have done your best to provide the facts, law and evidence needed, including drawing attention to the abuse of process of adding a false £60 and the issue with UKCPM witness statements with a facsimile signature (if it matches the other versions on UKCPM threads from the Autumn, does it?).  And ask for a hearing in person later in the year.

Then start with your facts and evidence.

And do a summary costs assessment and a supplementary WS about the abuse of process, plus the case law and statute laws that go with that argument (see threads by @Chefdave and @keypulse for recent examples of their court bundles, which can be copied and cribbed from).

Dizzie1988

Thanks everyone for the useful input. I have amended my WS as advised above and tried to incorporate facts about Jack Chapman as seen in other forums.

@coupon-mad when would I do the supplementary WS? After submitting the main WS?

2nd draft below:

In the County Court

 

Claim No: XXX

 

Between

 

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-and- 

Mr XXX XXX (Defendant) 

__________________

Witness Statement

_______________

1.     Sequence Of Events

 

1.1 I am XXX XXXX, being the Defendant in this case. I am an unrepresented consumer with no experience of Court procedure. Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant’s, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant’s Solicitors. I am a frontline NHS Doctor and I have done my best to provide the facts, law and evidence needed, and I draw the courts attention to the abuse of process of adding a false £60 and lastly, the claimant (UKCPM) witness statements with a facsimile signature.  

1.2  As the defendant, I deny that the Claimant is entitled to the relief of the sum. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver. The facts of the matter are that the actual driver was disabled with a valid blue badge certificate. 

1.3 The Claimant has been extremely unclear as to what the ‘parking charge’ in question refers to, referring to it on separate occasions as a charge for ‘unauthorised parking’, a ‘consideration for parking’ and a charge for ‘breach of terms’ - all very different things. This makes is very difficult to focus my defence and I apologise if, as a result, this statement seems rather long-winded. 

1.4. This claim refers to a parking incident on a road at The Atlip Centre situated in Alperton, Wembley. On the 24thMarch 2018 my disabled father parked my vehicle on a road with a single yellow line around 21:00. He believes to his memory that his valid badge would have been displayed as normal. A copy of this is attached in exhibit 1. 

1.5. After this, I received a PCN (exhibit 2) that is the subject of this claim dated 3rd May 2018. The PCN states that the charge is for ‘unauthorised parking’ and that I ‘parked on access roads/ roadways in a manner where the driver agreed to pay a parking charge as displayed on the signage at the site’. This itself is contradictory as I cannot have entered into an agreement to do something that I was not ‘authorised’ to do, parking is either ‘authorised’ or it isn’t.

1.6. In or around the 20th May 2018 I made an appeal to the Claimant against the parking charge on the grounds that the signage at the site was inadequate, particularly given the recent change in parking restrictions. I received a response to this on 12th June 2018 saying my appeal was been unsuccessful as a breach of the terms and conditions of parking occurred.  (see exhibit 3)

1.7. Until the 19th October 2018, I received nothing further, then a series of harassing letters from DRP (Debt Recovery Plus Ltd) demanding payment for an inflated figure of ‘£160’. All three letters came within the space of  a month and a half. 

1.8. I heard nothing further from the Claimant until 20th December 2018 when I received a letter from their agents, Gladstones Solicitors (a well-known serial litigant and ‘roboclaimer’), demanding money and threatening court action (exhibit 6). 

1.9. On 4th June 2019 I received a letter from the Claimant saying that they had instructed Gladstones Solicitors had been instructed by the Claimant to commence legal action and sent out a letter before claim.I received three copies of this harassment letter. (Exhibit 7)

1.10. On 19th July 2019 I received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre instructing me that Gladstones Solictors were issuing proceedings against me on behalf of the Claimant. 

 

2.     Equality Act 2010 Not Complied With

2.1 At the time of the alleged contravention, my father was the holder of a valid blue Badge as his medical condition meant that he met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 and he was therefore entitled to ‘reasonable adjustments’ by law.

2.2 Under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) a public service provider, like the Claimant, has a ‘duty to make reasonable adjustments’ in certain circumstances (Section 29 (7) EqA 2010). Where a provision, criterion or practice of the service provider puts disabled persons generally at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, the service provider is required to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage (Section 20(3) and Schedule 2(2), EqA 2010) 

2.3 The duty to make reasonable adjustments aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. When the duty arises, the service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent these obstacles.

2.4 The Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) Accredited Operator Scheme and has failed to comply with the ‘Reasonable Adjustments’ criteria of the EqA 2010 by not following the IPC’s Code of Practice General Terms regarding disabled motorists (Exhibit RN25):

2.5 Under the Equality Act 2010 it is your duty to make “reasonable adjustments” to assist disabled people to use any services you provide. It is incumbent on operators to determine what is necessary on their individual sites. Adjustments could include lowered pay and display meters, lowered signage and wider parking bays marked specifically for disabled drivers.

2.6 According to the EqA 2010, the duty of the service provider to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ is ‘anticipatory’. This means that they cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance (and on an ongoing basis) about what disabled people with a range of impairments, such as mobility impairment, might reasonably need.

2.7 Chapter 5 of the Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice explains ‘indirect discrimination’ which may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts people sharing a protected characteristic (such as disability) at a particular disadvantage.

 

3. No Contract ExistS 

3.1 I understand from correspondence with the Claimant that the Claimant’s case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a ‘contract’ between myself and the Claimant as per ParkingEye vs Beavis. The ‘breach of terms’ on the Particulars Of Claim presumably refers to the supposed ‘contract’ formed by this signage.

3.2 In ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’, on which the Claimant relies to justify this charge, it was found that a contract could exist because there was a meaningful ‘offer’ made to the Defendant (that of a licence allowing free parking for a set period of time) and that the Defendant’s agreeing not to overstay this period could constitute a ‘consideration’ in respect of this. The ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ judgement is littered with references to the disputed charge being justifiable only in the context of the ‘contractual licence to park’ being given to the Defendant, e.g. ‘They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there’.

3.3 There is no such ‘offer’ made by the signage in this case, no ‘contractual licence’, no ‘benefit of free parking‘ and no conceivable way I could have benefitted from this alleged ‘contract’ without breaching its terms. 

3.4 The parking contract in ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ case was judged to be ‘objectively reasonable’ partly because ‘motorists generally’ did accept it (108). The landowner wanted as many people as possible to use the car park in question so the contractual arrangements were designed to be attractive to the average motorist. This is the complete antithesis of the supposed ‘contract’ in this case which is designed to actively discourage motorists from parking at the site. The terms of this ‘contract‘ are not ‘objectively reasonable’, but deliberately designed to be so heinous that no one in their right mind would agree to them. It follows that this is not a ‘contract’ but a prohibitory notice masquerading as such.

3.5 In J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw in the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning states that ‘the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it’. This is commonly referred to the ‘Red Hand Rule’. As the terms of this ‘contract’ (specifically the clause relating to a £100 parking charge) are designed to discourage motorists from accepting them it follows that they must be ‘unreasonable’ and that therefore Lord Denning’s rule should apply. 

3.6 The Claimant has not applied Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ to the terms and conditions in this case. The sentence that refers to a ‘parking charge’ is in an extremely small font (one of the smallest on the sign) which, given that this sign is supposed to be read from a vehicle, is woefully inadequate - particularly when compared to the signage in the ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ case.

3.7 The very act of entering into this alleged ‘contract’ (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. 

3.8 The PCN I was issued by the Claimant state the reason for the disputed charge as being ‘Unauthorised Parking’. I cannot be seen to have entered into a contract for something I was not ‘authorised’ to do. 

3.9 The signage and its wording at this site is almost exactly the same as the signage in the case of ‘Parking Control Management v Bull’ (exhibit 11) in which the Judge found that it was ‘impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.’ and that therefore any charges made on the basis of said signage would be damages for trespass and must constitute reparations for actual loss.

3.10 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of ‘Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford’ and ‘ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester’ in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were ‘authorised’ to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not ‘authorised’ to park. 

Dizzie1988

4. Inadequate Signage 

4.1 A key factor in ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ was that the relevant signs were ‘large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature’ and ‘The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it’. That is not the case here. 

4.2 In‘Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest’ the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no sign directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle whilst parking. In this case there was no sign adjacent to my vehicle, I had not passed any signs to park, and no signs in the vicinity could possibly be read from my vehicle. 

4.3 A key factor in ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice.

4.4 In this case the signage and operating practice of the Claimant fails, on numerous counts, to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking operator - The International Parking Community (IPC).

4.4.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that I would not have passed any signage indicating I was entering private land.

4.4.2 The IPC guidelines state that signage should include a very large ‘P’ to alert the motorist to the fact that said signage relates to parking restrictions. There is no large ‘P’, or even a small ‘P’ on the signage in this case.

4.4.3 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage ‘should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’ The text on the signage, particularly that which refers to ‘contractual terms’ and a ‘parking charge’ is very small. This, coupled with the fact that the sign is mounted at least 7ft off the ground, makes it very hard to read and impossible to read from a vehicle.

4.4.4 The IPC guidelines state that signage that is intended to form a contract should ‘Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site’. It is more-or-less impossible to read this signage whilst driving as it is mounted on a pole at least 7ft high. 

4.4.5 The IPC guidelines state that ‘Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.’ The parking terms had recently changed here and yet there was not, nor had there ever been, additional signage informing visitors that a change of restrictions was in place. 

4.4.6 The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. Given the timings involved, the balance of probability strongly suggests that the Claimant’s representative watched me park and leave my vehicle. There is anecdotal evidence of them doing exactly this. Not to warn me that leaving my vehicle would potentially incur a parking charge, particularly when the parking restrictions had recently changed, in my opinion constitutes ‘predatory tactics’. 

4.4.7 The Claimant and their representative also have a duty to mitigate loss. In the case of ‘Vehicle Control Services vs Ibbotson’ (which was won by the motorist) the judge severely castigates the Claimant for not making the Defendant aware of the terms of parking at the site when they could have easily done so. The Claimant’s representative could simply have made me aware of the terms of parking and, in the unlikely event that I agreed to them, collected payment from me directly. This would have saved all the costs involved with DVLA lookup, solicitor’s letters and court fees and better fulfilled their (presumed) obligation to keep the area free from parked vehicles.  

5. Consumer Rights

5.1 If a contract were deemed to exist between myself and the Claimant it would, under the terms of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13), be defined as a ‘distance contract’. As ‘distance contract’ is defined as ‘a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded’.

4.2 As a ‘distance contract’, the signage at the site does not carry the information required by the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13), specifically on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2. 

4.3 As the signage does not carry the information required as specified in 4.2 (above) I have the right to cancel the contract as specified by The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13) clause 31 ‘Cancellation period extended for breach of information requirement’.

4.4 Even if a contract were deemed to exist between myself and the Claimant, the fact that I explained to the Claimant’s operative in no uncertain terms that I was unaware of any change in parking restrictions and my offer to remove my vehicle immediately to avoid any kind of ‘charge’ should be taken as a ‘clear statement setting out the decision to cancel the contract.’ as defined by the act in Part 3, 32, (3)a.

5. Landowner Authority

5.1 The Claimant has not provided any indication that they are authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have they authority to do this, and that the terms and conditions of parking they impose at the site are in line with what they have been authorised to do.

6. Additional Costs

6.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original ‘parking charge’. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a ‘contract’ into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

6.2 The Particulars of Claim include £50 for ‘solicitors costs’ yet all I have received from the Claimant’s solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these ‘solicitors costs’ are justified.

 

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

7.1. 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.

7.2 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. 

7.3. 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.

7.4 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

7.5 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

7.6 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.

7.7 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.

 

8. SRA

8.1 I have reported Gladstones solicitors to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority in view of the fact that this Witness Statement is a template and almost exact match for others, is not written by any UKCPM employee and that is it unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that the UKCPM employee whose facsimile signature had been screen-dumped at the bottom, has even seen the statement let alone signed it. The SRA are known to be currently actively investigating these specific 'Jack Chapman' signed witness statements which have been sent to the SRA due to an apparent failure to ensure that the UKCPM witness has written, read and signed it himself. This appears to be a serious abuse of the Court process and compromises the Claimant's entire position.

 8.2 I am aware that this person 'Jack Chapman' will not appear to be questioned and my position as Defendant is prejudiced in view of the background and current ongoing SRA investigation. In view of this, the Defendant asks that the WS and the enclosures are considered hearsay at best, and disregarded.

8.3. I would like the Court to consider awarding my full costs. It is my position that this purported Witness Statement is a false instrument and is the final straw in a long list of vexatious and 'wholly unreasonable' conduct on the part of the Claimant, in this case. A revised costs schedule is appended to this statement, setting out actual costs incurred by the Defendant which are now sought, on the Indemnity basis*.

Statement of Truth

 

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

Signed: 

Print:     

Dated:              

Umkomaas

There is a new Statement of Truth declaration in play now:

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed
Date 

Has 'Jack Chapman' signed his similarly?  Or perhaps the Gladstone template hasn't been updated yet?

Coupon-mad

I think it matches and is still the facsimile.  Just seen a WS posted by @tank4228 who needs to read this thread to learn a thing or two about these WS.

when would I do the supplementary WS? After submitting the main WS?

With it, as seen in threads by @Chefdave and @keypulse where their entire 'bundles' are shown, and you can refer to it in 6.2 (remove your words in 6.2 as you can't object to the £50 legal fees).

Also remove the stuff about all the letters you received (far too wordy and unnecessary) and don't attach them as evidence, these are not key documents.  And remove the part about the Consumer Contracts (Cancellation) regs.  The Consumer rights issue is about the CRA 2015 as per your supplementary WS, that you can copy from the examples in the two linked cases/usernames above.

Don't forget your signed and dated 'SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENT' and the covering email asking the court to apply the CRA 2015 duty now and just strike the case out (my template email in the TELEPHONE HEARINGS thread).

Dizzie1988

Umkomaas said:

There is a new Statement of Truth declaration in play now:

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed
Date 

Has 'Jack Chapman' signed his similarly?  Or perhaps the Gladstone template hasn't been updated yet?

Thanks I have amended.

No their template clearly isn’t updated it follows the old format I had.