Nottingham PCN Incorrect VRN

Bakedalasker

Hi guys here is my witness statement. Section 6 Inadequate signage I need to revist the site to get a phote of the signs. I know there are none at the entrance or one where I parked. There are quite a few in the place and one right by the machine where I paid In my appeal they claim there was a number I could have called if I had a problem I need to check that out.

In the County Court at xxxxx

Claim Number:   xxxxxxx

Hearing Date:                  xxxxxxx

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxxxxxxx (DEFENDANT)

 

 

1. I, xxxxxxxxxx, am the defendant against whom this claim is made. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. I have carried out a good deal of research in preparation for this case, however I trust the Court will excuse me if my presentation is less than professional. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence bundle supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I will refer to this bundle as IDH01

 3 Sequence of events:

 

3.1   On the 20th June 2019  at 12:38 I parked at Marco Island carpark, Huntington Drive,  Nottingham. I paid the 2 hours fee for the use of the carpark via the ticket machine situated in the carpark. This was done in front of my daughter. I then returned to my car and placed the ticket on my dashboard.

 

3.2  I then went shopping with my daughter and returned to the car park within the 2 hours I had paid for. I drove out of the car park at 14:33 and within my time period I had paid for.

 

 

3.3  I received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for £100 on the 26th June 2019 from HX Car Park management claiming “I had failed to purchase and/or validate a pay and display ticket. I appealed this against this PCN through the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) where my appeal was rejected due to them claiming I only entering 2 digits of my registration into the pay machine. Please refer to IDH01 article 1.

3.4 After receiving the above rejection I appealed to the owner of the car park RBH Properties who in return ignored my correspondence. Please refer to IDH01 article 2

 

 

4 Later Events:

4.1   After spending some time researching issues and complaints surrounding Private Parking Companies (hereafter referred to as PPCs), I decided to wait until The Claimant contacted me.

 

4.2  I received a Final Demand from HX Car Park Management on the 10th August 2019 now demanding £125.  On 9th September 2019, I received a Letter Before Claim (LBC) from Gladstone Solicitors for the amount £160.

  

4.3   Once I received the LBC from Gladstones I did some research on the IAS and my findings found that the IAS to be a trading name of United Trade and Industry Ltd, whose founding directors are John Llewellyn Gladstone Davies and William Kenneth Hurley. These people are (in the case of Davies) or were (Hurley) directors of Gladstone Solicitors Limited.

 

4.4   Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose business model seems to be mainly based on representing PPCs like The Claimant (indeed, Gladstones has represented The Claimant on many occasions) and churning out computerised “Roboclaims”, simple copy-and-paste letters that no qualified solicitor has cast an eye over and that are designed to intimidate and harass people into caving in to vexatious and unfounded claims.

 

4.5   Further research showed me that the overwhelming majority of appeals from this “Independent” Appeals Service are rejected. I therefore question the Conflict of Interest in this process

Bakedalasker

5. Ticket Machine

5.1 I have learned from other people using HX car parks that there are many faults with these machines and it is not uncommon for tickets to be issued with only 2 or 3 characters printed on even though the driver has entered the full VRN. HX are aware that xx is part of my VRM and that I paid the correct amount. However, they will not admit that their machines are responsible for this error and 100’s of people have experienced the same fault.

5.2 As already mentioned it was my misfortune to have encountered a faulty machine on that particular day, but since my PCN and appeal rejection I have learned that I was not the only person to have fallen victim of this unscrupulous parking injustice. I have since read local newspaper reports and very many social media posts describing these same faults recurring at this very small car park. It is of note that the former MP for Workington Sue Hayman called for a boycott of the carpark in the local press and is launching ‘mass legal action’ against HX Parking as a result of the countless PCNs issued due to these machines.

https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/wiganers-anger-over-parking-fines-1-9264243

 

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/16739229.workington-mp-calls-for-vulcans-lane-car-park-boycott/

 

https://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/17505136.mp-to-launch-mass-legal-action-against-unfair-parking-charges/

5.3 Further investigations show that people using HX Car Park Management Ltd’s car parks in Wigan, Halifax and Workington have been suffering the exact same faulty machines and misprinted tickets. This has to be too much of a coincidence. On the balance of probabilities, given the small number of car parking spaces and the high number of faults that these machines have caused, it cannot have escaped HX Car Park Management’s notice that there is a problem here.

5.4 I have knowledge of many recent court cases involving the Claimant and drivers at the Workington, Halifax and Wigan car parks where these faulty Parkeon machine caused PCNs to be issued.

 

Name	Location	Reason	Claim No	Hearing Date	Outcome for Defendant
Tol Larmour	Vulcan Ln	Misprint	E8GF4R8E	14/01/2019	Won
Tony Charalambous	Westgate	Misprint	E4GF3Z3C	22/01/2019	Won
Jason Brown	King St.	Misprint	E5GF3K2A	27/02/2019	Won
Philip Scala	Vulcan Ln	Misprint	E3GF7Q6Y	25/03/2019	Won
Barrie Bryce	Vulcan Ln	Misprint	E1GF55RK	03/06/2019	Won
Dickinson	Vulcan Ln	Misprint	E10GF46RK	03/06/2019	Won
Bessie Wood	Westgate	Misprint	E1GF38RK	10/06/2019	Won
Mary Kendall	Vulcan Ln	Misprint	E1GF68RK	11/06/2019	Discontinued
Helen Paine	Vulcan Ln	Misprint	E1GF43RK	11/06/2019	Discontinued
Chris Dempsey	Vulcan Ln	Misprint	F6GF563Z	12/08/2019	Won
Karen Quin	Vulcan Ln	Misprint	F7GF75M5	14/09/2019	Discontinued
John Hatchard	Vulcan Ln	Misprint	F5GF803R	11/09/2019	Won
Jayne Maiden	Westgate	Misprint	F5GF773R	13/09/2019	Won

 

​

In all cases the Judges found for the defendants for the reasons that the drivers had acted reasonably and that on the balance of probability the machines were at fault.

Furthermore, the Claimant has recently discontinued further hearings at very short notice in the West Cumbria Court. This only goes to prove their flagrant disregard for the defendants and their abuse of the Small Claims Process.

 

5.5 I would draw the court’s attention to case law with Claim No. C8DP11F9, EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD v Ms S. DISTRICT JUDGE BURROW ruled:-

“I am satisfied that the ticket then produced is the ticket that she has produced to the court. It was through no fault of hers that this ticket displayed the letters “QQ” instead of her registration number. She obtained a ticket. She made the payment to obtain that. She displayed that ticket. It shows the relevant time of entry. It shows the amount that she has paid and it shows the registration number that the ticket machine produced. It would have been unreasonable to expect the defendant to do anything further beyond that as far as I am concerned. The registration number is not accurately reflected but that is through no fault on the part of the defendant and I find on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had inputted the correct registration number and she had then displayed the ticket that was issued and so to all intents and purposes had fully complied with the terms and conditions applicable to this car park. Accordingly, I am going to dismiss the claim.”

This claim is exactly the same as mine and the hundreds of other claims that HX is trying to pursue.

5.6 Ironically, HX Parking claim on their website that they are a new breed of ethical parking operator. I’m afraid that my experience, and that of the scores of other victims, this is certainly not evident through their unethical practices.

5.7 Their behaviour would appear to be predatory tactics which are totally contrary to the IPC Code of Practice. I would quote from the Code Vs 6:

Predatory Tactics

 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 and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code. Lack of consumer information regarding the VRN and misprinted tickets is not transparent and does nothing to help consumers recognise whether their purchased tickets are valid or not.

 

5.7 By taking advantage of my misfortune to use a faulty machine on the day the Claimant is operating contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The act says that:-

“The consumer could be at a disadvantage when a term gives the business the right to decide how the contract is interpreted or whether any breach has occurred.”

“If a business reserves the right to decide what a term of the contract means, then it is effectively in a position to alter the way it works to suit itself.”

“Concerns also arise in relation to terms that could allow the business to impose sanctions on consumers for what it chooses to regard as their breaches, whether the law would regard the consumer as being in breach or not.”

 

5.8 I would also challenge the Claimant to tell the courts how many of their PCNs are issued for this reason. It has become evident that this parking operator has a modus operandi which involves two unfair methods of issuing tickets on their car parks across the country. One is the use of the 10 minute rule, the other is faulty payment machines which misprint the ticket and does not upload the full Vehicle Registration Number to their servers.

 

5.9 These unfair practices have come to light thanks to social media and local newspaper articles. I will be happy to provide many examples and witness statement in my evidence before the court. This doesn’t bode well for a company who describe themselves as committed to ethical car park management, and as great advocates of a fairer and less profit-orientated approach to car park management. This has not been my experience.

 

5.10 The Claimant has brought a claim for £238.33 for a contractual parking charge of £100. This gross inflation of the amount is an abuse of process and not supported by the decision of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case). I believe this is a clear attempt at “double recovery” to circumvent the restrictions of the Small Claims track.

 

5.11 I refer to the recent case of UK Car Park Management Ltd v Esplanade Limited (E8GF1V7V) where, on the 21/11/2018, Judge Grand sitting at Newport ordered that the claim be struck out:

 

5.12 A more recent claim from the 13th June 2019 case number F6GF424Z concerning UKCPM v Mr Craig Longhurst, was before Judge Grand at Southampton County Court. See Appendix J

 

5.13 I have also noticed that on Monday 21st October 2019 that HX Parking Management LTD had 9 such hearings listed at The County Court West Cumbria before DDJ Forrester.

 

 

5.14  While I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of The Claimant whereby they insist people going about their lawful daily business have entered into some kind of vague “contract” with them, based on the tiny words on small and obscured signs.

 

 

 

 

Bakedalasker

6. Inadequate Signage:

6.1   To be written

6.2   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.

6.3   In this case there was no sign adjacent to my vehicle, I had not passed any legible signs to park or not to park, and no signs in the vicinity could possibly be read from inside my vehicle.

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

6.5   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 was no signage at the entrance.

6.6   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”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site”. The text on the signage in this case, particularly that which refers to “contractual terms” and a “parking charge” is very small. In fact is measures just 1cm in height. This, coupled with the facts that the signs were variously facing the wrong direction for a motorist traveling the route to read, mounted so close to the ground as to be unnoticed, obscured by other vehicles or refuse bins or near signs of identical size and colour warning of “Deep Water”, makes it very hard to read or even notice and impossible to do so from a vehicle.

 

7. Additional Costs – Abuse of Process:

 7.1   The Particulars of Claim include £60 for “contractual costs”. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified. I have the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Para 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.

 

 7.2   According to Ladak v DRC Locums (case number 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.

 

7.3   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 firm 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. 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...''

 7.4   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 Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies (Case number FTQZ4W28) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

7.5 

''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 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.''

 

I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, 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.

Le_Kirk

Bakedalasker said:

1. I am the defendant against whom this claim is made.

 2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence bundle supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I will refer to this bundle as IDH_01 to IDH_99 [or whatever number is your last one]

 3.3  I received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for £100 on the 26th June 2019 from HX Car Park management claiming ..............

1. Remove that split infinitive, just start it as shown, they know your name!  2. Unless you only have one exhibit, you need to show the full numbering system you have used.  3.3 Did you really receive a PENALTY charge notice?

D_P_Dance

Why are people so hung up on split infinitives?  

https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2017/sep/25/to-boldly-go-split-infinitive-grammatical-error-research

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

Why are people so hung up on split infinitives?  

https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2017/sep/25/to-boldly-go-split-infinitive-grammatical-error-research

From the article:

OK. But surely split infinitives don’t stop being mistakes just because more people use them? Au contraire. In language, that’s exactly what happens, because the meaning of words keeps changing.

Not long then until 'Your' replaces 'You're', 'There' becomes the new 'Their', 'Wandering' when 'Wondering', the greengrocer's apostrophe gets even more rampant and 'fings wiv vis and vat' start to appear in Hansard.  Fank U 4 pointin fings owt.  Ta 😉

Le_Kirk

D_P_Dance said:

Why are people so hung up on split infinitives?  
https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2017/sep/25/to-boldly-go-split-infinitive-grammatical-error-research

The use of correct English grammar and spelling is sine qua non!

D_P_Dance

But conta preferentum surely must apply 

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

But conta preferentum surely must apply 

Only if spelled correctly. 

contra proferentem

Bakedalasker

Hi guys,

I've just received their witness statement, 39 pages of it and obviously a robo cop job.

My main argument is the Fit for Purpose of their machines. They have come back saying they did not have anyone reporting the machine faulty on the day. Anyone else had this from them?

I have not read it fully yet but they refer to the Beavis case. I've read some comebacks on here from others about the Beavis case so will look into that. All these hours I'm looking into this will go on my Costs Schedule.