Me against VCS - Witness Statement Feedback needed

Karlossus

Hi all,
I have a court appearance coming up and need to prepare my witness statement to fight my corner. I was wondering if someone could give me any tips to tweak my witness statement as I have never produced one before. I feel point 4 could do with trimming but I am not sure what to leave out. I am being pursued as driver as I made the mistake of appealing so am leaning heavily on the inadequate signage defence.



Many thanks in advance.

Karlossus

HI,

I have re-written my witness statement slightly and I think it reads better and have removed duplicated points. Should I include point 5 about double recovery as it has already gone in on my defence?

1. Preliminary

1.1 I, XXXXX, of XXXXX am the Registered Keeper and driver in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1.2 Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked KG1, KG2 etc., to which I will refer.

1.3 The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

1.4 The claim refers to a parking incident involving vehicle XXXX on 12th May 2018 at the location of XXXXXX.

1.5 I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, and this is my Witness Statement in support of my Defence already submitted.

2. Sequence of Events

2.1 On 12th May 2018 at approximately 10.30pm, myself and my blue badge holding wife parked my vehicle XXXXXX down a side road next to Subway restaurant, a taxi firm, a coffee shop and the XXXXXX Balti House which was our destination.

2.2 The vehicle was parked in a marked parking bay I had previously used for parking at the same venue without penalty. The vehicle was in no way contravening any Highway Regulations and was parked safely without obstructing or obscuring any vehicular traffic. As such, I believe that I parked the vehicle responsibly and legitimately within a designated parking bay. I saw no immediate reason to display my wife’s blue disabled badge.

2.3 I was parked for approximately one hour.

2.4 On returning to the car at approximately 11.30pm, I noticed a yellow sticker on the car purporting that “This is not a parking charge notice” but mentioning I was in contravention of parking restrictions and may receive a Parking Charge Notice through the post.

2.5 I immediately appealed via Vehicle Control Services own appeals portal stating the fact that my wife was a “blue badge holder” and “struggles to get around” and “every other space was full”. This was rejected via letter on the 29th May 2018 stating that whilst they “sympathised with my situation” the signs clearly stated that “vehicles must not to park (sic) or wait at that location”. Exhibit KG1a and KG1b

2.5 I also received a letter dated 29th May entitled Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), Notice to Driver (NTD). The letter stated that I was liable for “the parking charge applicable to the recorded parking contravention” and the same contravention being “brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the site”. Exhibit KG2

2.6 The distinctly threatening and aggressive correspondence continued as the Claimant has pursued an entirely unreasonable and vexatious process designed to deny any reasonable opportunity for explanation or appeal process, which has led to the Court action now. The companies included the claimant; Vehicle Control Services and also Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, MyParkingCharge.co.uk and Zenith Collections. I received a total of 10 letters in relation to this incident. I respectfully suggest that parking companies using the Small Claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demand against motorists is not something the Court should be seen to support. Exhibit KG3

3 The Parking Bay

3.1 On arrival at the XXXXXX Balti restaurant for our meal, it was quickly evident that there was no available parking close to the venue. The restaurant shares premises with a taxi firm and there were taxis parked immediately outside the venue. Thus we entered the road to the side of the venue where we looked for an available space close by. I identified the area in question as suitable for parking based on the points listed below.

3.2 There was no easily accessible alternative parking, nor any disabled bays.

3.3 I had parked there previously on many occasions without penalty.

3.4 There were (and still are) white marked lines indicating that it is a parking bay. Exhibit KG4
3.5 I was also careful to avoid the double yellow lines elsewhere. There were no double yellows where I was parked. See exhibit KG5

3.6 It was very dark and rainy and I could not see anything to suggest I could not park there. There were no signs mentioning no parking on entering the road, nor were any signs visible to me when parked. The area was not lit and the only ambient light was from behind the signs. How very dark it was at the side of the building can be seen from the claimants own photographs (Exhibit KG6a) (illuminated only by the camera flash) and also a picture taken by me subsequently without flash. (Exhibit KG6b).

4. Inadequate Signage

4.1 On entering the side road, I did not see any signage from my vehicle clearly indicating the parking restrictions. When I parked my car, there were no signs adjacent to the space, or in the vicinity that could possibly be read from my driving position. I believe that in the case of “Vine vs 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 have not seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no signage directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle when parking, as in the case here. Therefore no contract had been entered with the claimant whether express, implied or by conduct. See Exhibit KG7.

4.2 The signage that was in place is difficult to read. I notice the claimant is relying on ParkingEye vs Beavis. A key factor in this case 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 that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. There is far too much writing and the charge isn’t prominent. In the Beavis case the penalty charge was present in huge letters in the largest font on the signage and with high contrast black on yellow and was therefore found to be transparent and obvious to the motorist. There can be no doubt of the £85 charge. See Exhibit KG8 and KG9

4.3 The former entrance sign that may have caught my attention and prompted me to think there was a change in parking rules for the road, and the claimant may rely on as being sufficient warning, was not evident on the night in question and must have been removed previously (as the former car park that it advertised and the parking restrictions were designed to protect - no longer existed). This can be seen from their own photo evidence from the night in question. Exhibit KG10


4.4 Upon later investigation, I believe the signage and operating practice of the Claimant in use at the access road fails the Claimant’s own accredited parking operator scheme (The Independent Parking Committee (The IPC)), on the basis that the signage on entering the site “should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land” and include a very large “P” to alert the motorist to the fact that the signage relates to parking restrictions. (Exhibit KG12a).There is no “P”, however sized, on the signage in use, nor was any placed at the entrance on the given date. See Exhibit KG10 and KG11

4.5 The IPC guidelines also 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.’ Exhibit KG12b. The text on the signage, particularly that which refers to ‘contractual terms’ and a ‘parking charge’ is very small which makes it hard to read in the dark and impossible to read from a vehicle. The IPC also states the sign should be “illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting”, Exhibit KG7 and KG8
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’. The fact that the parking bays are still visible and that it had previously been known as a parking spot for people visiting this row of shops, I would question that the Claimant was deliberately using these facts to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices solely for financial gain – even after the reason for which the restrictions existed (The Former Car Park) had been removed.
4.7 Having visited the site numerous times recently I have since noted that all the signage has been subsequently removed. It is my belief that when the car park ceased to exist, the claimant realised the parking restrictions were no longer needed and unenforceable and made plans to remove the signs and the restrictions. However this did not stop them from chasing motorists such as myself for Parking Charges in the meantime. Exhibit KG11.
5. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given (a DSAR was asked for by the defendant outlining any additional costs but none were listed), and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Indeed the claimant issued multiple threatening and misleading letters under various different guises which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed (which suggested to the Defendant they would ultimately be sending round Bailiffs – a threat that has never materialised).

6. Declaration

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.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature

Le_Kirk

In your 4.4 check the acronym IPC, I believe it is International Parking Community

Karlossus

Thank you Le_Kirk for taking the time to read through. I was pretty sure it is the Independent Parking Committee on the front of the code of practice document? Just googled it to make sure...

It does however appear that both exist... and they are one and the same?

I have now changed - thank you.

Le_Kirk

This link shows it as having been renamed.
This link takes you to its web site.