County court letter (particulars of claim & parking sign pics attached)

wjam

KeithP wrote: »

Following your 'adjustments', I have added a line to the bottom of post #6 above.

Appreciated thanks KeithP

wjam

Hi everyone,
Any input regarding my defence would be much appreciated.

beamerguy

wjam wrote: »

Hi everyone,
Any input regarding my defence would be much appreciated.

5. The Protection of Freedoms Act 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.

The incompetent Gladstones are trying to scam you and the court.

There is a lot more to add about this abuse of process (£60)

READ THIS THREAD
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD

Add the entire text and this must be the highlight of your defence

wjam

Hi beamerguy
Thanks for your response and link to that post.

When you say add the entire text, would that simply be as below or would I need to individually add new paragraph numbers for each of those sections into my defence?

Thank you again


________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They state that there should be ‘No parking on roadways at anytime’ but giving no definition of ‘roadway’. Continuing ’You must park wholly in a marked bay’, but there are no marked bays or markings of any kind. Stating further that ‘No parking on roadways / yellow lines / paved / hatched or landscaped areas. All of the area is paved, meaning parking is forbidden thus there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.

4. 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.

5. The Protection of Freedoms Act 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.

6. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- 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.

- 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. 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.

- 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. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

- Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim 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.

- 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.

- 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 their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

- 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 an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''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...''

- 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 mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

- 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.

- The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

7. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."

wjam

Do I need to send in pictures of the sign, parking area etc... with my defence?

Any help with this would be great

KeithP

wjam wrote: »

Do I need to send in pictures of the sign, parking area etc... with my defence?

Any help with this would be great

Nothing gets sent with the Defence.

wjam

KeithP wrote: »

Nothing gets sent with the Defence.

Thanks KeithP

So pictures, videos etc... can I email these in separately?

Thanks again.

Le_Kirk

wjam wrote: »

Thanks KeithP

So pictures, videos etc... can I email these in separately?

Thanks again.

Any evidence gets sent with the Witness Statement (WS) later in the process as KeithP says. Pictures can be/should be printed and included in your bundle in a paginated and tabbed folder and delivered to the court (once you know which court) but videos are normally supplied in a durable format so they cannot be altered. Probably wise to check with the particular court when you know which one it is and see what they accept.

wjam

Hi
My court date is 29th November and I'm trying to construct a witness statement. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated! Attached at the bottom is a picture of the signage.

---

Witness Statement

---

I am XXXX, of XXXX, the Defendant in this matter. 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 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 as already filed.

I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case, registration no, XXXX but I was not the driver.

The driver of the vehicle was parked here visiting a local resident.

After visiting the area where my vehicle was parked, I can see the 'forbidding parking' signage attached as Exhibit A, offers no contract a driver can accept. The signs say this: “No parking on this roadway at any time. You must park wholly in a marked bay. No parking on roadways / yellow lines / paved / hatched / landscaped areas. If unsure please seek further advice from CPM or refrain from parking”. I have attached as Exhibit B a transcript of a recent case PCM v BULL

Then in very small type underneath it continues: “By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all the Terms and Conditions. Breach of any term or condition will result in the driver being liable for a…” Then in larger type it continues “Parking change of £100”.

I attach pictures of the area as Exhibit C, which clearly show the area as a whole being all paving with no marked bay

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.

wjam

Thanks Coupon-mad