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

wjam

Coupon-mad wrote: »

what about challenging them to prove landowner authority even if your initial defence missed that?

I did mention this in my posted defence (below). How would I refer to this in my witness statement?

Many thanks again



Cut from defence

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 (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’, in this case £100. Furthermore the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100. However, the claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given and which appears to be an attempt at 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. 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...''

Coupon-mad

Here is my earlier reply from the new thread that's now been left to slip away:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep, and give a synopsis of what the Judge said, that helps your case.

Add in PACE v Lengyel too and give a synopsis on that, if it would have been an impossible contract for you to have complied with (read the case).

You also need to attack the fake 'added damages/costs' of £60, with the Caernarfon and IOW judgments and the FULL wording (maybe put it in a supplementary page) found in post #14 of the ABUSE OF PROCESS thread by beamerguy, with the links printed out as evidence.

Your case is sparse of anything else to save it except signs...what about challenging them to prove landowner authority even if your initial defence missed that?



P.S. You also need to file & serve your costs schedule at this stage but enough here!!

wjam

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Here is my earlier reply from the new thread that's now been left to slip away:

Thanks for that. I just don't see the difference here between a defence and a witness statement? Or is it ok to include these defence statements in the WS?

Coupon-mad

Yes it is OK, or you could say:

Paragraph #4 of my defence is repeated and the Claimant is put to strict proof at the hearing, regarding their landowner authority and standing to sue for this alleged contravention on the material date, given that they appear to have tried to forbid parking and no consideration has flowed.

Trespass remains only in the gift of a landowner with title, were loss has occurred, and cannot be dressed up as a contractually agreed offer by a third party, to pay money top be allowed to do that which is forbidden by that landowner. The idea is absurd and no elements of a driver/landowner agreed contract exist here, and unlike in the Beavis case, no legitimate interest excuse saves the claim from falling foul of the penalty rule, which remains engaged.

As for the thing about costs, I was pointing you to expand in a fair bit more detail as to WHY they can't add the sixty quid per PCN. That;s why I wrote the long wording in post #14 of the ABUSE OF PROCESS thread by beamerguy, and provided the case judgment links printed out as evidence of cases struck out for this alone.

Remember the argument about costs is not actually your defence, it is your 'damage limitation' argument if you get unlucky with a bad Judge and feel he/she is just not with you during the hearing, at least you can sum up with why a parking firm cannot add the same costs all over again to a parking charge that the Beavis case held already includes those costs, and more!

wjam

Ah, thanks again Coupon-mad!

Please let me know what you think:

---

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.

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 also attach as Exhibit B pictures of the road area where my vehicle was parked, which clearly show the area as a whole being all paving with no marked bay.

I have attached as Exhibit C a transcript of a recent case PCM v BULL. Synopsis of District Judge Glen:
“This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.

However, in my judgment, there was never any contractual relationship, whether one categorises it as a licence or simply some form of contractual permission, because that is precisely what PCM were not giving to people who parked on the roadway.
For that reason alone I will dismiss this claim.”

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 slightly larger type it continues “Parking charge of £100”.

The claimant has also included a £60 fee, which I cannot see mention of on the signage.

I’ve included as Exhibit D, another recent case - Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019. Synopsis of District Judge Taylor:
"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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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”

Paragraph #4 of my defence is repeated and the Claimant is put to strict proof at the hearing, regarding their landowner authority and standing to sue for this alleged contravention on the material date, given that hey appear to have tried to forbid parking and no consideration has flowed.

Trespass remains only in the gift of a landowner with title, were loss has occurred, and cannot be dressed up as a contractually agreed offer by a third party, to pay money top be allowed to do that which is forbidden by that landowner. The idea is absurd and no elements of a driver/landowner agreed contract exist here, and unlike in the Beavis case, no legitimate interest excuse saves the claim from falling foul of the penalty rule, which remains engaged.

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

I'll add bullet points when done.

KeithP

wjam wrote: »

I'll add bullet points when done.

Not bullet points. Every paragraph must be sequentially numbered.

Coupon-mad

Numbered points, every paragraph, numbered pages, and numbered exhibits!

And a costs schedule.

Sorry about my typo you copied here! I type too fast!

given that hey appear to have tried to forbid parking and no consideration has flowed.

wjam

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Here is my earlier reply from the new thread that's now been left to slip away:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Numbered points, every paragraph, numbered pages, and numbered exhibits!

And a costs schedule.

Sorry about my typo you copied here! I type too fast!

Thanks again!

I'll get a cost schedule done.

wjam

Hello
I have added my witness statement and costs claim below. I'd be grateful if anyone has the time to see if this is all OK.

Just a couple of questions:
Should the Costs Claim be within the Witness Statement or separate?
Can this all be emailed in to both the court and claimant?

Thanks again.

---

Witness Statement

---

1. 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

2. 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.

3. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case, registration no, XXXX.

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

5. After visiting the area where my vehicle was parked, I can see the 'forbidding parking' signage attached as Exhibit 1, 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”.

6. I also attach as Exhibit 2 pictures of the road area where my vehicle was parked, which clearly shows the area as a whole paved with no yellow lines, hatched areas or marked bays.

7. I have attached as Exhibit 3 a transcript of a recent case PCM v BULL. Synopsis of District Judge Glen: “This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass. However, in my judgment, there was never any contractual relationship, whether one categorises it as a licence or simply some form of contractual permission, because that is precisely what PCM were not giving to people who parked on the roadway. For that reason alone I will dismiss this claim.”

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 slightly larger type it continues “Parking charge of £100”.

8. 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. I’ve included as Exhibit 4 & 5, other recent claims highlighting the Abuse of Process and another case - Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019. Synopsis of District Judge Taylor: "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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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”

9. Paragraph #4 of my defence is repeated and the Claimant is put to strict proof at the hearing, regarding their landowner authority and standing to sue for this alleged contravention on the material date, given that they appear to have tried to forbid parking and no consideration has flowed.

Trespass remains only in the gift of a landowner with title, were loss has occurred, and cannot be dressed up as a contractually agreed offer by a third party, to pay money top be allowed to do that which is forbidden by that landowner. The idea is absurd and no elements of a driver/landowner agreed contract exist here, and unlike in the Beavis case, no legitimate interest excuse saves the claim from falling foul of the penalty rule, which remains engaged.

10. 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
Date

---

Costs Claim

---

The Defendant had significant costs to prepare the Defence and prepare attendance of the hearing and the costs claimed are as follows:

Schedule of costs

Research and preparation of defence as litigant in person @£19 per hour 8 hours. Total £152

Printing of 3 copies of witness statement and skeleton argument and postage estimate £25.

One day off work to attend hearing on 29/11/19
£XX

Mileage driven to attend court and return on 29/11/19
14.8 miles @ £0.45 per mile £6.66

Car parking on day of hearing on 25/3/15
£XX

Total costs claimed £XX


Yours faithfully,