Residential PCN help please - ***I WON***

amateurgirl

Hello all
Thanks for all your previous advice, it's all helping me refine my WD.
For now I'm still on the trail of my SAR, and I've been asked for a copy of my V5C as a form of ID and to prove I own the vehicle. Do you think it's OK to send them this? I've already sent other ID.
They're still saying that the 1-month period starts from the time I verify my identity and not from the date of receiving the request. The 1-month period is up now since I sent the request, and obviously I'm not going to get anything.
Thanks all, as ever.

Redx

Yes , email a copy of the V5C , that is the usual advice anyway

This should have been done with the SAR to prevent this delay from happening

The SAR reply is more useful for the WS plus exhibits plus costs schedule, much later in the process

amateurgirl

Thanks Redx. I've now sent it off. I will use the reply in the WS.
Thanks again.

amateurgirl

Hello all
Finally received the Transfer of Proceedings form so, after a bit of a break from it, I've pressed on with the WS. In the meantime I've heard that the person who is coming with me to court, who I've included as the 2nd witness on the DQ, can also do a WS. Please can you let me know if that's the case?

thanks all.

Coupon-mad

Yes you can file & serve other signed 3rd party WS with your own before the hearing.

KeithP

amateurgirl wrote: »

Hello all
Finally received the Transfer of Proceedings form so, after a bit of a break from it, I've pressed on with the WS. In the meantime I've heard that the person who is coming with me to court, who I've included as the 2nd witness on the DQ, can also do a WS. Please can you let me know if that's the case?

thanks all.

Be careful.

Is the person who is coming with you to court planning to represent you in some way? Perhaps as a Lay Representative or a McKenzie Friend?

I think I have seen it written here that a Witness for the Defence cannot also perform those roles.

I don't know whether that is actually true or not, but might be worth checking out.

amateurgirl

Thanks Coupon Mad and Keith P.
The person isn't representing me exactly ie, won't be speaking for me, but will be contributing responses to the questions and arguments put forward. The person isn't attending in a legal capacity, but is attending as someone who knows the circumstances and the case and can put forward a view . Does this make the person a Lay Representative?

Fruitcake

amateurgirl wrote: »

Thanks Coupon Mad and Keith P.
The person isn't representing me exactly ie, won't be speaking for me, but will be contributing responses to the questions and arguments put forward. The person isn't attending in a legal capacity, but is attending as someone who knows the circumstances and the case and can put forward a view . Does this make the person a Lay Representative?

No. A lay rep is someone who is acting for the defendant, presenting and defending the case in their place, although the defendant has to be present and must answer questions if asked by the judge.
You could be represented by a solicitor or barrister, but they wouldn't be a witness.

Coupon-mad

I think that will be fine in small claims, as they say anything goes as long as the Judge allows it on the day. You consulting your witness over a matter of fact, or to assist you to find the right page, seems perfectly reasonable.

amateurgirl

Thanks all for your help as usual.
My witness doesn't think my WS is very helpful, because it doesn't go into the history of each 'ticket' and just concentrates on whether the PPC had any right to be on the Development in the first place.

I'm posting it below. Any comments from Forumites greatly appreciated.

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
UK Parking Control Ltd (Claimant)
and
XXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXXX of xxxx the Defendant in this matter and attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked A to H to which I will refer:

A - copy of my lease and parking plan

B – copy of letter from the Management Company advising of engagement of UKPC

C – copy of transcript of the judgement in the case of Link Parking v Parkinson 2016 C7GF50J7

D – copy of the transcript of the judgement in the case of Pace Recovery v Mr N 2016 C7GF51J1

E – copy of transcript of the judgement in the case of Jopson v Homeguard 2016 BNGF0A9E
F – copy of letter from claimant’s legal representatives confirming claimant did not have a copy of my lease
G – copy of contract document between Management Company and the Claimant

H - copy of schedule 4 of the POFA

I – my costs schedule

2. The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief
3. I deny every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim.

4. I am the leasehold owner-occupier of a flat on a private housing development, in which I have lived since 2001 when the flats were built.
4.1 The Lease of my flat demises to me an allocated parking space. The Lease gives me “The right to exclusive use of the Parking Space for the purpose of parking a private motor vehicle not exceeding three tonnes gross laden weight”. As such I have a right to park in that location at all times. There is a Parking Plan attached to my Lease, on which the location of my parking space is clearly marked (exhibit A).

5. In 2012 the Management Company for the Development unilaterally decided to engage a Private Parking Company (PPC) called UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC), to ‘manage’ parking on the Development. There had been no consultation with residents about this scheme, and no prior communication of its commencement. It was not until after UKPC had commenced operating on the Development that the Management Company wrote to residents informing them of the scheme (exhibit .

6. I submit that the scheme introduced by the Management Company constitutes a variation of the terms of the Lease. At no point did the Management Company seek authority from me to vary my Lease to allow them to impose a parking regime and remove the unfettered parking rights and easements granted to me under my Lease. In the cases of Link Parking v Parkinson 2016 C7GF50J7 (exhibit C) and Pace Recovery v Mr N 2016 C7GF51J1 (exhibit D) the Judges ruled that, unless it has been varied, a resident’s Lease takes precedence over any arrangement between the Management Company and a third-parking Parking Management Company.

7. In the absence of a variation to my Lease, my Lease has primacy of contract over any subsequent contract the Management Company has entered into with UKPC. In the case of Jopson v Homeguard 2016 BNGF0A9E the Judge ruled that unless it has been varied a resident’s Lease takes precedence over any arrangement between the Management Company and a third-parking Parking Management Company (exhibit E).
8. The Claimant has no authority over my, the Leaseholder’s, property and no authority to bring a claim. The Claimant does not own the land on which the vehicle was parked, nor do they have any interest in the land. Therefore, the Claimant lacks the capacity to offer parking. In the case of UKPC v Mr Aziz 2017 C2HW01A6 the Judge ruled that UKPC had no authority to override the Lease.
9. I submit that the Claimant undertook a contract with the Management Company without carrying out the due diligence by which they would have ascertained that they had no authority over my, the Leaseholder’s, property. In correspondence with me in relation to these proceedings (exhibit F), it is clear that (a) the Claimant did not have a copy of my Lease and (b) they had no idea of its contents in relation to my parking rights. They were subsequently obliged to obtain a copy from the Land Registry to ascertain its contents. Therefore I submit that the Claimant undertook a contract to provide a service without due regard to the legality of its performance.
10. The contract document the Claimant provided to me in relation to these proceedings, and on which they rely for their authority to operate on the Development, refers to the Development by the wrong name and in the wrong location (exhibit G). The document refers to the Development as ‘ABCD’ when it is in fact ‘EFGH’ and refers to it as located in postcode XXX XXX when it is in fact in postcode YYYY YYYY, a completely different area.
10.1 Moreover, the document shows no requirement to evidence the capacity or authority of the signatory, nor any requirement for a witness to the signatory. In fact the signatory was, at the time of signing the document, a Customer Service Co-ordinator and, I submit, of questionable authority or capacity to execute a contract of this nature and likely value.
10.2 I therefore submit that all the foregoing renders the document invalid and that ergo the Claimant has no contract to operate on the Development.
10.3 In addition, the contract document states that the contract is for an initial period of ‘3 months beginning on the start date’, the start date being given as xxxx. I therefore submit that this contract document, on which the Claimant relies for their authority to operate on the Development, expired on xxxx. No evidence has been provided by the Claimant that this contract was formally renewed or extended beyond the xxxx, and I submit that it is probable that the contract was not so renewed or extended. I therefore further submit that the Claimant had no contractual authority to operate on the Development beyond the xxxxx and that ergo, the PCN’s issued against my vehicle in 2014 and after had no contractual basis and were therefore invalid.
11. The Claimant has proceeded to court in the knowledge that they have no authority over my, the Leaseholder’s, property, no authority to bring a claim and under a faulty contract which moreover had expired. I submit that this is an Abuse of Process, which The Dictionary of Law defines as ‘a tort where damage is caused by using a legal process for an ulterior collateral purpose’. .
12. What is more, in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act schedule 4, (5) (exhibit H) which states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper….”, the Claimant has inflated the original amount of each PCN by £60 for their alleged ‘legal costs’ in bringing the claim.
12.1 Judges around the UK have disallowed Parking Companies claims for such ‘costs’ as an Abuse of Process. On 10th June 2019, in case number F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed the judgement of District Judge Grand who struck out claims by Britannia Parking and UKC Parking Management without a Hearing 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”.
Similarly, in the Carnarvon court, on 4th September 2019, case number FTQZ4W28 was struck out by District Judge Jones-Evans stating: “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 […] it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an Abuse of Process''
12.2 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. Parking Companies ‘solicitors’ send out hundreds of identikit claims such as this every week, which are likely to be handled by paralegals or admin staff rather than by real - expensive - solicitors. I submit that no solicitor is likely to have supervised the batch of identikit claim letters of which mine is one, and I ask the court to note that no named solicitor has signed the claim letter. I also submit that the Claimant is well aware that their claim is artificially inflated and that as such constitutes an attempt at double recovery.
13. In summary, I submit that the Claimant’s Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sums claimed, and that the claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. From the outset, the Claimant’s conduct has been aggressive and intimidating in pursuit of monies to which the Claimant is not entitled. I submit that the Claimant is a vexatious litigant who abuses the law and the legal system by issuing and prosecuting bogus claims, with artificially inflated costs, for near-identical matters, which clutter up the courts and waste court time up and down the land.
14. There are several options available within the courts’ case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants from pursuing individuals with meritless claims. I submit that Private Parking Companies act as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused to the Claimant who is clearly abusing the civil litigation process in order to attempt to gain a pecuniary advantage to which they have no entitlement. The court may wish to consider the Judgement of the Court of Appeal in AXA Insurance PLC v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1330, and express its disapproval of the Claimant’s conduct by making an award of exemplary damages in favour of the Defendant.
15. The court is invited to make an order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow me, the Defendant, such costs as are permissible under CPR 27.14, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant.

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

Signature of Defendant:



Name: XXXXX