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

Coupon-mad

Change suggested here, to add more about the 'private nuisance' and derogation from grant:

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 [STRIKE]to provide a service[/STRIKE] without due regard to the legality of its performance. Their modus operandi is to offer their dubious service 'free' to Managing Agents, then target the residents for penalties galore, with no regard paid to the prevailing and overriding rights and easements granted under the leases and tenancy agreements. This has made life in the estate a misery for many and the Court is urged not to underpin any support for what is a derogation from grant and private nuisance.

How about moving #12 onwards to be on a separate supplementary signed & date WS headed 'COSTS ON THE CLAIM - THE CONSIDERED SUM HAS BEEN INFLATED - ABUSE OF PROCESS'

Then you could use #12 onwards in this WS to deal with each PCN and point out if the PPC has only taken photos over, say, 3 minutes, or not shown conclusively that a contravention even occurred, picking the PCNs off one by one. I think the WS should deal with them too.

Le_Kirk

In your para 7 you have: -

Management Company and a third-parking Parking Management Company

Maybe you meant: -

Management Company and a third[strike]-parking[/strike] party Parking Management Company

amateurgirl

Thanks Coupon Mad and Le Kirk. I'll redraft it according to your suggestion CM and take out the typo, LK (I knew there'd be one somewhere!).
Thanks again all.

amateurgirl

Hello all
following up on post #62 above from Coupon Mad, about doing a supplementary WS, please can you let me know if the below fits the bill:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXX
CLAIM No. XXXXX


Between:

UKPC (Claimant)

- and -

XXXXX (Defendant)

SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT
COSTS OF THE CLAIM - THE CONSIDERED SUM HAS BEEN INFLATED - ABUSE OF PROCESS


1. 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.
1.2 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''
1.3 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

Thanks all, as ever.

1505grandad

Para 1.2 - usually a copy & paste exercise re Abuse of Process so do not check - BUT I notice you say " and UKC Parking Management" which is not in the AoP thread.

Please check you have the correct AoP paras.

Coupon-mad

I am sure post #14 of the 'abuse of process' thread by beamerguy also talks about the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198, which need quoting... otherwise, what is being said about the added £60 is unsupported by case law.

And the post in the AOP thread provides the judgments for the IOW and Caernarfon cases too, that need to be appended as evidence and given and EXHIBIT number that your WS needs to refer to..

amateurgirl

Hello 1505Grandad and Coupon Mad
thanks for your responses but now I'm confused! As you say Grandad, its a copy and paste job but I've used the part of CM's post #14 in the AoP thread which says that DJ Grand struck out claims by Britannia and UKCPM::

"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)…"

I've paraphrased the wording to make it look a bit less cut and paste, but have kept the wording about the judgement as is, so I'm not sure what it is that's inaccurate?

Coupon Mad, the Beavis case is quoted in the same cut and pasted chunk of post #14, so it is in my WS. Are you saying I need to expand it or add something else? Also I do have the IOW and Caernarfon judgements saved to append and I will give them the exhibit numbers as you say.

Thanks both.

Umkomaas

You have used the term 'UKC Parking Management', which we don't instantly recognise in that format. Coupon-mad uses their recognised acronym 'UKCPM' in the AoP thread.

Also I do have the IOW and Caernarfon judgements

Why spell it using a very outdated version in your WS?

Similarly, in the Carnarvon court

amateurgirl

Hello all
I'm ready to post my WS and supplementary WS for your comments but, even though I've blocked out dates and names, I think they would identify me. I could use Dropbox instead but how would you access the documents? If I post the link on here it seems anyone can open it; but if I don't do that I need email addresses and of course I don't have those.
I know the PPC etc will see these documents eventually but, by that token,why does anyone bother to blank out their details?
Any advice gratefully received!
Thanks all.

Le_Kirk

They (the claimants) are going to receive your WS soon, so I wouldn't worry. I think people blank out details so that malicious posters do not, for example submit a ridiculous POPLA appeal if they happen to have left their code on show. Also it is usually early on in the process when posters might be giving away details about who was driving or admitting to not buying a ticket. Since the claimants have also had your defence for a while there is probably not much more they will be able to glean. Just put XXXXX for VRM, claim number and your personal details such as name and address.