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

KeithP

To Whom It May Concern

Never seen that in a Witness Statement before.

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

Replace that with a more up to date version. Google April 2020 Statement of Truth to find it or look at the many examples elsewhere on this forum. You yourself posted the correct version only yesterday.

Coupon-mad

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 ‘law firms’ send out hundreds of identikit claims such as this every week, which are likely to be handled by paralegals or administrative staff, and not 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.

Remove the above.  They can claim £50 solicitor's costs if they win.  That's not what the abuse of process is about and that looks like an old version.

In fact look at the documents on the threads by @Chefdave and @keypulse because they had a more up to date Supplementary WS and summary costs assessment for you to copy and adapt to suit.  Make sure your WS has the new statement of truth.

amateurgirl

Thankyou both. Yes, my Supplementary was an old version so I'll check out these examples and update it.

Coupon-mad, can I just clarify your comment in a previous post about Notice to Keepers please, which I'm a bit confused about? You said that, if they knew I was driving, they didn't need to send me an NTK. But when they issued the first PCN, I'm not sure they did know I was the driver and I'm not sure why they might have thought I was? And if they thought/knew I was, why did they send me a NTK on subsequent occasions? 

Coupon-mad

If they know who was driving from an appeal (or think they do) then they don't have to get DVLA data and send any NTK.  Don't forget it's not always headed 'Notice to Keeper'.

amateurgirl

Hello all. I've taken on board all the comments above and have amended my WS and supplementary WS accordingly. I'm posting them below for your further comments please. They won't all fit on one post, so there are 3 posts. Thanks all, as ever.

In the County Court at XXXXX

Claim No. XXXXXXXX

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd (Claimant)

and

XXXXXX (Defendant)

-------------------------

Witness Statement

-------------------------

1. PRELIMINARY

1.1 I, XXXXX, of XXXXX am the Defendant 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 2A to 2W and 3A to which I will refer.  

1.3 The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

1.4 I deny every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim.

2. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

2.1 In 2001 I purchased a leasehold flat with an allocated parking space demised to me under the lease. My lease gave 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” and as such I had the right to park in that location at all times. The space was clearly indicated on the parking plan which formed part of the lease document, a copy of which is attached (exhibit 2A). The lease contained no clause requiring a permit to park nor did it contain any reference to parking controls of any kind.

2.2 In 2012, without any consultation with me or any other resident, the Managing Agents unilaterally decided to engage UK Parking Control Ltd (or UKPC), a Private Parking Company, to ‘control’ parking on the estate. The residents knew nothing about this until the day that UKPC’s signs appeared on the estate.

2.3 In a letter they later sent out, the Managing Agents said the scheme was to prevent trespassers parking on the estate and enclosed permits which they said residents should display in their vehicles (exhibit 2B). I had no inkling that this scheme, to which I, as a leaseholder, had not in any way been a party, would later be used to penalise me for parking my own vehicle in my own demised parking space and to ensnare me in legal proceedings in court.

2.4 As a courtesy to the Managing Agents I affixed the permit to my windscreen. It would periodically begin to peel off so I had to keep sticking it back down. Then in September 2014 it fell off the windscreen. When I came home, the permit was lying on the dashboard and a PCN was stuck on my windscreen (PCN dated xx S 2014). The Claimant’s Operative must have seen the permit lying on the dashboard, but s/he still issued the PCN.

2.5 When it fell off the windscreen, some of the print was left behind. I tried to stick it back on over this, but there was no adhesive left on it and it wouldn’t stay on. So now I was left without a permit. I was worried I would get another PCN, so I made what I thought would be a temporary substitute, by sticking a piece of white paper behind what remained of the imprint on the windscreen.

2.6 I appealed the PCN via the Claimant’s online appeals process and requested a replacement permit (exhibit 2C). I thought they would realise their mistake and cancel the charge. They didn’t respond until November when, to my disbelief, they rejected my appeal, saying I had to pay or be taken to court, and refusing to send a new permit saying I had to get one from the Managing Agent (exhibit 2E). They’d taken 6 weeks to reply during which time they knew I had no permit and was therefore vulnerable to receiving more PCN’s. I assert that this was intentional, a deliberate tactic cynically designed to exploit this vulnerability and generate more ‘fines’.  I further assert that UKPC acted unreasonably by delaying their reply and knowingly leaving me in this situation. The Claimant has proceeded to court in full knowledge of the circumstances and I contend that this represents an Abuse of Process as defined by The Dictionary of Law as ‘a tort where damage is caused by using a legal process for an ulterior collateral purpose’.

2.7 Thanks to the proliferation of knowledge in the public domain, I’d learnt that PCN’s were not ‘fines’ or ‘parking tickets’ but actually ‘invoices’ which should be contested if they were issued unfairly. It was clear to me that the PCN had been issued unfairly, so I disputed it and refused to pay (exhibit 2G). 

2.8 I called the Managing Agents three times to request a new permit, before I was finally told I had to email my request. I emailed on 2nd December (exhibit 2F). I heard nothing from either party until late December when I received a letter from a company called Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (or DRP) saying that the Claimant had instructed them to collect the “unpaid parking charge”. This letter demanded £160 and threatened legal action if I didn’t pay (exhibit 2H). Despite being designed to scare me into paying up, I continued to refuse to pay what was an unfair charge (exhibit 2I).

2.9 In a manifest misuse of my data, and in contravention of Data Protection legislation, the Claimant had passed my details to DRP without my knowledge or consent; and furthermore DRP was now using my data in a wholly unacceptable way, to threaten and bully me. In addition, in a contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act, the original ‘charge’ had been inflated by £60, for supposed ‘legal costs’ in bringing the claim. Courts around the country have disallowed Parking Companies claims for such ‘costs’ as an Abuse of Process.

Over the next 8 months DRP continued to pursue and threaten me over this ‘debt’, and I continued to refuse to pay (exhibit 2J).

2.10 By early January 2015, I still hadn’t received the replacement permit and my ‘temporary’ permit was still on display. It was then I received a second PCN (PCN dated xx S 2015). As usual, my vehicle was parked in my own parking space. The photos the UKPC Operative took show my ‘temporary’ permit clearly (exhibit 2K). He realised what he was seeing because he input into his device that “The vehicle has no permit or photocopy permit. What you see in the photos is white paper stuck behind the area where the ink from the permit transferred onto the windscreen” (exhibit 2L).

2.11 In February, I received a Notice to Keeper from the Claimant. However, it didn’t comply with Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the POFA, as it didn’t state how the PCN had been issued and it didn’t offer a 14-day payment discount. Under POFA, if this information is missing, the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver and I again refused to pay. In February 2015 this resulted in a final reminder from UKPC, followed over the next 4 months, by threatening letters from Debt Recovery Plus, Zenith Collections and Small Claims Solicitors (exhibit 2M).  As before, in contravention of Data Protection legislation, the Claimant had passed my details to these various companies without my knowledge or consent; and they were now misusing my data to extort money from me through threats and intimidation. Furthermore, in contravention of POFA, the original ‘charge’ had again been inflated by £60, for supposed ‘legal costs’ in bringing the claim. And, as before, I continued declining to pay.

2.12 The replacement permit finally arrived later in January 2015. It had been delivered while I’d been away and I emailed the Managing Agents to say I’d received it (exhibit 2N). However, when I later went out to put it in my car, I found it had been targeted with the third PCN (PCN dated xx S 2015). As usual, my car had been parked in my own parking space. The ‘temporary’ permit was still on display, as confirmed by the photo’s the Operative took (exhibit 2O). Again, he has put into his device that “The vehicle has no permit or photocopy permit. What you see in the photos is white paper stuck behind the area where the ink from the permit transferred onto the windscreen” (exhibit 2P). The previous PCN had been issued just a week before and the circumstances are identical. Any reasonable procedure would allow time for new permits to be received, particularly over the Christmas and New Year period with its inherent delays. I contend that the Claimant has proceeded to court in full knowledge of the circumstances and that this represents a further Abuse of Process.

2.13 In February 2015, I received a Notice to Keeper from UKPC, followed two weeks later by the final reminder.  As before, these were non-POFA compliant.  I received no further correspondence relating to this PCN. I had no idea why this was, but I was not so naïve to think the issue had gone away. Like a dog with a meaty bone, UKPC gnaws on relentlessly.

2.14 In October 2016, the new permit was on display but my vehicle was targeted with a fourth PCN (PCN dated xx O 2016). As usual it was parked in my own parking space. The reason given for issuing this PCN was that the permit was, quote, a “non-valid photocopy”. The real reason was that Private Parking Companies make their money by targeting residents, and to this end their Operatives are given financial targets to meet and clearly this particular Operative still had his target to achieve so he issued the PCN. The photos he took of the permit (exhibit 2Q) look the same as the photo I took of the same permit in June this year (allowing for it having faded over time) (exhibit 2R).  Furthermore, when I moved home, I removed the permit from my windscreen and now exhibit it here (exhibit 2S).

2.15 Following the issue of this last PCN, I heard no more about it – no Notice to Keeper and no debt collection letters. Then, in September 2018, I received a ‘Letter before Claim Pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims’ from SCS Law, saying the Claimant had instructed them to recover charges which had been, quote, “incurred by you in relation to the parking of your vehicle” (exhibit 2T). However, in contravention of the Practice Direction for the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, they had failed to provide any supporting evidence for the claim, and I was obliged to request this from them. I also asked that they confirm they were fully conversant with the terms of my lease in respect of my parking rights granted under that lease (exhibit 2U). In response, I received various copy photographs and documents and confirmation that neither SCS Law, nor the Claimant, had a copy of my lease (exhibit 2V).  As neither had a copy of my lease, neither was aware of the terms of my lease in respect of my parking rights.

2.16 There then ensued 9 months of argument and counter-argument between myself and SCS Law (exhibit 2W). In one letter, SCS attempted to blame me for getting one of the PCN’s, by referring to a vehicle ‘exemption’ procedure, which they said I should have followed, but of which I’d never even heard. Another letter was dated several weeks before the date of the letter they were responding to (proving that these letters are just mail-merged templates, which no solicitor will have drafted), and another contained the outright lies that (a) their client was unaware of a delay in providing a new permit and (b) that the Managing Agents had no record of my requesting a new one, lies which I was able to refute with copies of the relevant correspondence.

2.17 Finally, in June 2019, SCS Law wrote to me advising that they had been instructed to issue County Court proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges.  

amateurgirl

3. CLAIMANT’S CONTRACT  

3.1 I assert that the scheme introduced by the Managing Agents constituted a variation of the terms of my lease. At no point was authority sought from me, by any party, to vary my lease to allow the imposition of a parking regime and remove the unfettered parking rights and easements granted to me under my lease. In the absence of a variation to my lease, my lease had primacy of contract over any subsequent contract the Managing Agents entered into with the Claimant.

3.2 The Claimant had no authority over my, the leaseholder’s, property and no authority to bring a claim. The Claimant did not own the land on which the vehicle was parked, nor did they have any interest in the land. Therefore, the Claimant lacked the capacity to offer parking.

3.3 I assert that the Claimant undertook a contract with the Managing Agents 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 3A), it is clear that the Claimant (a) did not have a copy of my lease and (b) had no knowledge of its contents in relation to my parking rights. The Claimant was subsequently obliged to obtain a copy from the Land Registry to ascertain its contents.  The modus operandi of Private Parking Companies is to offer Managing Agents their service ‘free’, and then make their money by targeting residents with PCN’s, without any regard to the prevailing rights and easements granted under residents Leases and Tenancy Agreements. I therefore assert that the Claimant undertook a contract without due regard to the legality of its performance.

3.4 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 estate, allows only for the issuing of charges and pursuit of outstanding charges, it does not give permission to issue court claims.  Furthermore, there is only one signature from each company, which fails the strict requirements of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, which requires two authorised signatures, or a director and witness, from each company to sign, in order for a contract to be valid. The Act defines an authorised signatory as a director or a company secretary. However, the signatory for the Managing Agents, John McCarthy, was, at the time of signing, a Customer Service Co-ordinator. There is nothing to show that Mr McCarthy had any standing to sign on behalf of the Managing Agents and I therefore assert he was not acting for, or on behalf of, the Managing Agents. Since no landowner agent is mentioned in the alleged contract, I contend that Mr McCarthy could not have been acting in that capacity either. Furthermore the document evidences no reference to, or involvement of, the Landowner in the contract and to date neither the Claimant nor its legal representatives have evidenced any such involvement.

3.5 In addition, the contract document states that the contract was for an initial period of ‘3 months beginning on the start date’, the start date being given as xxxx. I contend that therefore this contract document, on which the Claimant relies for their authority to operate on the Estate, expired on xxxx. No evidence has been provided by the Claimant that this contract was formally renewed or extended beyond the xxxx, and I therefore further contend that the Claimant had no contractual authority to operate on the Estate 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.

3.6 I therefore assert that all the foregoing renders the document invalid and that ergo the Claimant has no contract to operate on the Estate.

 

3.7 I aver that 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 an invalid contract which moreover had expired. I contend that this is a further Abuse of Process.

4. SUMMARY

4.1 In summary, I contend 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 they are not entitled. I contend 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 waste court time up and down the country.

4.2 I contend that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this case against me to the court. Their actions and the actions of SCS Law have brought me considerable worry and distress. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from scratch and spend many hours researching case law online, processing and printing evidence and preparing my Defence and this Witness Statement. I will not claim for all the hours I have spent on this, but will be asking for a consideration to cover 30 hours of my time as detailed in my costs schedule.

4.3 There are several options available within the Courts’ case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants from pursuing individuals with meritless claims. I contend 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.

4.4 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. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature of Defendant: 

Name: XXXXX

amateurgirl

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 SWS 1) 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 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 UKCPM 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 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” (exhibit SWS 2).

1.3 Similarly, in the Caernarfon 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'' (exhibit SWS 3).

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 Supplementary Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature of Defendant: 

Name: XXXXX

 

Le_Kirk

Looking good to me.

Fruitcake

Somewhere in point 2, I would include the requirements of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1987 section 37 concerning mandatory requirements to be met before an existing lease can be changed.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/contents

"37Application by majority of parties for variation of leases.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, an application may be made to [F1the appropriate tribunal] in respect of two or more leases for an order varying each of those leases in such manner as is specified in the application.

(2)Those leases must be long leases of flats under which the landlord is the same person, but they need not be leases of flats which are in the same building, nor leases which are drafted in identical terms.

(3)The grounds on which an application may be made under this section are that the object to be achieved by the variation cannot be satisfactorily achieved unless all the leases are varied to the same effect.

(4)An application under this section in respect of any leases may be made by the landlord or any of the tenants under the leases.

(5)Any such application shall only be made if—

(a)in a case where the application is in respect of less than nine leases, all, or all but one, of the parties concerned consent to it; or

(b)in a case where the application is in respect of more than eight leases, it is not opposed for any reason by more than 10 per cent. of the total number of the parties concerned and at least 75 per cent. of that number consent to it.

(6)For the purposes of subsection (5)—

(a)in the case of each lease in respect of which the application is made, the tenant under the lease shall constitute one of the parties concerned (so that in determining the total number of the parties concerned a person who is the tenant under a number of such leases shall be regarded as constituting a corresponding number of the parties concerned); and

(b)the landlord shall also constitute one of the parties concerned."

In other words, every lease holder and the landlord needs to be consulted, a ballot of every leaseholder and landlord must be carried out, a majority in favour of 75% of leaseholders including the landlord must agree to be scammed, with no more than 10% of leaseholders including the landlord objecting to being scammed.

Since no such ballot was carried out, any variation of the original lease is unlawful. The Landowner (who must be a party to the ballot) and the MA instigating the change are jointly liable for this unlawful change in accordance with the said Act (law).

Coupon-mad

I would refer briefly to the Supplementary WS in the main WS, somewhere near the end, to tally them together.

Also, how about adding some conflicting evidence from the UKPC website FAQS:
https://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/faq/

Can we cancel parking charges that you’ve issued?

Yes. If we’ve ticketed a legitimate user in error, just let us know and we’ll cancel it immediately. You’re in total control at all times.

Will my staff get ticketed?

No. We’ll provide you with UKPC branded parking permits to issue to your staff. We never give parking charges to vehicles displaying a valid permit unless they are contravening other site contraventions, such as parked outside the markings of a bay. In addition, our iWarden Smartphone has the capability to store staff registration numbers for those sites who do not wish to use a permit system but need to have an authorised vehicle list.

What about any visitors or contractors we want to visit our site?

Again, we can issue you with permits or keep an up-to-date list of visitors or contractors to your site.

Also from this page, why didn't they use the iPermit technology open to them, you can say!

https://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/ipermit/

The iPermit portal has been designed to help you manage all of your permit needs in real-time. iPermit gives you the flexibility and freedom to add and manage parking permits when required for permanent vehicles, visitors and contractors, safe in the knowledge they are not being misused.

iPermit eliminates the need for physical permits that can often be misused on another vehicle or by another person. UKPC’s iPermit portal can be accessed both in the work place or on the move, using either a computer, tablet or smartphone. This flexibility ensures that vehicles can be validated through the automated process at any time, wherever you are.

iPermit reduces the need for enforcement, unnecessary administration and is completely secure, providing you with real-time information on active authorised permit parking. The portal can be accessed 24/7, eliminating errors, time delays and misuse. iPermit can work across all of UKPC’s portfolio of services and solutions.