UK Car Park Management/Gladstones Court claim

Ladybird150

Thanks Coupon-mad. That is a good point.

Ladybird150

Here is my amended WS. For some reason when I copy and paste my statement, it is not left centered. I am also not able to post the whole WS so will post in parts. 

In the XXX County Court

 

Claim No: XXX

 

Between

 

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

 

-and- 

 

Mr XXXX (Defendant) 

 

__________________

 

Witness Statement

 

_______________

 

1. I, XX of ADDRESS, am the Defendant in this matter. I represent myself as a litigant in person with no legal training. I trust the court will excuse me if my presentation falls short of professional, despite my preparation and research for this case.

 

2. Any documentary evidence to my witness statement will be referred to as Exhibit AK01, AK02 and so on.

 

3. The Claimant’s legal representatives informed me that their assumption is that the Claimant’s witness will not attend the hearing, presenting a significant disadvantage for me.  If the Claimant’s witness does not attend the court hearing to give evidence, I will be unable to question the witness for the statement’s validity.

 

4. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration number, XXX. However, at the material time, I was not the driver of the vehicle, which was insured and authorized for use by different drivers. Please see Exhibit AK01, the vehicle insurance document listing the names of the insured drivers.

 

5. On the date in question I was not at my place of work, where the matter in question occurred. I was out with my spouse and children as it was half term and I was on annual leave. Please see Exhibit AK02 – Witness Statement from my spouse.

 

PARKING ENFORCEMENT –CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT

 

6. Paragraph 27 of Claimant’s witness statement, refers to an agreement with the landowner which gave the Claimant authority to enforce parking charges. The Authorisation Form between the Claimant and the Landowner wrongly refers to the Landowner as a Managing Agent. Even though the Claimant has redacted the signature of the individuals who signed the Authorisation Form, it is clear that this was not signed in person but electronically.

 

7. The signatures do not meet the strict requirements of Section 44 of The Companies Act 2006. This states that for a contract to be executed, it must be signed by two authorised signatories, or by a director and a witness, from both parties. See Exhibit AK03 – Companies Act 2006, Section 44.

 

8. Since there is only one signature from each party, and neither are identified as being authorised to sign on behalf of their respective companies in accordance with the act, the contract fails to have been properly executed.

 

9. In addition, only one party (referred to as Contractor) dated the contract, whereas the second signatory did not date the contract.  

 

10. The Claimant attached to their witness statement a Site Plan which shows the boundaries of their enforcement area. The Property Register Title– No XXX. Some of the parking area which the Claimant was managing does not form part of this Property Register as it was removed from this title in 1995 and registered under a title number XXX which was owned by another party. Please see a copy of the Title Register Page 4, Paragraphs 8 & 9-  Exhibit AK04. I believe the Claimant did not have written authority from the second landowner to act on their behalf as no evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant. This is a requirement set out by the Claimant’s trade body, the International Parking Community (IPC), in clause 1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice. See Exhibit AK05.

Ladybird150

NO NOTICE TO DRIVER

 

11. The Claimant alleges that a Notice to Driver was placed on the windscreen of the vehicle, and has provided photographic evidence of same. I was unaware of any such notice, and strongly suspect that this was an instance of what is known as ‘ghost ticketing’, whereby a parking company operative places a notice on a windscreen, photographs it, and then removes it. I only became aware of alleged parking charge when a letter was received from an unlicensed debt collector, Debt Recovery Plus, on behalf of the Claimant dated 20th April 2018, two months after the alleged matter occurred. I immediately wrote to Debt Recovery Plus and UK Car Park Management on 23rd April 2018 to query the parking charge. See attached Exhibit No AK06.  

 

12. The Claimant responded to my letter on 14th May 2018 informing me that a parking charge notice was attached to the windscreen on the vehicle and enclosing a copy of a letter which was allegedly sent to my home on 19th March 2018. I did not receive this letter and suspect it was never sent but produced additionally by the Claimant after my letter to them on 14th May 2018. Please see Exhibit No AK07.  

 

13. The Claimant’s Company is known to use illegal and unfair practices when operating. As an example and proof please see Exhibit No AK08 which is a parking charge notice issued by the Claimant to a vehicle which was inside my car repair garage on the same estate. The premises are a private property and the Claimant had no authorisation from me (the leaseholder) to take pictures of my business premises and my customer’s vehicle. The Claimant sent a Parking Charge Notice to my customer’s home address and because of this illegal ticket, I lost the customer and any potential future business. I had to write several letters to the Claimant to get this unlawful parking charge cancelled. Exhibit AK08 - a copy of the Parking Charge Notice sent to my customer, a copy of my letters to the Claimant and finally a copy of the Claimant’s letter cancelling the illegal Parking Charge Notice.

.

UNCLEAR AND CONFUSING SIGNAGE

 

14. The Claimant’s signage on the land in question is confusing, unclear and prohibitive.

 

15. When entering the estate there were UKCPM signs placed above another Company’s signs. In my opinion it would have been impossible for any motorist to decide which signs were in operation. These signs were removed around 6 months after the event. See attached Exhibits AK09 – photographs of unclear signage.   

 

16. UKCPM signs state to park wholly within a marked bay. There were no marked bays anywhere on the estate at that time. The only marked bays were at the end of the estate and these parking bays were removed from the title for exclusive right of another owner of an industrial unit (title number XXX). The vehicle in question was parked in an area where again there were no bays or any markings.

 

17. It is therefore denied that the signage on the estate was capable of creating a legally binding contract

 

THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS

 

18. The witness statement appears to not actually be signed by Mr Jack Chapman, and I am in the process of making a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) having come across through research a similar UKCPM case where this exact same UKCPM 'electronic signature' was exposed by a lay representative, to be a facsimile and that UKCPM could not have signed the statement on the date stated under the facsimile signature, or at all.

 

19. In the two cases in October 2019, Claim Nos. E9GF9M7K and E4GF8M1R, UKCPM -v- Mrs A, before Deputy District Judge Chohan at High Wycombe statements purported to have been signed by 'Jack Chapman', an employee of the Claimant Company, could not have been. A comparison of the signatures on these two statements showed that the signatures are 100% identical in every respect, down to the last pixel. It was highly improbable, if not impossible, that any person would sign his name twice in a completely identical manner on two separate occasions, three months apart. The same signature in this case too. See Exhibit AK10.

 

THE PRESUMPTION OF THE DRIVER

 

20. I refute the many allegations by the Claimant in their witness statement that I was the driver at the material time either directly or by presumption. The Claimant has no evidence to the contrary and the accusations are merely ‘hear-say’ and conjecture; not a factual reciting of a witness who was present.

 

21. The Claimant’s Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS), International Parking Community’s code of practice Part C paragraph 1 clearly indicates that the only possible way for the Keeper Liability is Sought by using the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 12). The Claimant did not comply with POFA in that there was lack of clear signage as demonstrated in Exhibit AK04 and failure by the Claimant to give adequate notice of the parking charge as required in Schedule 4.

 

22. The Claimant has no grounds in pursuing the keeper let alone assuming the keeper as the driver.

 

23. District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds in the case of Excel v Lamoureux [2016] C3DP56Q5 concludes judgement by stating: “The claim against Mr. Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver”. See Exhibit AK11.

 

24. In the County Court at Liverpool Claim No. C1DP0H0J, Deputy District Judge Gourley dismissed the case between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) and Sarah Quayle (Defendant) due to the Claimant failure to provide evidence that the keeper was in fact the driver. See Exhibit AK12.

 

25. The Claimant had no entitlement to proceed on the presumption that the keeper is also the driver.

Ladybird150

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

 

26. I have no obligation to prove that I was not the driver. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove that I  was the driver.

 

27. Section 172 (2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it clear that the registered keeper of a vehicle is required to furnish the police with the identity of the driver under statute: ‘(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police…’ See Exhibit AK13.

 

28. There is no such statute requiring the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge on private land. In any event, I do not know the identity of the driver, only that I was not driving.

 

29. In the 2015 POPLA Annual it is stated ‘there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort..’ See Exhibit AK14.

 

30. The burden of proof for identifying the driver should not lay with the Defendant.

 

NO GRACE PERIOD

 

31. The British Parking Association’s guidelines 13.1 states that if the driver is parking without permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’. If, having had that opportunity they decided not to park but choose to leave the car park the operators must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by the operator’s parking contract. The BPA guidelines further state that in such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. See Exhibit AK15.

 

32. The Claimant did not offer the sufficient grace period to the driver as they used a predatory ticket operator who allowed less than 5 minutes before issuing a parking charge notice to the vehicle, taking picture of it and then removing the parking charge notice from the vehicle.

 

PARKING EYE-v- BEVIS CASE

 

33. A key factor in ‘ParkingEye v Beavis’ was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice. In this case the signage and operating practice of the Claimant fails, on numerous counts, to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking operator - The British Parking Association (BPA).

 

ABUSE OF PROCESS

 

34. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge. I believe that the Claimant has not incurred additional costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself. The Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance.  It is submitted that this is an attempt of double recovery from the Claimant, which the Court shall not uphold. See Exhibit AK16.

 

35. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ‘Upon 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 in 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 and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’ See Exhibit AK17.

 

36. In the Manchester Court in Case number E8GF1V7V (UK Car Park Management v Esplanade Ltd) on 24th November 2018, District Judge Grand stated ‘The claim is struck out as abuse of process. Reasons: The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which is the alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. The additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. ‘  See Exhibit AK18.

 

37. In the Warwick County Court, Case No F5DP2D6Y (Premier Park Ltd v Shaw) District Judge Josephs dismissed the case as abuse of process. ‘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 judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis… Additionally S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the court to consider the fairness of a contract of terms and the provision of additional charges falls into examples 6, 10 and 14 of the indicative list of unfair terms in Schedule 2 of that act. It is an absolute abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.’ See Exhibit AK19.

 

CLAIMANT’S UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR

 

38. The Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this case against me to the Court. The Claimant’s actions and the actions of their legal representatives have brought me considerable vexation and distress. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time (amounting to over 60 hours over the last two years), writing and answering numerous letters, researching case law to prepare the defence and this witness statement. I have no intention of claiming for each and every hour spent on dealing with this claim, but will be asking for a consideration to cover some of the time spent as detailed in the attached Costs Schedule.

 

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.

 

…………………………………………………..                                    ……………………………

(NAME, Defendant)                                                                             (Date)

 

Coupon-mad

31 and 33 have the BPA CoP wrongly referred to, but UKCPM aren't in the BPA AOS.

There is a misspelling of Beavis in a heading.

DJ Grand doesn't work anywhere near Manchester...he's at Southampton so I think you've merged two different judgments here:

36. In the Manchester Court in Case number E8GF1V7V (UK Car Park Management v Esplanade Ltd) on 24th November 2018, District Judge Grand stated

Out of interest, what's the date of the purported landowner authority?  Can we see it?  UKCPM have been exposed on here in one thread as (allegedly, based on the evidence) having created a false one.

Ladybird150

Coupon-mad said:

31 and 33 have the BPA CoP wrongly referred to, but UKCPM aren't in the BPA AOS.

I thought they were because it said on the Authorisation Form that they are a member of BPA. I will post it shortly.

There is a misspelling of Beavis in a heading.

Thank you. I will correct. 

DJ Grand doesn't work anywhere near Manchester...he's at Southampton so I think you've merged two different judgments here:

36. In the Manchester Court in Case number E8GF1V7V (UK Car Park Management v Esplanade Ltd) on 24th November 2018, District Judge Grand stated

I must have merged two different judgments. I will correct. 

Out of interest, what's the date of the purported landowner authority?  Can we see it?  UKCPM have been exposed on here in one thread as (allegedly, based on the evidence) having created a false one.

Date of contract is 15.3.2017. Will post it in a minute

Ladybird150

I've been trying to upload photos but getting message 'Body is 3 characters too short.'. Very strange as I've been able to post photos previously. I will try again in the morning. 

I have double checked the Authorisation Form and on the bottom right corner there is  BPA symbol. 

Coupon-mad

I thought they were because it said on the Authorisation Form that they are a member of BPA. I will post it shortly.

Please don't. They are obviously in the IPC AOS, not the BPA one.

This is covered in the NEWBIES thread post #1...seach it for UKCPM.  No posts about this aspect pleeeeease!  I put it in the NEWBIES thread to stop people telling us about the BPA rectangle...

Ladybird150

Coupon-mad said:

I thought they were because it said on the Authorisation Form that they are a member of BPA. I will post it shortly.

Please don't. They are obviously in the IPC AOS, not the BPA one.

This is covered in the NEWBIES thread post #1...seach it for UKCPM.  No posts about this aspect pleeeeease!  I put it in the NEWBIES thread to stop people telling us about the BPA rectangle...

I must have missed it completely. I will revisit the NEWBIES thread and amend as necessary. Thank you very much for all your help with this. I have been unable to upload the pictures of the Authorisation Form but here is a link to it.

https://we.tl/t-ScLFUeIpWM

Ladybird150

I have amended Paragraph 31 re Grace Period. I have quoted this from IPC code of practice v6 from April 2017 as this seems to be the right version that covers Feb 2018 when the ticket was issued. I hope this is correct. 

 

NO GRACE PERIOD

31. The International Parking Community’s code of practice Section B Paragraph 15.1 states that drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. Paragraph 15.2 states that drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site…  See Exhibit AK15.

 

 

32. The Claimant did not offer the sufficient grace period to the driver as they used a predatory ticket operator who allowed less than 5 minutes before issuing a parking charge notice to the vehicle, taking picture of it and then removing the parking charge notice from the vehicle.