County court claim - private parking solutions london

KeithP

kinom wrote: »

I have received the notice for proposed allocation and Directions questionnaire.
I have compiled them as per https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016

I'm about to send it back, but I'm not sure where to send the claimant's copy to, there is no address for service on the questionnaire, but I have an "Address for sending documents and payments" (that is basically the claimant's lawyer address) in the original claim, is it acceptable for me to send it there?

Yes, send the Claimant's copy to that address you have found on the Claim Form.

Return your completed DQ to the CCBC in the same manner and to the same email address that you sent your Defence. Refresh your memory on that by re-reading post #8 above.

kinom

I have received a notice of allocation to the small claims track. there is no hearing date yet (states that it has to be fixed by the court).

I have to file my WS and documentation by the 22nd of November.

Any advice on how to proceed?
Worth waiting for the claimant to send their WS or shall I just go ahead with mine?

Umkomaas

Any advice on how to proceed?

As in all court cases ......... full advice has been already written for those affected, in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2.

Please see that as your 24/7 Bible - it should all be there.

kinom

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
XXXXXXXXXX (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXXXX, of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter.
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 already filed defence.
3. I was driving the vehicle that night, I have a distinct recollection of the events as it was my office Christmas party night, I was accompanying a colleague to the event and I was unable to find parking in the nearby hotel (where the event was taking place), so I then looked for off-street parking on the adjacent road, this was around 9pm, the road in question (XXXXXXX) had no street lighting and I decided to park in one of the many empty parking spaces there (that happened to be at number X on XXXXXX), I noticed a sign in large font stating ‘Customer Parking only’, due to the late hour at night and the fact that I only intended to stay for 30 minutes I parked there. At no time I noticed signage stating that I was entering into a binding contract, that was due to the lack of lighting the fact that I satisfied myself with the sign stating ‘Customer Parking only’. I satisfied myself that I would not be inconveniencing anyone by parking there for such a short period at that that time of night and left.
4. The claimant states that the defendant XXXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of vehicle XXXX, this indicates that the claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and offering a menu of choices, this fails to comply with Civil procedure rule 16.4, or with civil practice direction 16, paras 7.3 to 7.5, also the claim does not meet the requirements of practice direction 16 7.5, since there is nothing that specifies how the terms were breached.
5. At the time of day the PCN was issued there was no street lighting at the location in question (XXXXXX), this can be seen in Exhibit A and B, in consequence it is not possible to read the parking notice at all, what can be actually seen is a sign with a large font that stated ‘customer parking only’ that can be seen in Exhibit C. For this reason, I deny that that a contract was entered with the claimant as the contractual terms were not legible at that time of night under those light conditions.
6. 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' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). The claimant includes an additional 60£ plus interest, of which no explanation is giving for, this 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 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, yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge 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 (Exhibit D). 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...''

7. 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

Coupon-mad

my already filed defense.

Defence.

Your WS says nothing about what happened, no facts about the car park or parking event, and whether you are admitting to driving. Needs to have a lot more to it.

kinom

oops

supposedly spelled correctly as per office 365.

Thanks.

KeithP

kinom wrote: »

oops

supposedly spelled correctly as per office 365.

Thanks.

Change to the UK spell checker from the US spell checker.

Umkomaas

kinom wrote: »

oops

supposedly spelled correctly as per office 365.

Thanks.

Seems a bit inconsistent! Get your money back!

Could I kindly have some feedback on my Witness statement? (my defence is at post #17)
I would also like to share the links to the Exhibits that I plan on sending, I'll happily direct message them to anyone available to have a look, just please let me know.

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
XXXXXXXXXX (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXXXX, of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter.
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 already filed defense.

kinom

Thanks, setting spelling to UK from US did the trick.

I have updated my WS at post #35, I do remember very well that night so I have added that and all that happened from my point of view.

Coupon-mad

Maybe like this?

You can find the transcripts of the cases I've added, in the Parking Prankster's case law pages, and the judgments about the fake added costs are linked in post #14 of beamerguy's abuse of process thread.

You also need to now file & serve your proposed COSTS SCHEDULE (see here):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76445468#Comment_76445468

kinom wrote: »

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
XXXXXXXXXX (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXXXX, of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter.

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 already filed defence.

3. I was driving the vehicle that night, I have a distinct recollection of the events as it was my office Christmas party night, I was accompanying a colleague to the event and I was unable to find parking in the nearby hotel (where the event was taking place), so I then looked for off-street parking on the adjacent road, this was [STRIKE]around[/STRIKE] after 9pm, the road in question (XXXXXXX) had no street lighting and I decided to park in one of the many empty parking spaces [STRIKE]there[/STRIKE] where the shops were closed (that happened to be at number X on XXXXXX). [STRIKE]I noticed a sign in large font stating ‘Customer Parking only, due to the late hour at night and the fact that I only intended to stay for 30 minutes I parked there[/STRIKE].

4. At no time were any large font parking terms or charges readable and - contrary to the Claimant's images which can be seen to have been artificially lit up by the ticketer's torch shining directly on the smaller sign - none of the signs on the wall were in fact lit at all. Nor was there any ambient lighting, and indeed the PPS signs were placed directly under a brick windowsill overhang. To enforce parking after hours of darkness by hiding terms in unlit signs, is a significant breach of the International Parking Community Code of Practice, which says under 'Contrast & Illumination' (see EXHIBIT x): ''If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting.''

4.1. The significance of the lack of illumination of the signage at night is important because the fundamental basis of the claim is based upon a contract to pay a set sum of money, alleged to have come into being and been agreed between myself and the car park operator. To achieve such agreement and fulfil the requirements for a transparent consumer contract, the chargeable terms must be legibly set out in notices displayed. They were not. Whilst there are notices on the wall and I admit that I parked there, the alleged 'parking charge' cannot be discerned at all, not even in the Claimant's photographs and the headings on the signs show there was no parking licence on offer anyway.

4.2. Even though it is not disputed that some signs were on the wall, at no point could I have taken a prohibitive sign saying: 'no unauthorised parking' to be making an offer at a price. I had no idea that I was entering into a contract by which I would later be bound. I satisfied myself that I would not be inconveniencing anyone by parking there for a short period at that that time of night, and reasonably understood 'customer only' signs must only apply when one could be a customer.

4.3. At the very most, this can only be a matter of trespass, which remains in the gift of the actual landowner (to seek any nominal damages, of which there were none) and cannot be dressed up by a third party parking firm as if a contractual agreement was reached that positively allows drivers to commit trespass at a price. It might be different, if the signs offered parking regardless of permit or authorisation, but they do not. It might be different, if the Claimant had pleaded their case in damages under the tort of trespass, but they did not - and could not, due to not being in possession (as was held in the Supreme Court ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished in all facts).

4.4. In support of this position, I would draw the court's attention to recent parking charge cases of similar fact, (Exhibits x and x) PACE v Lengyel and PCM v Bull. There are similarities in that during night hours, it would be impossible to comply with any obligation to be 'a customer' of the closed shop, or to obtain a permit from that shop. Thus there was no 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' that could bind a driver, regardless of how the signs looked in daylight or when illuminated by a torch for the purposes of predatory late night ticketing. This terms were void for impossibility and further, these were (even if readable) 'forbidding' signs as regards parking. The Claimant's unlit and unknown 'parking charge' was not a contract on offer at all, and breaches the well-known penalty rule, which (unlike in the Beavis case) remains engaged in this case.

[STRIKE]4. The claimant states that the defendant XXXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of vehicle XXXX, this indicates that the claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and offering a menu of choices, this fails to comply with Civil procedure rule 16.4, or with Civil practice direction 16, paras 7.3 to 7.5, also the claim does not meet the requirements of practice direction 16 7.5, since there is nothing that specifies how the terms were breached. [/STRIKE]

5. At the time of day the PCN was issued there was no street lighting at the location in question (XXXXXX), this can be seen in Exhibit A and B, in consequence it is not possible to read the parking notice at all, what can be actually seen is a sign [STRIKE]with a large font[/STRIKE] that stated ‘customer parking only’ that can be seen in Exhibit C. For this reason, I deny that that a contract was entered with the claimant as the contractual terms were not legible at that time of night under those light conditions.

6. Given that the business was closed at night, it cannot be assumed that the signs and enforcement was even authorised to take place 24/7 because there is no deterrent value or 'customer' requirement that could possibly arise, when the shop is closed. This is in fact why I believed it was acceptable to park there. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their landowner contract (unredacted) to show that they were authorised to issue parking charges overnight using unlit signs that in fact prohibit parking, and that the landowner/retailer allowed the Claimant to sue in their own name. It cannot be assumed that a parking firm not in possession has that standing, given that some contracts only allow for such companies to put signs up and issue tickets as an agent, acting at all times 'on behalf of' a principal who retains their right to litigation.


Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

7. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny.

8. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

9. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.

10. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. Paragraphs 98, 193 and 198 of Beavis all clarify and find this as fact. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges also held that a parking firm cannot plead any part of their case in damages, because they are not the party in possession.

11. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims.

12. 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.

13. 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' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). The Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

14. 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) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge 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. 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...'' EXHIBIT X

15. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (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 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 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.'' EXHIBIT X

16. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and they cannot dress up possible (unintended and without causing any damages) act of trespass as if I agreed to pay an unreadable 'parking charge'. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed untrue in terms of the added 'costs' alleged. 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.

[STRIKE]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' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). The claimant includes an additional 60£ plus interest, of which no explanation is giving for, this 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 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, yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge 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 (Exhibit D). 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...''

7. 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. [/STRIKE]

Statement of Truth

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

Signature
Date