HX Car Park Court Hearing

shellylmq

I wonder if someone could help. I have looked at all the feeds, including the neewbie and related and still seem to be a little stuck in my defence.
In a nutshell, Oct last year, i paid and displayed in a an HX car park. A couple of days later, i got a letter stating i have failed to purchase and/or validate a pay and display ticket. You can see my car is in transit going in and out of the car park. i did pay and display for my full stay. I ignored these letters, a colleague who uses the carpark stated that they 'try it all the time and to ignore', being heavily pregnant at the time, it wasnt on my list of things to do. Gladstone Solicitors quickly started sending letters, i then received a claims track before court which i sent off and ticked i would mediate. Since then, i have received a date to go to court 27th September and have to have my defence in 13th September (i have been on holiday so frantically writing it now) The claimant is trying to claim damages and staff costs in letters sent etc. they have now provided new evidence ANPR, that theyve searched my reg and i did not pay. I definitely did however, i wonder if i have mistyped my registration. Common sense would say they should have looked at a mistype before all the letters, however it seems i have been bombarded with generic copy and paste letters with lots of jargon about a contact between me and them whilst i parked in their car park.

i have written out some of the things i have found on the threads but if i'm honestly, it just looks like a unstructured mess. i hate that i could lose in court because i don't know all the jargon, clauses etc and they'll get money out of me when i did pay. if anyone could help, that would be amazing, thanks

Umkomaas

Since then, i have received a date to go to court 27th September and have to have my defence in 13th September (i have been on holiday so frantically writing it now)

If you're within 2 weeks of a court date, it won't be your Defence that's necessary, that should have been completed a couple of months ago. Surely you mean Witness Statement and evidence portfolio?

What exactly did you say in your defence?

KeithP

We tried to help you last October - County Claim form - help please - but all questions and guidance fell on deaf ears.

You apparently filed a Defence last year and now need to compile a witness statement and evidence.

What date have you been given for the filing of those?

Guidance on creating a Witness Statement and evidence can be found in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Please show us the Defence you have filed.

shellylmq

Keith have to apologies, the first one i needed help with was BW legal, i didn't see any notifications. i filled my country court claim and i haven't heard anything back. On speaking to the court they said, BW legal hadn't responded so i don't need to do anything at this point.

This is in relation to Gladstone, my first response was to the court to state that i thought it was a hoax as my car was clearly moving, i threw away the ticket so i cant prove i paid but i did pay. I stated that a friend uses the car park and said to not reply as they 'do it all the time'. i ticked for mediation but the next letter i got was 'Notice of allocation to the small claims track. The court have confirmed that Gladstone have paid the £25 fee so the case will be going ahead. I have until tomorrow to send over all copies of documents, expert reports i ineted to use in court. i recieved Gladstones Monday which was filled with photos and things i hadnt seen before. They have the ANPR system and have satted that my registration was in the system, therefore i stayed and didnt pay for 6 hours. I paid for the full day, i can only assume i didnt enter my registration properly.

From copying off some of the threads in the related post, my defence is as follows;

2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.

3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.


4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of Audi Q3, registered number BU63 UYK. I can confirm I was driving on the date in question

5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of the issue of parking charge notices in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at HX Management Wigan.

Contract

6. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement, no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.


7. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible. The signage states ANPR technology may be in operation in this car park, however point 4 of HX Managements defence states it is managed by ANPR technology. The larger font of the signage states ‘Pay and Display’ which is what I adhered to.


9. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.

10. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £60 to £160. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are fabricated figures and applied regardless of facts.

11. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.


12. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £60 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

13 The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.


14. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.

15. The original charge was ‘failed to purchase and/or validate a pay and display ticket’, however in point 7 of HX Managements defence, it refers to ‘the driver obligation to ensure compliance’. This is a different charge completely. It is my opinion that HX Management have evidence that I did in fact pay in full for my parking but are unwilling to share. If we see that the offence was a ‘human error’, then it would make their original offence redundant. Furthermore in this same paragraph, ‘if my company were to waive one charge on the basis put forward in the defence it would open the flood gates to the waiver of many more charges’, this wasn’t my defence as I hadn’t seen the document in question, therefore demonstrating HX management’s generic approach.

16. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.


17. HX Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.


18. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.


19. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

20. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

1. 21. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.


22. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant. This has already been evidenced in the evidence pack from Gladstone Solicitors dated 9th September. Pages 10, 11 and 19 have only now been presented. From this information, the allegations appear to be based on ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit to the carpark. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question which I do not dispute and is not evidence of the registered keeper not purchasing the appropriate parking ticket.


2. Referring to page 19 shows a lookup search for VRM: BU63 UYK, this is the first time I have seen this piece of evidence which suggests to me that I may have entered my registration plate incorrectly, again not evidence that I didn’t pay and display a parking ticket that the machine printed out for me to display in my window. Against, the largest font on the signage.
3. Referring to page 11, the export for ticket details, in the notes section I would like to query the ‘EB BU 03/10/2018 10:14:42 03/10/2018 22:14:42. This could suggest that I have entered the first 2 digits of my registration plate at 10:14:42 and purchased a 12 hour ticket. It seems strange that a computer system would produce a ticket with only 2 digits entered, as per the table.
4. On the 23rd April 2019 I submitted my defence to the court, as such I invited more information regarding the actual offence.
5. Had I received page 19, the ‘lookup search’, I could have then suggested that I have put the wrong registration plate in and asked them to search again. This could have saved time and effort on all parties, including the court. If am I guilty of anything, it is potentially mistyping my registration in to the system, an entirely different offence. To this end, the claimants desire to claim damages is entirely their own doing
6. Looking at point 5 of the claimant’s witness statement, point 3 suggests that a match of registration plate is made against the ticket machine and point 4 argues as such, I parked without displaying a ticket for up to 6 hours. There is no evidence that I did not purchase a ticket. The system states that you must display your ticket and validate it. I displayed a ticket which there is no evidence to state I didn’t. In terms of validating, if there is a typing error, then this is where the mismatch would occur.
7. Point 9 of the claimants statement suggests that ‘they need to register and validate a payment ticket within 10 minutes of entering the carpark. Page 11 suggest in the notes, that the letter BU made payment 3 minutes after entering the car park.
8. In summary, it is the defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4
9. I have also enclosed 2 witness statements which can confirm that I paid and displayed the appropriate parking ticket for my stay


Appeal;
1. I would like to state that at the time, I was heavily pregnant and receiving such letters through the door, which in turn left me very stressed (particularly seeing my car only in transit, rather than a car without a ticket photographed), I assumed it was a car park firm trying their luck to make money. I did also speak to a colleague who uses the car park regularly and he stated to avoid correspondence as they ‘try it all the time’. Rightly or wrongly, I did not respond initially and in all honestly had more things on my mind, the health and well being of my baby being the first. I did respond after the second letter as I called them and asked for evidence, I also said that if they believe I have committed a crime, I’d invite evidence. I did not receive any further evidence and their stance is reinforced by the statement ‘in any event, had the defendant appealed on the same grounds as they now defend this claim, it would have, similarly, been refused. And, irrespective of whether any appeal was made of not, it would not impact on the lawfulness of the parking charge’.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I just feel like the court might look at that and laugh...

Coupon-mad

i can only assume i didnt enter my registration properly

More likely their machine failed to record the typed keys properly; HX threads we've seen have shown us that their old machines have issues that mean they miss the first digit.

Search the forum as there is at least one poster who offered corroborative evidence/video, I think, and that is what you urgently need - EVIDENCE that HX machines have this flaw.

Le_Kirk

If that is a defence it needs to be written in the third person, i.e. "the Defendant" did this, that and the other, not "I". You also need to start with point 1, not point 2. You seem to start again after point 22 with point 2. You need to rewrite this following the same format that Bargepole uses in the NEWBIE thread post #2, with clear start and end so we can read and critique. You do seem to have the usual signage and landowner authority points, which is good. Also search the forum for a thread by beamerguy about Abuse of Process and add the comments you will find at post # 14 by Coupon-mad, which will aid your point 10 about additional charges.

Coupon-mad

is that your ACTUAL defence you filed? You can't add a new defence now!

Was this your appeal to HX at the time? I don't understand what it's doing there otherwise because a defence doesn't include any appeal and you are not at defence stage:

Appeal;
1. I would like to state that at the time, I was heavily pregnant and receiving such letters through the door, which in turn left me very stressed (particularly seeing my car only in transit, rather than a car without a ticket photographed), I assumed it was a car park firm trying their luck to make money. I did also speak to a colleague who uses the car park regularly and he stated to avoid correspondence as they ‘try it all the time’. Rightly or wrongly, I did not respond initially and in all honestly had more things on my mind, the health and well being of my baby being the first. I did respond after the second letter as I called them and asked for evidence, I also said that if they believe I have committed a crime, I’d invite evidence. I did not receive any further evidence and their stance is reinforced by the statement ‘in any event, had the defendant appealed on the same grounds as they now defend this claim, it would have, similarly, been refused. And, irrespective of whether any appeal was made of not, it would not impact on the lawfulness of the parking charge’.

Show us what your ACTUAL defence said, you must have kept a copy?!!

Your stage is now not defence, but Witness Statement and evidence like they have served on you. Vital to get this right, so read other HX failed machine threads and find the poster(s) who has evidence and offered to assist people.

Also read the links to WS & evidence examples in the NEWBIES thread, post #2.

Le_Kirk

Was your post # 4 a defence or a Witness Statement (WS)? Was it the defence already filed, if so ignore all my comments. If it is a WS, still do the search for and add the Abuse of Process.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies

shellylmq

Thank you all. This is my defence i sent to the court and ticked mediation.

Hi,
Hope you are well. I have been advised to provide my claim response via email as my gateway or claim number isn’t working online. The operator said this would be the easiest method. If, at all possible, could I have an email acknowledging receipt of my email please.
I am defending the claim made against me as I believe it to be a hoax. Firstly, the car park in question has been under review by colleagues of mine who use the car park but they started to get letters saying they had parked illegally or without paying. Some of my colleagues had called the number and told them to stop with the accusations and to refrain from sending letters. This, they did.
I was shocked to hear this and then even more shocked that after attending a meeting on the 3.10.18 (paid in full) I do not have evidence of the parking as I paid with coins and threw away the parking ticket on my weekly valet as I didn’t think I would need to save to prove payment. I received letters to my house stating I hadn’t paid for my parking with photos of my car. Firstly, the car has clearly been photographed whilst moving, secondly, I did not park my car where it has been photographed (that is not the car park) and thirdly, you can see clearly that they have blurred out the car window and if you look carefully, you can see the outline of me and my colleague driving. I am disgusted that car park management firms get away with this. I called them straight away and I stated clearly that I would like them to stop sending me letters and if they believe their case to be legitimate, I would invite the court hearing. From then, I was sent letters by them and by Gladstone solicitors with various offers of payment before they took me to court.
I am a new parent and I haven’t got time to be stressed about this or keep replying to letters. Please could I respectfully ask that you look at the photos in the picture and the history of the car park in question and I hope that you will support my quest to clear my name.
I follow the rules and pay all car parks I visit, I am really stressed about this and I’m a little confused as to why HX car park management have sent me a picture of my car whilst I’m driving it, and not a picture of my car without a ticket in the car parking space, if that’s what they are alleging. My car definitely displayed a ticket for the time I was using the car park.
Thanks for your time in this matter

Coupon-mad

You wrote your defence as if it was an appeal - very naive. This was a court claim and needed a proper defence and research.

This is normal, all they did was used ANPR cameras to film entry & exit:

Firstly, the car has clearly been photographed whilst moving, secondly, I did not park my car where it has been photographed (that is not the car park) and thirdly, you can see clearly that they have blurred out the car window and if you look carefully, you can see the outline of me and my colleague driving.

So that really is not a point of objection; they are allowed to use ANPR on entry/exit then compare it with the PDT machine records.

You missed the main point that you MUST address in your WS about HX's failing machines and the fact that (I assume) their evidence doesn't show a list of payments made at the machine that day, so they have failed to prove any non-payment nor to admit that payment was made but that their machines failed to record the keyed VRN in full due to the well-known flaw (that you MUST evidence!).

Start searching and reading till you find the thread a few months back where a poster clarified what the problem is with the first digit being ignored by the machines, and they provided a video and offered to help people with HX court cases. Your job to search for that, you can find it as quickly as we could and you need it!

When do you have to get your WS & evidence in by (the answer is NOT ''I don't know'' BTW, because your most recent court letter setting the hearing date, told you this).