HX Car Park Court Hearing

shellylmq

Thanks Coupon-mad - i have to have my WS in by tomorrow to all parties. I have tried to call to court to see if this can be emailed in as i wont make the post in this time.
I have found some threads above that will help structure so thank you. I am just trying to find the HX ones re the failed machines, i'm struggling...and yes very naive, i am in blind panic, i have never been to court and know i need it to be structured

The_Deep

Have you read this ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Have you followed the advice in posts 5 and 7? If you ignore our advice you are likely to lose this claim













yr

nosferatu1001

Hande deliver your WS to the court, and emaikl THEN post to the claimant.
This MUSt have all your *evidence* as well. This is the whole shebang now - you dont get another chance.

shellylmq

Yes i have put that part in, i am just trying to tidy it back up. I cant find the thread re the HX failed machine, Coupon-mad said it would be a few months ago but ive search and searched. Do anyone have this?

Coupon-mad

No idea but are you searching for simple terms like 'HX machine' and changing the default to SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS (never 'threads').

shellylmq

Hi I have amended based on feedback. I can not find the failed machine post anywhere which I know I really need. How does this look?
1. I am XXX, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is XXX

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 XXX.

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.

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 the defendant 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. In a very recent case, District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from BWLegal that included a false amount of £60
"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 not with reference to the judgement 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,

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 "

Whilst this does not set a precedence in a county court and each judge is entitled to make their own decision, EVERY judge should be invited to read this case decided by a District Judge

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 the defendant’s opinion that HX Management have evidence that the defendant did in fact pay in full for parking but are unwilling to share as this could show that their system that captures registration plates is faulty, thus making their original allegation 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 in the defendants’ defence as the defendant hadn’t seen the document in question, therefore demonstrating HX management’s generic approach.

16. The claimant in an interview on the ‘theparliamentaryreview.co.uk’ stated, ‘We will always make allowances for human error. For example, if one of our camera’s detects that one vehicle in the car park has not paid for its parking, we will look at the parking tickets purchased within the appropriate time period on that day for any similar number plates. Where we can find a ticket purchased with up to two digits’ difference from the number plate in question, we will give the driver the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the case as human error’. I can not see any evidence to suggest such search has taken place.

17. 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.


18. 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.


19. 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.


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

21. 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

22. 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.


23. 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.


24. Referring to page 19 shows a lookup search for VRM: BU63 UYK, this is the first time the claimant has seen this piece of evidence which suggests that the HX management machines have failed to enter my registration plate correctly, again not evidence that the claimant failed to pay and display a parking ticket, again reiteration ‘pay and display’ being the largest font on the signage.
25. Referring to page 11, the export for ticket details, in the notes section the claimant would like to query the ‘EB BU 03/10/2018 10:14:42 03/10/2018 22:14:42. This suggests that the system has only managed to correctly identify the first 2 digits of the defendants’ 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.

26. On the 23rd April 2019 the defendant submitted a defence to the court, as such I invited more information regarding the actual offence.

27. Had the defendant received page 19, the ‘lookup search’, the defendant would have been in a position to ask for a redacted copy of the machine lists showing VRN matching the payment around the time or a near miss VRN. This could have saved time and effort on all parties, including the court. It is the defendants’ opinion that the interview in the palimentary.co.uk is therefore untrue and as such, this un-proactive approach to provide all necessary evidence is the claimants on delay tactics. To this end, the claimants desire to claim damages is entirely their own doing

28. 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, the defendant parked without displaying a ticket for up to 6 hours. There is no evidence that the defendant did not purchase a ticket. The system states that you must display your ticket and validate it. The defendant displayed a ticket and there is no evidence to argue to contrary. In terms of validating, as the machine used to facilitate motorist’s parking isn’t adequate to capture the registration, then this is where the mismatch would occur.

29. 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. Again making the claimants allegations ambiguous and not consistent with the first letter stating the offence.

30. 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

31. The defendant has also enclosed 2 witness statements which can confirm that the defendant paid and displayed the appropriate parking ticket

32. To add, in the claimants comments regarding the appeal, it would appear that no matter what the defence was, it would not have been acknowledges, again contradictions the claimants interview indicating they operate on a common sense approach. I therefore welcome an independent party, i.e. the court to deal with this matter.

33. 17. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’

34. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

Coupon-mad

When you search as I told you, for HX PDT machine help and change to SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS, you get just FOUR results apart from this thread.

I clicked on one and found exactly what you need in about 20 seconds. Do the same!

shellylmq

I’m at court now and HX secretary has just came into the room before our hearing and asked if I was the driver of the vehicle as we can discuss matters beforehand. I told him I’m the registered keeper and he asked if I had the ticket. I said I don’t have the ticket and I’m the reigistered keeper but nothing to do with him re if I was driving... what should I say when the judge asks if I was the driver???

Redx

a bit late asking that now , but DO NOT LIE

if your case is stronger by stating that you were the driver (if you were) then say yes and base your defence on faulty useless machines etc

if you were not the driver , say so, LOUDLY

if you cannot recollect who was driving after all this time , say so

whatever you say , even if you declined to say, then NO COMMENT would suffice, meaning a judge would think you were being evasive and form their own conclusions, not in your favour

a judge wishes to get to the bottom of the matters at hand , so a driver led defence about faulty machines is better than a defensive defendant being evasive

shellylmq

Thank you so much Redx. Do you fancy a drive to Blackpool to represent me ���� He just said he was the secretary so I’m not sure if Gladstones have turned up or not yet. He followed me into the room and asked if I have the ticket and if I was the driver...I told him let’s wait until we are in the room with the judge shall we. He said he just thought we could discuss things beforehand