Parking Charges - Court Date Next week

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

... You'd need to send a pm to bargepole for his copies of the facsimile signatures he holds, so you can use them to compare to the one they fling at you.

I keep my Inbox on MSE full, otherwise I'd spend all day answering PM queries, and never get any work done.

However, I have put the signature pages from two previous witness statements, showing Jack Chapman's identical signatures, in Dropbox. Link here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0peh5y3jjx43jl0/AAAGDPMrH1y3hJnQhyK9SGr6a?dl=0

GUEST1

Thank you so much! Here is where I am with the WS:

1. I, XXXXXXXXX am the defendant in these claims and the registered keeper of the car registration XXXXX. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge and experiences.
2. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
3. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this Claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties, despite the Claimant asserting that they do not adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (page 24).
4. The Claimant had no locus standi at the time of this parking event and at best, were the contractors of a principal, the landowner. They have failed to show a cause for action by way of sight of a copy of the contract they have with the landowner to assign the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make claims and take civil action against drivers in their own name, in 2017/2018/2019.
5. UKCPM state they issued the first PCN in the form of ticket on windscreen on 20th December 2018, reference XXXXXXXX. Exhibit 3 contains the formal demand requested for the reason of “No parking outside of a designated area”. The pictures supplied as evidence highlight the following flaws:
5.1 The image of the front of the vehicle does not come close to enough to be able to identify if there were any special/emergency circumstances for the vehicle being parked there, due to there not being any evidence supplied to me containing an image of the windscreen.
5.2 Neither of the images show the PCN having been issued or affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle as mentioned by UKCPM.
6. UKCPM state they issued PCN number two on 3rd January 2018, in the form of a paper ticket affixed to windscreen, ref XXXXXXXX. Exhibit 4 contains the formal demand requested for the reason of “Not displaying a valid permit”
6.1 UKCPM have provided two pictures as evidence; one photo shows only the number plate of the vehicle. The second photo is from afar showing the entire vehicle. There have been no other pieces of evidence submitted for the alleged breaches.
6.2 Neither of the photos supplied as evidence identify whether or not there is a permit displayed in the windscreen, which is in its entirety the reason for the claim/charge being issued.
7. On 2nd September 2018 I requested proof of contract with the landowner(s), (Exhibit 4, Page 5). To date, Neither Gladstones, nor UKCPM have responded to my request.
8. The Claimant does not own the land – the land is owned by Elizabeth Mews Residents Company Ltd (Exhibit 5, Page 2). The Claimant has failed to properly respond to my request made on 2nd September 2018, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the Claimant to issue claims upon the landowner’s behalf against residents existing at the time of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The Claimant has refused to provide this. I put the Claimant to strict proof to provide evidence to the court that the landowner has given them permission to issue charges to, enforce, pursue and litigate against all residents of the apartment building on their land.
9. The Claimant is alleging breach of contract, the Defendant puts the Claimant on strict proof to provide a breakdown of the financial loss the Claimant has suffered, and how each particular loss arose from the driver’s use of the car park at the keeper/s residence.
10. The signage is in a poor condition, and there is no visitor bay signage, the signage is ambiguous and misleading. The signage is many metres away from the car parking spaces, and is within the whole area of the car park where there is another landowner – it is noted that on evidence provided by the Claimant the photographs do not show where in the area the vehicle was parked and there are no photos identifying signage in the background.
10.1. Exhibit 6 within this pack is a photo I took myself of the signage. This signage does not indicate a date of issue, nor is the signage up to date as it highlights there is a charge for card payment which is no longer legal. This signage can be found within the entire area of the land registry map (Exhibit 5, Page 9. The signage does not indicate which areas of land the signage represents.
10.2 The area outlined in red on the Land Registry Map is the only area owned wholly by Elizabeth Mews Residents Company LTD (Exhibit 5, Page 9).
10.3. The evidenced photographs do not clearly indicate the area in which the contravention occurred, which leads to confusion pertaining to the landowners for which UKCPM need to have contracts in place with. Exhibit 7 Page 2 shows Catalyst Housing LTD owns the land in brown highlighting boundaries owned by more than 1 landowner.
10.4. At present it is still not clear if UKCPM have any contracts in place with the landowners as highlighted and evidenced.
11. The vehicle cannot be identified to be parked in either which parts of the boundaries within the Registry documents.
12. It is contended that the signs in place were incapable of forming a contract, and the driver would be unable to enter a contract unless they knew the specific terms and conditions.The words “contract” or “agreement” do not appear anywhere at all within any of the signage. The phrase “terms and condition” are not synonymous with a contract as was recorded in Pace Recovery and Storage Ltd v Mr Zoltan Lengyel C7GF6E3R 24/05/2017 (Exhibit 1).
13. The Claimant's evidence relies solely on a photograph of the car parked in one case on the side of the entrance and in another case within a bay, both taken by a manual handheld device used by the Claimant's operatives. The defendant puts the Claimant on strict proof to provide details of the authenticity and veracity of the date stamp on these photographs as requested, and evidence as to what measures are in place to prevent operatives changing the date/time stamp.
14. It is contended that the money requested is not a charge, but a penalty which is not permitted. As the car park is free to residents, the defendant’s car being parked there causes no consequences to the Claimant of any financial significance. Because residents never have to pay to park in the car park, there would never be a financial loss sustained because the parking is free. The situation is that a penalty charge is purely a penalty, as was recorded in Parking Eye v Mrs Natasha Collins-Daniel 3JD06533 24/01/2014 (exhibit 2).
15. The Claimant is attempting to recover legal costs from me prior to judgement, which is not permitted on the small claim track.
16. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which I have submitted.
17. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

GUEST1

Evidence List:

Exhibit 1 – PACE v Lengyel
Exhibit 2 – Parking Eye v Collins-Daniel
Exhibit 3 – parking charge notice XXXXX
Exhibit 4 – parking charge notice XXXXX
Exhibit 5 – Land Registry – Elizabeth Mews Residents LTD
Exhibit 6 – Image of parking sign taken 17/10/2019
Exhibit 7 - Land Registry – Catalyst Housing LTD
Exhibit 8 – SAR served on Gladstones

GUEST1

Do i need to send the entire file to Gladstones? Or just the WS and Costs Schedule?

Coupon-mad

Remove this, as it is not an argument that there was 'no loss' so no trying it:

9. The Claimant is alleging breach of contract, the Defendant puts the Claimant on strict proof to provide a breakdown of the financial loss the Claimant has suffered, and how each particular loss arose from the driver’s use of the car park at the keeper/s residence.

Also this was not your residence was it, you were fly parking/trespassing at best?

Remove this, below, as they do use POFA wording in their NTKs and how can you be quoting 'page 24' (where your say here that they say they don't use the POFA) if you've told us they haven't even sent you a WS?

3. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this Claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties, despite the Claimant asserting that they do not adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (page 24).

Remove this as the case is ancient and pre-ParkingEye v Beavis:

14. It is contended that the money requested is not a charge, but a penalty which is not permitted. As the car park is free to residents, the defendant’s car being parked there causes no consequences to the Claimant of any financial significance. Because residents never have to pay to park in the car park, there would never be a financial loss sustained because the parking is free. The situation is that a penalty charge is purely a penalty, as was recorded in Parking Eye v Mrs Natasha Collins-Daniel 3JD06533 24/01/2014 (exhibit 2).

And add in the words from post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy, and use the Caernarfon and IOW judgments linked there (printed out for the court) as exhibits to show added costs are unrecoverable and go behind the findings in ParkingEye v Beavis.

Do a costs schedule and a contents page, and whizz along to the court and hand it over with a note stuck on the top of the file stating:

WITNESS STATEMENT, EVIDENCE & COSTS SCHEDULE OF DEFENDANT - MR XXXXXX - CLAIM NO XXXXXXX - HEARING AT xxam on xx/xx/xx.

No asking us to check it again you have zero time and the court might stop taking post by 2pm, if they accept it this way at all (if refused, ask how to do it on Monday morning, no just coming home & asking us mournfully what to do as the court refused it, etc).

GUEST1

Thanks CouponMad

I’ve amended and handed it over to the court just now. Shall I send only the WS and costs to Gladstone’s now by email?

Le_Kirk

You have to FILE on the court (which you have now done) and SERVE on the claimant ALL THAT YOU WISH TO RELY ON IN COURT, therefore yes, WS and evidence and cost schedule, otherwise they could accuse you of ambushing them in court.

GUEST1

All done. Thanks all, really appreciate all the help and guidance.
I will post the WS from Gladstones if I receive it before the hearing.

GUEST1

Sadly never received their witness statement but VOILA got a notice of discontinuance through the post today!

Le_Kirk

Brilliant; a result!