Eurocarparks CST law LBA SAR no response

judrop500

Ok so I’ve got a straw man WS prepared, and before I add meat to the bones I wondered if there was a decent witness statement already available for EuroCP at Browncross Street in Manchester? @nosferatu1001 @Coupon-mad do you know of any I could use as a guide?

judrop500

Fruitcake said:

If/when you have the scammer's WS, please post it here for the regulars to look over. Only redact YOUR personal data. If the scammers have redacted anything, please tell us.
If their WS is excessively long, then post the first page giving the name of the (para)legal who wrote it, the last page with the legal's signature and statement of truth, plus their exhibits/evidence.
The most important thing to show us, UNREDACTED, is the alleged contract between the scammers and landowner.

I must stress the importance of the words I have highlighted. I have seen about a dozen scammers' witness statements this year, and over half of them had things redacted by the poster making our job much harder, and wasting a lot of everyone's time.

Hopefully you will have it before you you need to send yours so you can comment upon it and add points that help you.

Will do, cheers. Should I wait for their WS before completing mine?

Le_Kirk

judrop500 said:

Ok so I’ve got a straw man WS prepared, and before I add meat to the bones I wondered if there was a decent witness statement already available for EuroCP at Browncross Street in Manchester? @nosferatu1001 @Coupon-mad do you know of any I could use as a guide?

You could search the forum using the search facility.

judrop500 said:
Should I wait for their WS before completing mine?

If you have time then yes, just do NOT miss your deadline!

Coupon-mad

You could search the forum for Euro Witness Statement, or similar.  If not, then look at the one linked in the NEWBIES thread as the only example.

nosferatu1001

If by "complete", you mean "write" - no, that s a terrible plan. Write now, IF you get theirs in time, adapt. Done. 

judrop500

Ok this is what I have so far. Do I need to repeat what I have put in my defence about signage, or will both douments be considered by the judge?

1.    The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

2.    In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

 

Sequence of events and signage

3.    Firstly, it should be noted that I will refer to the appended photographs throughout.

 

4.    The car park in question is situated on Browncross Street in Salford. The claimant has not, as far as official records show, applied to Salford Council and had approved planning permission for:

a.    land use as a parking facility;

b.    the current signage for the car park;

c.     the use of ANPR cameras on site.

Therefore I would question its official status as a car park. I would ask the claimant to offer evidence to the effect that this is a car park in an official capacity and not a cowboy operation.

 

5.    The approach and entrance to the car park is on a short length of one-way street turning from the A34 onto Browncross Street. Please see appended image 1.1 which shows the approach from the A34 turning into Browncross Street and the on street parking. The street itself has its own parking conditions (metered parking), and the only safe way to stop to view the car park terms and conditions is by entering one of the two car parks, thus triggering the ANPR cameras.

 

6.    At the point of entry to the Eur Car Park, the entrance terms and conditions sign is not visible or readable (please see images 1.2 and 1.3). The only signage mentioning the risk of a £100 fine or that tickets must be purchased within ten minutes is facing away from the road requiring entry to the car park in order to read.

 

7.    Furthermore, the signage mentioning the risk of a £100 fine or that tickets must be purchased within ten minutes, if located by the motorist, is barely legible (image 1.4).

 

8.    The parking land on Browncross Street is shared by two different and wholly separate parking companies – the Claimant’s and that of SiP parking - and the division of land is not clear (see images 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7). It is not clear to the motorist entering either car park who owns what land and which machine should be used to purchase a ticket.

 

9.    Furthermore, the other parking company, SiP, has much larger and more prominent signage that covers the entire car park area, including the car park area operated by the Claimant, Euro Car Parks, making the area look like the all the land on Browncross Street is entirely being run by SiP (see images 1.8, 1.9 and 2.0).

 

10.  The division of the land, and the inadequate signage causes great confusion for even the smartest motorist, and requires an unnecessary amount of deciphering before purchasing a ticket – and even then, the motorist cannot be sure they have purchased the correct ticket for their parking space, and what the sanctions are if they have not.

 

11.  This is the situation I found myself in in 2017 and 2018.

 

12.  For information I have also included an image of Browncross Street from the opposite direction of the one way traffic, to further demonstrate poor signage (image 2.1), and further images of the parking signs in the Euro Car Parks car park, including the pay and display machine, demonstrating the wording and font size so small that warnings of sanctions are barely legible (images 2.2, 2.3 2.4 and 2.5).

 

Abuse of process - the quantum 17

 

13.  The Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as 'damages/admin' or 'debt collection costs'. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process - see exhibit 2 - transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). That case was not appealed and the decision stands.

 

14.  While it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.

 

15.  The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

“'It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.”

 

16.  This stopped ParkingEye from using that business model again, particularly because HHJ Hegarty had found them to have committed the 'tort of deceit' by their debt demands. So, the Beavis case only considered an £85 parking charge but was clear at paras 98, 193 and 198 that the rationale of that inflated sum (well over any possible loss/damages) was precisely because it included (the Judges held, three times) 'all the costs of the operation'. It is an abuse of process to add sums that were not incurred. Costs must already be included in the parking charge rationale if a parking operator wishes to base their model on the ParkingEye v Beavis case and not a damages/loss model. This Claimant can't have both.

 

17.  This Claimant knew or should have known, that by adding £60 in costs over and above the purpose of the 'parking charge' to the global sum claimed is unrecoverable, due to the POFA at 4(5), the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 (exhibit 2), the earlier ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield High Court case and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA') Sch 2, paras 6, 10 and 14. All of those seem to be breached in my case and the claim is pleaded on an incorrect premise with a complete lack of any legitimate interest.

 

18.  The Claimant has failed to provide adequate notice of any terms, let alone the parking charge, which is not 'prominent' in reality. It is noted that the Claimant is relying upon 'stock' images of signs which are not as they appear in situ, and a mock-up 'aerial view' where an unidentified person has dotted markings all over the image yet with no evidence that this is true. I am local and took the evidence photographs appended to this statement myself (on November 24th 2019). I can state from my own knowledge that there are nothing like that many signs in this car park and nothing beside the Pay & Display machine about a risk of paying £100 or about paying within 10 minutes. There is a tariff list in large lettering and nothing more at the machine where the keys are input.

 

19.  Not drawing onerous terms to the attention of a consumer breaches Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' and in addition the global sum on the particulars of claim is unfair under the CRA. Consumer notices are never exempt from the test of fairness and the court has a duty under s71 of the CRA to consider the terms and the signs to identify the breaches of the CRA. Not only is the added vague sum not stated on the notices at all (despite the Claimant claiming it is in their Witness Statement in writing and by appending signage that does not exist at the car park), but the official CMA guidance to the CRA covers this and makes it clear that words like 'indemnity' are objectionable in themselves and any term trying to allow a trader to recover costs twice would (of course) be void, even if the added sum was on the signs.

CPR 44.11 - further costs

20.  I am appending with this bundle, a fully detailed costs assessment which also covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in relation to misconduct (CPR 44.11). In support of that argument, I remind the court that I appealed and engaged with the Claimant at every step. Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery. See exhibit 3.

 

My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

21.  As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs. I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave.

 

22.  The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD 27, 7.3(1) “The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person.”

Statement of truth:

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.

Redx

Always expand on parking signage and no landowner authority , putting the claimant to strict proof , so expand on the defence in the WS plus Exhibits

As for exhibits , they should be numbered with your initials , keep it simple too , such as exhibit ABC/01 , Exhibit ABC/02 etc , where ABC are your initials , make it as easy as possible and own the exhibits too , they are your possessions , as in your name , your initials

Coupon-mad

That looks like a really old example of a WS and not the one linked in the NEWBIES thread.

judrop500

Coupon-mad said:

That looks like a really old example of a WS and not the one linked in the NEWBIES thread.

I took it from the thread a couple of months ago - has it been updated since then?

judrop500

Ok here is their witness statement. Any thoughts or advice for court?