UK Car Park Management / Gladstones - County Court Business Centre Defence

neoneel

Update: Defence filed online per the #2 of this thread and letter of acknowledgement received from CCBC about the defence.

Thanks

neoneel

Update: Received a DQ from the court and also a copy of the DQ from Galdstones. Sending my response as per the #2 by coupon-mad of the newbies sticky posts

neoneel

Update: Case transferred to my local area court (mcol online update). No communication from the court yet.

neoneel

Witness Statement Help:  Folks please help by reviewing this statement and kindly provide your comments. The points are similar to the defence submitted but evidence is connected to the description. Written in first person  & or third person view - Unsure which one to not use. Statement deadline: A copy should reach the court and the solicitors early next week; case hearing late april....

IN THE COURT AT XX & YY

CLAIM No: AXACSDA

                                                      WITNESS STATEMENT

DATE: 

BETWEEN:

 

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

 

-and-

 

(Defendant)

________________________________________

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

________________________________________

 

1. I, XXXXXXXXXX, the defendant & registered keeper in this matter, will say as follows:

2. I would like to bring to your notice that the location “XXXX Business Park – XXXX  Business Centre,XXXX where the claimant claims the car was alleged parked is actually a location with no access to cars (evidence: Exhibit XX to YY – Google maps snapshot / photos / videos of location). Further, the photographs presented by the claimant shows the car is allegedly parked in place with other cars however, location does not have any such parking as shown by the evidence in Exhibit XX to YY. The evidence presented by the claimant is thus from a different unknown location than that stated in the claim.

3. I was an employee of XXXX that occupied ABH building at XXXX Business Park, TOWN on the day of XX Oct 2018. Payslip for the month of Oct 2018 attached as Exhibit A which shows that I/someone with access to my car VRN AFAGAHA (of which I am the registered keeper) had legitimate reasons to be in XXX Business Park in the car park surrounding XXX Building of the XXXX business park. It is to be noted that I cannot confirm who the driver of the car VRN XXXXXXX was on the day of AA Oct 2018 as the alleged parking event had happened a very long time ago. 

4. Employees of the firm ASSDAD, occupying ASDAAD building at DDDDD Business Park, were not issued with car parking permits parking nor were any specific conditions mentioned for parking / waiting / loading on the contract with employees. (Possibly will get a person working in the firm at the time to also provide a statement to this effect)

5. Of the whole parking area surrounding ABABABA building (with a capacity of nearly 200 cars) there are only 3 small A2/A3 sized signs with extremely small font writing. Any terms & conditions were unknown and staff had the honest belief that such terms would not relate to authorised drivers and even if the signs were read, they appear to relate only to deterring 'unauthorised' drivers/trespass by persons with no business to be there. Videos and Photos of the parking area around ABABABA building are shown as Exhibit XX to XX

6. This case bears no resemblance to the commercial set up in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 due to the following: The alleged parking event occurred on xx Oct 2018 and the employing company AKAKAKAK had been operating there since early 2018 with no information or obligations placed upon staff regarding parking / loading and there were certainly no contractual agreements, permits or warnings issued. The Defendant never had any cause to read any terms and nor can they be taken to have had that opportunity. It cannot be said that the minuscule terms were 'bound to be seen' or that there can be any 'legitimate interest' in penalising workers permitted to park there.

7. The evidence presented by the claimant is two photographs with a timestamp with a difference of six seconds which can hardly be construed as parking. I refer you to the judgement of Judge Harris QC of Oxford County Court in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] 9GF0A9E which similarly argues if leaving the car unattended for a short period (6 seconds in this case) can be construed as “parking”

Exhibit XX provides a copy of paragraph 20-21 of the judgement of Judge Harris QC of Oxford County Court in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] 9GF0A9E

8. The driver of the car has not been identified by the claimant, no window screen ticket was issued to the driver of the vehicle on the day and the communication to the keeper has been sporadic and insufficient. The statutory notification duties per the BPA Code of Practice (Exhibit XX) were not followed by the claimant which makes this claim invalid

9. Further, on examining the evidence presented in terms of the photographs, it is seen that there are no red/yellow lines indicating any restriction which a driver can understand (by default) that would alarm them to not load/park on the side of the road where the car with registration number XXXXXX is shown standing. Exhibit XX – Photographs used as evidence by the claimant)

10. The Particulars of the claim state that the Defendant AHSJAHS ASHJAHDJ; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle with VRM: DASDADAS that was allegedly parked in breach of conditions of the XAXXAX business park, on the date XX Oct 2018. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing that specifies how the terms were breached.

11. There is not enough clear signage to show the area of the business park as “designated” for the purpose of loading/parking of cars where the car with registration DASDAD is shown to be standing in the photograph. In Exhibit XX – photos submitted by the claimant. The claimant claims that the parking was “unauthorized”, however, fails to define the conditions based on which the terms classified the car as unauthorizedly parked.

11a) Exhibit XX submitted by the claimant shows that there are no signs which indicate to anyone that the area has controlled parking or that one is entering a designated car park.

11b) The signage (shown in the evidence Exhibit XX to YY – Photos submitted by the claimant) with extremely small fonts is placed very sparsely in the large carpark (3 pieces of signage in parking/open land of >200 vehicles parking) and states the following in relation to the applicable terms and conditions “A valid permit must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times or the vehicle registration must be registered for an Electronic permit. No parking outside of a designated area. If unsure seek advice from CPM or refrain from parking.”

11c) There are no obvious designated areas of parking shown in the video/photos Exhibit XX-YY and no permits were issued to employees of XXXXX until XX Oct 2018.

11d) The claimant's signage does not set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. Merely stating that vehicles must be parked correctly within the designated area and or with a parking permit displayed/electronically registered, giving no definition of the term 'designated area' and or the method of registering the given vehicle make this claim baseless.

12. The claim made by the claimant is vague and there is sparseness of the particulars. It is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

 13. As seen in the evidence presented by the claimant exhibit xx, the terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font that is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof if there is disagreement with the above.

15. The claim of £275 is an attempt of double recovery by the claimant. The original charge in the notice to the keeper is £100. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper. This claim includes an additional £60 contractual costs, for which no calculation or explanation is given. Many similar cases against companies in the business similar to that of the claimant have been struck out previously for abuse of process. (References: Claim number: F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor in Southampton Court, 10th June 2019; Claim Number F0DP163T, District Judge Grand in Southampton Court, 11 July 2019).

16. The defendant would like to bring it to the attention of the judiciary that the claimant and or their representative Gladstones Solicitors have not responded to the defendant's request for documents that the claimant intended to rely upon in this case against the defendant. The request under CPR 31.14 was made on the XX Oct 2019 to which the claimant requested an identity verification which was completed on the XX Oct 2019. 7 days passed from the XXXX Oct 2019 and the defendant had not received the requested documents. This is not in line with the duties and responsibilities that the claimant should discharge within 7 days under CPR 31. This leaves the defendant at a disadvantage and prevents the defendant from creating a robust defense. This is another attempt by the claimant to abuse the process and create an unfair playing field for the defendant

 

18. 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.

 

The defendant believes the facts contained in this Witness Statement are true.

 

Name:The defendant

 

Signature:

 

Date: