UK carpark managment (a defence draft)

mahrez1980

Thank you everyone for all the help provided.

I really appreciated it coupon-mad 
here is the ws prepared after reading loads cases
i based it of poor signage and excessive cost
please advise if numbering OK and if any additional info needed to be put in.
thank you 

Witness statement

 

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. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

 

1.I am a private hire driver on the 8/11/2018 at 15.05 a job was dispatched to me from the office to go and pick a customer up from V…… close , please refer to Exhibit 1, for proof of a customer pick Up, which is exactly opposite were private parking fine was issued. The customer was standing on the pavement when I picked him up as he was waiting for taxi outside, most customers do, it was a pick up, wait and return job to the local shops located less than 700 yards from where the customer lives. When I was dropping the customer back, he wanted me to get into his road which it was blocked by a removal Lorry. As a taxi driver, Part of my job is to help the customer with their shopping if requested.my customer was an elderly with a stick, I had to take his shopping to his house doorstep.so I parked opposite his street after the customer said it is ok to park here, By the time I help the customer and returned to the vehicle, the PCN ticket was already on my screen with no traffic warden officer to be seen in the area, I am one hundred percent sure that it wasn’t event 10 minute between parking my taxi vehicle walking to the customer doorstep and back, I have not been alerted by the customer I had at that time that it is a private parking when I asked him, so even the local resident who lives less then meters away from the so called private parking did not realise it is a private parking. I feel that I was penalised for doing my job.

1.1 At the entrance of the car park mentioned by the claimant, there was not a single sign indicating it is a private carpark, please refer to the attached evidence Exhibit 2, showing the only entrance and exit of the car park. Without a single sign indicating that it is a private carpark (a video of the whole carpark is available if requested to show that there was not a single sign at the entrance of the carpark). The only small hidden unclear sign was situated on the right-hand side covered by leaves, after entering the car park, it can barely be seen.  

1.3 Being out of town, in a residential cul-de-sac area any person would automatically assume the car park is for the block of flats/houses across the road, ( The parking spaces in the D……. road area where the ticket was issued, are not numbered on the ground, so anyone is allowed to park anywhere in that particular parking area as seen in many  locations visited since being a taxi driver years ago), I recall on that particular day, that parking area will hold more than 30-50 cars at one time there was only eight to 9 cars parked. so, when I parked my vehicle to help the customer who lives meters away from the car park, it was not obstructing other cars or taking someone else space.

 

2. SAR (subject accesses request) was requested via email on the 6th of November 2019, the reply was to fill in the form online via their website witch I did the same date, waited for 28 days but, was ignored as no reply received at all. Please refer to Exhibit 3.

 

2.1 the Particulars of Claim are incoherent and provided insufficient detail for me to be able to ascertain the nature of the case as pleaded, hence my fairly short, factual defence in response.  Although the cause of action appears to be breach of contract, the Claimant has: 

2.1a failed in their Particulars, to provide sufficient detail regarding in what manner the alleged contract was breached;

 2.1b failed to state in what capacity the Claimant (a non-landowner) is entitled to recover any part of the sum;

2.1c included a false 'contractual charge' sum of £160, which the Claimants and their legal advisors (both) already know - from recent parking charge claims that have been struck out and which they failed to appeal - is an abuse of process.

 

2.1d That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

2.1e ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

2.1f In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is my position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable

 

 

3. UK carpark managment was using various third party asking me for money please see evidence of all letters received Exhibit 4-9, I have been bombarded with demand letters from first a company called  trace and gladstones I have 6 letters demanding money, Gladstones are a firm of solicitors much like BW Legal, whose business model seems to be mainly based on representing PPCs like The Claimant (indeed, Gladstones has represented The Claimant on many occasions) and churning out computerised “Roboclaims”, simple copy-and-paste letters that no qualified solicitor has cast an eye over and that are designed to intimidate and harass people into caving in to vexatious and unfounded claims.

 

3.1 While I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of The Claimant whereby they insist people going about their daily business have entered into some kind of vague “contract” with them, based on the tiny words on small and obscured signs. Nor do I appreciate the tactics of trace and Gladstone solicitors who have sent me many harassing and distressing letters, making threats towards court proceeding if not paid within certain time.

 

4.Inadequate Signage:

4.1 The signage and its wording at this site is very similar to the signage in the case of “Parking Control Management vs Bull” (see exhibit 10) the claimant photograph, in which the District Judge Glen found that it was “impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway” and that therefore any charges made on the basis of said signage would be damages for trespass and must constitute reparations for actual loss.

 

4.2 In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no sign directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle whilst parking.

 

4.3 In this case there was no sign adjacent to my vehicle, I had not passed any legible signs to park or not to park, and no signs in the vicinity could possibly be read from inside my vehicle. There was no signage or marking on the ground to indicate my vehicle was parked in a “parking permit area” as claimed on the Parking Charge Notice and the Notice to Keeper (exhibit 1).

 

4.4 A key factor in ‘ParkingEye v Beavis’ was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice. In this case the signage and operating practice of the Claimant fails, on numerous counts, to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking operator - The International Parking Community (IPC).

 

4.5 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There was no signage at the entrance of the parking  in question,  I have not passed any signage indicating I was entering private land, please refer to exhibit1).

 

 

4.6 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site”. The text on the signage in this case, particularly that which refers to “parking charge” is very small. In fact is measures just 1cm in height. This, coupled with the facts that the signs were variously facing the wrong direction for a motorist traveling the route to read, mounted so close to the ground as to be unnoticed, makes it very hard to read or even notice and impossible to do so from a vehicle. One hidden sign on a carpark that holds over 60 cars or more is defiantly not enough to be seen by any driver entering the carpark.

 

 

 

5.Unreasonable Behaviour:

5.1 I contend that The Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this case against me to the court. Their actions and the actions of BW Legal have brought me considerable vexation and distress. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time (I estimate as much as 90 hours) researching case law online, revisiting the site (also costing fuel), processing and printing evidence and preparing my defence and this witness statement. I have no intention of claiming for each and every one of the hours I have spent on this, but will be asking for a consideration to cover 16 hours of my time as detailed in my costs schedule

 

 

5.2 The Claimant was made aware I contested their charge and had taken photographs to prove any case they brought against me would fail on signage alone. They refused to acknowledge this.

 

 

The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant.

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

 

 

Signed                         29 march 2020

KeithP

please advise if numbering OK

No, numbering is not ok.

Your first two paragraphs are not numbered.
Paragraph 1.2 is missing.
Your last paragraph is not numbered.

Paragraph 1.3 - "there was only eight to 9 cars parked" should either be "there was only 8 to 9 cars parked" or "there was only eight to nine cars parked". Spell out the numbers or don't, but don't mix it. Same paragraph - it's metres, not meters.

Paragraph 2 - the word you need is which, not witch.

mahrez1980

KeithP said:

please advise if numbering OK

No, numbering is not ok.

Your first two paragraphs are not numbered.
Paragraph 1.3 is missing.
Your last paragraph is not numbered.

Paragraph 1.3 - "there was only eight to 9 cars parked" should either be "there was only 8 to 9 cars parked" or "there was only eight to nine cars parked". Spell out the numbers or don't, but don't mix it. Same paragraph - it's metres, not meters.

Paragraph 2 - the word you need is which, not witch.

KeithP thank you so much for your help and your time spotting my stupid mistakes, 
all taken into consideration and rectified 
please advice if this ws is okay to send to court?

Witness statement

1.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. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

2.I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3.I am a private hire driver on the 8/11/2018 at 15.05 a job was dispatched to me from the office to go and pick a customer up from V…… close , please refer to Exhibit 1, for proof of a customer pick Up, which is exactly opposite were private parking fine was issued. The customer was standing on the pavement when I picked him up as he was waiting for taxi outside, most customers do, it was a pick up, wait and return job to the local shops located less than 700 yards from where the customer lives. When I was dropping the customer back, he wanted me to get into his road which it was blocked by a removal Lorry. As a taxi driver, Part of my job is to help the customer with their shopping if requested.my customer was an elderly with a stick, I had to take his shopping to his house doorstep.so I parked opposite his street after the customer said it is ok to park here, By the time I help the customer and returned to the vehicle, the PCN ticket was already on my screen with no traffic warden officer to be seen in the area, I am one hundred percent sure that it wasn’t event 10 minute between parking my taxi vehicle walking to the customer doorstep and back, I have not been alerted by the customer I had at that time that it is a private parking when I asked him, so even the local resident who lives less then meters away from the so called private parking did not realise it is a private parking. I feel that I was penalised for doing my job.

3.1 At the entrance of the car park mentioned by the claimant, there was not a single sign indicating it is a private carpark, please refer to the attached evidence Exhibit 2, showing the only entrance and exit of the car park. Without a single sign indicating that it is a private carpark (a video of the whole carpark is available if requested to show that there was not a single sign at the entrance of the carpark). The only small hidden unclear sign was situated on the right-hand side covered by leaves, after entering the car park, it can barely be seen.  

3.2 Being out of town, in a residential cul-de-sac area any person would automatically assume the car park is for the block of flats/houses across the road, (The parking spaces in the D……. road area where the ticket was issued, are not numbered on the ground, so anyone is allowed to park anywhere in that particular parking area as seen in many  locations visited since being a taxi driver years ago), I recall on that particular day, that parking area will hold more than 30-50 cars at one time there was only eight to nine cars

parked. so, when I parked my vehicle to help the customer who lives metres away from the car park, it was not obstructing other cars or taking someone else space.

 

4. SAR (subject accesses request) was requested via email on the 6th of November 2019, the reply was to fill in the form online via their website which I did the same date, waited for 28 days but, was ignored as no reply received at all. Please refer to Exhibit 3.

4.1 the Particulars of Claim are incoherent and provided insufficient detail for me to be able to ascertain the nature of the case as pleaded, hence my fairly short, factual defence in response.  Although the cause of action appears to be breach of contract, the Claimant has: 

4.1a failed in their Particulars, to provide sufficient detail regarding in what manner the alleged contract was breached;

4.1b failed to state in what capacity the Claimant (a non-landowner) is entitled to recover any part of the sum;

4.1c included a false 'contractual charge' sum of £160, which the Claimants and their legal advisors (both) already know - from recent parking charge claims that have been struck out and which they failed to appeal - is an abuse of process.

4.1d That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

4.1e ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

4.1f In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is my position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable

5. UK carpark managment was using various third party asking me for money please see evidence of all letters received Exhibit 4-9, I have been bombarded with demand letters from first a company called  trace and gladstones I have 6 letters demanding money, Gladstones are a firm of solicitors much like BW Legal, whose business model seems to be mainly based on representing PPCs like The Claimant (indeed, Gladstones has represented The Claimant on many occasions) and churning out computerised “Roboclaims”, simple copy-and-paste letters that no qualified solicitor has cast an eye over and that are designed to intimidate and harass people into caving in to vexatious and unfounded claims.

5.1 While I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of The Claimant whereby they insist people going about their daily business have entered into some kind of vague “contract” with them, based on the tiny words on small and obscured signs. Nor do I appreciate the tactics of trace and Gladstone solicitors who have sent me many harassing and distressing letters, making threats towards court proceeding if not paid within certain time.

6.Inadequate Signage:

6.1 The signage and its wording at this site is very similar to the signage in the case of “Parking Control Management vs Bull” (see exhibit 10) the claimant photograph, in which the District Judge Glen found that it was “impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway” and that therefore any charges made on the basis of said signage would be damages for trespass and must constitute reparations for actual loss.

6.2 In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no sign directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle whilst parking.

6.3 In this case there was no sign adjacent to my vehicle, I had not passed any legible signs to park or not to park, and no signs in the vicinity could possibly be read from inside my vehicle. There was no signage or marking on the ground to indicate my vehicle was parked in a “parking permit area” as claimed on the Parking Charge Notice and the Notice to Keeper (exhibit 1).

6.4 A key factor in ‘ParkingEye v Beavis’ was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice. In this case the signage and operating practice of the Claimant fails, on numerous counts, to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking operator - The International Parking Community (IPC).

6.5 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There was no signage at the entrance of the parking  in question,  I have not passed any signage indicating I was entering private land, please refer to exhibit1).

6.6 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site”. The text on the signage in this case, particularly that which refers to “parking charge” is very small. In fact is measures just 1cm in height. This, coupled with the facts that the signs were variously facing the wrong direction for a motorist traveling the route to read, mounted so close to the ground as to be unnoticed, makes it very hard to read or even notice and impossible to do so from a vehicle. One hidden sign on a carpark that holds over 60 cars or more is defiantly not enough to be seen by any driver entering the carpark.

7.Unreasonable Behaviour:

7.1 I contend that The Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this case against me to the court. Their actions and the actions of BW Legal have brought me considerable vexation and distress. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time (I estimate as much as 90 hours) researching case law online, revisiting the site (also costing fuel), processing and printing evidence and preparing my defence and this witness statement. I have no intention of claiming for each and every one of the hours I have spent on this, but will be asking for a consideration to cover 16 hours of my time as detailed in my costs schedule

7.2 The Claimant was made aware I contested their charge and had taken photographs to prove any case they brought against me would fail on signage alone. They refused to acknowledge this.

8.The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

 

 

Signed                         29 march 2020

Coupon-mad

Sorry to say, that needs major work. 

None of 4 or any part of 4 makes sense to me:
- it mentions 'in summary' (yet it's not the end);
- it talks about the particualrs of claim in a copy & paste load of words that don't belong;
- it talks about VCS v Davies at Caernarfon, which is the one we never cite, because the outcome wasn't like those in Southampton and Skipton which are the ones to refer to when talking about the added £60 and adding in DJ Grand's Approved Judgment as an exhibit.


Why does it later talk about BW Legal?  No need to talk through the letters you got and BW are not involved.

Don't call a parking firm's predatory employee this, they are NOT officers or traffic wardens!

traffic warden officer 

Have a look at more recent WS (and SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENTS) like the ones by @keypulse and @Lego-9 in their threads.

D_P_Dance

Propriety?

mahrez1980

Coupon-mad said:

Sorry to say, that needs major work. 

None of 4 or any part of 4 makes sense to me:
- it mentions 'in summary' (yet it's not the end);
- it talks about the particualrs of claim in a copy & paste load of words that don't belong;
- it talks about VCS v Davies at Caernarfon, which is the one we never cite, because the outcome wasn't like those in Southampton and Skipton which are the ones to refer to when talking about the added £60 and adding in DJ Grand's Approved Judgment as an exhibit.


Why does it later talk about BW Legal?  No need to talk through the letters you got and BW are not involved.

Don't call a parking firm's predatory employee this, they are NOT officers or traffic wardens!

traffic warden officer 

Have a look at more recent WS (and SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENTS) like the ones by @keypulse and @Lego-9 in their threads.

thank you so much for your time 
i am very sorry, rushing to send as deadline in 3 days
not that forgotten about it but, some family issues with 2 covid19 going on in the house. stuck in the middle.
-point 2 was added 
- i removed point 4 only left SAR.info witch became point 5 
-6.4 edited by removing 1st sentence.
-removed point 5 talking about letters received from solicitors as per the advice here.
-traffic warden officer wording replaced by human on point 
-. Additional Costs – Abuse of Process  was added in this ws at point 7  includes DJ Grand's Approved Judgmen.

hope looks much better then before?

 

 

In the County Court at xxxxx

Claim Number:   xxxxxxx

Hearing Date:                  xxxxxxx

 

 

 

                                                                Witness statement

1.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. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence bundle supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I will refer to this bundle as EB01

3.I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

4.I am a private hire driver on the 8/11/2018 at 15.05 a job was dispatched to me from the office to go and pick a customer up from V…… close , please refer to Exhibit 1, for proof of a customer pick Up, which is exactly opposite were private parking fine was issued. The customer was standing on the pavement when I picked him up as he was waiting for taxi outside, most customers do, it was a pick up, wait and return job to the local shops located less than 700 yards from where the customer lives. When I was dropping the customer back, he wanted me to get into his road which it was blocked by a removal Lorry. As a taxi driver, Part of my job is to help the customer with their shopping if requested.my customer was an elderly with a stick, I had to take his shopping to his house doorstep.so I parked opposite his street after the customer said it is ok to park here, By the time I help the customer and returned to the vehicle, the PCN ticket was already on my screen with no one to be seen in the area, I am one hundred percent sure that it wasn’t event 10 minute between parking my taxi vehicle walking to the customer doorstep and back, I have not been alerted by the customer I had at that time that it is a private parking when I asked him, so even the local resident who lives less then meters away from the so called private parking did not realise it is a private parking. I feel that I was penalized for doing my job.

4.1 At the entrance of the car park mentioned by the claimant, there was not a single sign indicating it is a private carpark, please refer to the attached evidence Exhibit 2, showing the only entrance and exit of the car park. Without a single sign indicating that it is a private carpark (a video of the whole carpark is available if requested to show that there was not a single sign at the entrance of the carpark). The only small hidden unclear sign was situated on the right-hand side covered by leaves, after entering the car park, it can barely be seen.  

4.2 Being out of town, in a residential cul-de-sac area any person would automatically assume the car park is for the block of flats/houses across the road, (The parking spaces in the D……. road area where the ticket was issued, are not numbered on the ground, so anyone is allowed to park anywhere in that particular parking area as seen in many  locations visited since being a taxi driver years ago), I recall on that particular day, that parking area will hold more than 30-50 cars at one time there was only eight to nine cars

parked. so, when I parked my vehicle to help the customer who lives metres away from the car park, it was not obstructing other cars or taking someone else space.

 

5. SAR (subject accesses request) was requested via email on the 6th of November 2019, the reply was to fill in the form online via their website which I did the same date, waited for 28 days but, was ignored as no reply received at all. Please refer to Exhibit 3 for prove of communications via email, While I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of The Claimant whereby they insist people going about their daily business have entered into some kind of vague “contract” with them, based on the tiny words on small and obscured signs. Nor do I appreciate the tactics of trace and Gladstone solicitors who have sent me many harassing and distressing letters, making threats towards court proceeding if not paid within certain time.

 

6.Inadequate Signage:

6.1 The signage and its wording at this site is very similar to the signage in the case of “Parking Control Management vs Bull” (see exhibit 10) the claimant photograph, in which the District Judge Glen found that it was “impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway” and that therefore any charges made on the basis of said signage would be damages for trespass and must constitute reparations for actual loss.

6.2 In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no sign directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle whilst parking.

6.3 In this case there was no sign adjacent to my vehicle, I had not passed any legible signs to park or not to park, and no signs in the vicinity could possibly be read from inside my vehicle. There was no signage or marking on the ground to indicate my vehicle was parked in a “parking permit area” as claimed on the Parking Charge Notice and the Notice to Keeper (exhibit 1).

6.4 In this case the signage and operating practice of the Claimant fails, on numerous counts, to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking operator - The International Parking Community (IPC).

6.5 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There was no signage at the entrance of the parking  in question,  I have not passed any signage indicating I was entering private land, please refer to exhibit1).

6.6 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site”. The text on the signage in this case, particularly that which refers to “parking charge” is very small. In fact, it measures just 1cm in height. This, coupled with the facts that the signs were variously facing the wrong direction for a motorist traveling the route to read, mounted so close to the ground as to be unnoticed, makes it very hard to read or even notice and impossible to do so from a vehicle. One hidden sign on a carpark that holds over 60 cars or more is defiantly not enough to be seen by any driver entering the carpark.

7. Additional Costs – Abuse of Process:

 

7.1   The Particulars of Claim include £60 for “contractual costs”. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified. I have the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

7.2   According to Ladak v DRC Locums (case number UKEAT/0488/13/LA) a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff. 

7.3   Judges have disallowed all added parking firm “costs” in County Courts up and down the country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating:
''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. 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 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye 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...''

7.4   That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies (Case number FTQZ4W28) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

7.5  
''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

 

8.Unreasonable Behaviour:

8.1 I contend that The Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this case against me to the court. Their actions and the actions of trace and Gladstones  have brought me considerable vexation and distress. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time (I estimate as much as 90 hours) researching case law online, revisiting the site (also costing fuel), processing and printing evidence and preparing my defence and this witness statement. I have no intention of claiming for each and every one of the hours I have spent on this, but will be asking for a consideration to cover 16 hours of my time as detailed in my costs schedule

8.2 The Claimant was made aware I contested their charge and had taken photographs to prove any case they brought against me would fail on signage alone. They refused to acknowledge this.

8.3 The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

 

 

Signed                         29 march 2020

mahrez1980

-just called the court and the claimant has paid the court fees. opps
-court date 17/4/2020 have i only got 2 days to handle the document to the court and send it to gladstons solicitors?
-everything is ready to go apart from not sure if witness statement ready ?
please help  

Le_Kirk

I will refer to this bundle as EB_01 to EB_10 (or whatever is your last piece of evidence)
from V…… close , please refer to Exhibit EB_01
As a taxi driver, Part of my job is to help the customers with their shopping if requested.  My customer was an elderly gentleman with a stick, I had to take his shopping to his house doorstep, so I parked opposite his street after the customer said it is OK to park there.  By the time I had helped the customer and returned to the vehicle, the PCN ticket was already on my screen with no one to be seen in the area. I am one hundred percent sure that it wasn’t event even 10 minutes between parking my taxi vehicle and walking to the customer doorstep and back. I have had not been alerted by the my customer I had at that time that it is was a private parking area when I asked him, so even the local resident who lives less then meters than metres [you earlier refer to yards - keep the same units] away from the so called private parking area did not realise  it is was a private parking area. I feel that I have been was penalized penalised for doing my job.

I have adjusted the first part of your witness statement but you need to go through the rest of it and check for spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors.  It has to be read by a judge and he/she will need to understand clearly what you are trying to say - for example carpark is car park.

Remove 7.2 as that is an old argument.

Whilst you have some good arguments about the Abuse of Process, I am not sure it is up to date with the latest court cases.  Check this post: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

by Coupon-mad and look at the cases she refers to, maybe you could use those.

Umkomaas

I, Mr xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, am the defendant 

A split infinitive is not the greatest way to start a formal paragraph. Just move the 'am' to sit after 'I' and remove the comma.

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

I, Mr xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, am the defendant 

A split infinitive is not the greatest way to start a formal paragraph. Just move the 'am' to sit after 'I' and remove the comma.

I was leaving that for Coupon-mad to find - her pet hate!