Parking Charge Notice issued at Sennen Cove Beach car park for not displaying a valid ticket

nosferatu1001

Its happened. Be prepared. Given its really easy to do as youve already gotten an electronic bundle of YOUR stuff. 

Grungewart

So had a bit if a bad couple of weeks at work and now I'm trying to complete WS ready for submission with less time than I'd like (it has to go tomorrow).

BW or Armtrac (not sure which) did the usual thing of adding £60 initial legal fees to the bill back in 2019 so I'm thinking I can look at abuse of process but does that still work if I'm the driver?  I read through the Protection of Freedoms Act but it seems to be refering to recovery from keeper at some points so I'm not sure if there's anything in there I can use or if that one is blown because they know I'm the driver.

Interestingly BW have pointed out in their 'Witness Statement' that signage on site clearly informs me that I 'It is an offence not to display a valid ticket', I'd be interested to know what the offence is.

Coupon-mad

It's not legal fees, and it's not to be argued as an abuse of process.  Will people STOP using that phrase please...

Use Excel v Wilkinson.  Have a look at the WS by @nosy (beware he has two threads).

MothballsWallet

nosferatu1001 said:

They're desperate.  That's all. 

If they're that desperate for money, perhaps they should sell some of their office furniture and equipment on eBay?

MothballsWallet

nosferatu1001 said:

Mediation benefits them, not you. So of course they can say yes. Makes no odds and nothing for you to think about any further. Waste of your time 

@Grungewart - I agree with @nosferatu1001, the mediator will be working for BW Legal. Even though that should really not be the case, imo, the mediator should be acting as a neutral party trying to get both sides to agree a settlement that does not require court.

Grungewart

There is no mediator, it's just a paralegal from BWL ringing and texting me.  She's the one that's filed the witness statement for the claimant.

@coupon_mad sorry, yes, according to the 'Final Letter Before Debt Recovery' that KBT sent on 13/08/2019 it's Debt Recovery Costs but that letter says it's only an example of what I can expect.  The next letter on 09/10/2019 just says it's part of the outstanding balance and is accompanied by the first letter from BWL also quoting Balance Due as £160.

I've read through the thread by @nosy now, hadn't seen that one before.  Trying to work out the rest now.

Fruitcake

Please show us the scammer's WS. Only redact YOUR personal data, and tell us if the scammers have redacted anything.
Upload it to Dropbox or similar and post the link here. Make sure the account is not in your real name, does not contain any other personal docs or photos (it has happened) and that it does not require a password.

I cannot stress how important it is to follow the directions of the words I have highlighted.

Grungewart

Not sure I've got time to do that now but I'll see what I can do, it's enormous and I have to submit tomorrow.

This is what I've got for a WS at the moment.

Index
Content    Page Numbers
Witness Statement    2 – 4
    
In the County Court at Xxxxx        Claim Number XXXX
    KBT CORNWALL LIMITED    (Claimant)
    V
    XXXX    (Defendant)

    WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
    FOR TELEPHONE HEARING ON xx/xx/xxxx

1.    I am xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. I have very little legal knowledge regarding court proceedings and legal disputes, this defence and witness statement has been created from my own research, so please accept my apologies for anything which does not look normal. 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

1.    On entering the car park, I proceeded to locate a space and then walked to the nearest machine to pay for a full day parking.

2.    I waited in the queue and once reaching the machine I entered the partial VRM details as requested and paid for a ticket by debit card transaction.  Exhibit 1 shows the transaction from my bank statement, Exhibit 2 shows the ticket purchased, with time of purchase and expiry date visible, confirming that the ticket was valid for the full day.

3.    I returned to the vehicle, used the sticky backing to affix the ticket and secured the vehicle.  I confirmed that the ticket was visible after the vehicle was secured then left for the day.

4.    On return to the vehicle at the end of my stay I discovered a Parking Charge Notice attached to the window and could see that while the sticky backing was still present the ticket had peeled away and fallen to the floor.

5.    I appealed the PCN clearly showing evidence that the ticket had been purchased and affixed before departing but this was rejected despite the claimant not disputing that a ticket had been purchased.

6.    On 19th June 2019 the claimant sent a response to my appeal with a demand for payment of £100, reduced to £60 if paid within a certain time.  I find these charges to be an unfair amount for a simple sticky backing failure which could have easily been resolved by little administration.

7.    On 9th October 2019 I was sent letters from both KBT and BW Legal stating that the outstanding debt was £160. Exhibits 3 and 4

8.    On 25th October I received a further letter from BW Legal identifying on page 2 the additional £60 as ‘Total Debt Recover Costs’. Exhibit 5.

9.    Exhibit 7 shows a photograph of signage at the site

10.    Exhibit 6 shows paragraphs from page 14 of the ‘Parking code Enforcement Framework consultation’ from The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government who also discussed the same charges. This was a response to the widespread concerns about the poor practice and behaviour of some parking operators and as you can see from Exhibit 6 it is not only me that finds the claimant’s claim for £160 inflated.

The Beavis Case is against this claim

11.    This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, where the Supreme Court found that whilst the £85 was not (and was not pleaded as) a sum in the nature of damages or loss, ParkingEye had a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing the charge where motorists overstay, in order to deter motorists from occupying spaces beyond the time paid for and thus ensure further income for the landowner, by allowing other motorists to occupy the space.  The Court concluded that the £85.00 charge was not out of proportion to the legitimate interest (in that case, based upon the facts and clear signs) and therefore the clause was not a penalty clause.

12.    However, there is no such legitimate interest where the requisite fee has been paid in full for the time stayed.  As such, I take the point that the requested parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable.   This is just the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court had in mind when deciding what constitutes a (rare and unique case) 'justified' parking charge as opposed to an unconscionable one.

Debt Collection Costs

13.    The Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as ‘Total Debt Recovery Costs'.  The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by DJ Jackson in the County Court at Braford case no G4QZ465V – see points 32 - 44 of Exhibit 9, extract from the transcript of the Approved judgment in that case.

CPR 44.11 - further costs

14.    I am including 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 and they knew all along that the tariff has been paid.  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.
My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

15.    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.

16.    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.
SIGNATURE
………
Xxxxx
Date xx/xx/xxxx


Exhibit 1
Page from Bank Statement

Exhibit 2
P&D ticket

Exhibit 3
Letter from KBT dated 09/10/2019

Exhibit 4
Letter from BWL dated 09/10/2019

Exhibit 5
Letter from BWL dated 25/10/2019

Exhibit 6
Extract from Parking Code of Enforcement Framework Consultation

Exhibit 7
Photograph of sign from the car park for comparison (not referenced but they’ve only included a design proof and a distant shot of the car park showing where signs are, not a close up of an actual sign).

Exhibit 8
The Beavis case sign, for comparison

Exhibit 9
Pages 7 - 9 from transcript of judgement from G4QZ465V (should I just include the whole thing and reference the paragraphs I want)

Exhibit 10
In the County Court at xxxxxxx
Claim Number: xxxxxxx
Hearing Date: xx/xx/xxxx

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

Ordinary Costs

Loss of earnings through attendance at court hearing xx/xx/xxxx: £47.00

Further costs for Claimant’s misconduct, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 44.11

Research, preparation and drafting documents (10 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour): £190

TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED £237.00

Signature

Coupon-mad

Remove this, superfluous and its not a defence:

I have very little legal knowledge regarding court proceedings and legal disputes, this defence and witness statement has been created from my own research, so please accept my apologies for anything which does not look normal

You haven't referred to anything you found in their WS and in particular have not mentioned their crap landowner authority.  Have you got time to take some photos of that please and show it to us? 

Redx

also bear in mind that the claimant may use the same EXHIBIT 01 etc , yours should bear your own initials , such as

EXHIBIT ABC/01 , EXHIBIT ABC/02 etc, where ABC are your initials