PCN(s) UKPC - Court Claim Form (WON)

KnightRS

Le_Kirk said:

Good report and well done once again.  Do you mean IPCO or in fact ICO - Information Commissioner's Office for data breach?

Sorry, that was a typo! ICO indeed, not IPCO.

I've sent in an official complaint to UK Parking Control LTD about the data breach. I'm drafting my complaint to the BPA at the moment.

I've sent e-mails to the local MP and also a few newspapers!

KnightRS

IN THE COUNTY COURT CLAIM No: F1HW66QF BETWEEN:

UK Parking Control LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2) The facts of the matter are that the Defendant's vehicle, registration number XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant admits to being the driver of, was parked outside his workplace. The 'land' which forms the basis of the current claim consists of the roads and private company parking within and around Muirhead Quay, Freshwharf Estate, Barking, IG11 7BW.

A) The Claimant's signage is very difficult to take notice of. The signage is on the opposite side of the roadway on a fence panel. Although there are street lights, these are too far away from the signage and there are numerous lights that do not work which means the signage is poorly lit. The signage is also behind often overgrown bushes and foliage which makes them further difficult to see. The Defendant's starts his shift at 0500AM and often works well into the hours of night, therefore the signage would have been difficult for him take notice of.

B ) Upon very close examination of the signage, for which you have to be in the middle of the road to actually read, it merely states "no unauthorised parking" and in smaller print "no roadway parking". The signage also has an image of a road with broken white lines in the middle and a thick line near a kerb which is indicated to be a single yellow line against the kerb. The image has a red cross over it. This is misleading as the sign suggests if there is a road with a single yellow line on it, you cannot park there. However, the part of the road which the Defendant's vehicle was parked on had no lines whatsoever, this is backed up by photos taken by UK Parking Control LTD. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of "unauthorised parking". If you were an employee within the estate, it would not be unreasonable for you to come to the conclusion you have authorisation. No contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

C) Numerous roads within the estate are not marked with any bays, nor any double or single yellow lines, or any lines for that matter. It is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

D) The particulars of claim received states that by parking at the location the Defendant had accepted and breached the terms and conditions of parking. Furthermore, upon examining the sign, in small print it says "If the parking contract terms are breached, we may request the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA in order to issue or follow up a Parking Charge Notice". One would argue that if there is no parking whatsoever, there cannot be a contract you can enter. Therefore, there cannot be a breach of such contract as suggested by the signs and particulars of claim.

E) The initial window penalty charge notices (PCN) and notice to keeper list the contraventions as "parked in a roadway". However, the particulars of claim list the contraventions as "parking outside of the designated parking spaces" and "obstructing a roadway". These contraventions are not listed on the signage and are not part of the original PCN and void any contract alleged to have been entered or breached.

3) The Defendant would also like to outline that following his receipt of the four PCNs - the Defendant one day identified the local ticket inspector acting on behalf of UK Parking Control LTD, whilst he was issuing tickets to vehicles parked on yellow lines. The Defendant spoke to the ticket inspector and identified his vehicle to the ticket inspector. The Defendant then explained that he was working long hours and parked his vehicle outside his workplace where there were no yellow lines. This was around late June to early July of 2019. The ticket inspector agreed this was fine and no obstruction were being caused and did not issue a ticket. Since then no further PCNs were issued to the Defendant's vehicle despite being parked in the same location. The ticket inspector is described as an Asian, male, with a dark beard, about 20-25 years old, about 5 foot 8 tall of slim build. He was wearing dark clothing. The Defendant has a witness to this matter, who will be able to give evidence if required.

4) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

A) Many informed County Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

B ) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

C) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. 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) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

D) The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgment for these three example cases stated: "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..."

E) In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's 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 mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

5) 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, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name:

Signature:         

Date: 12.01.2020

KnightRS

In the County Court at Romford

Claim number: F1HW66QF

 UK Parking Control LTD (Claimant)

V

XXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am xxxxx of xxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. 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. Photograph exhibits which I have taken myself have all been taken on the 19th of December 2019. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

3. In my statement I will address all four Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) altogether as opposed to providing a defence for each one separately. This is due to the fact that the nature of my defence covers all four PCNs.

Agreed facts:

4. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant’s vehicle, registration number xxxxxxx, of which the Defendant admits to being the driver of, was parked outside his workplace.

5. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of the roads and private company parking within and around Muirhead Quay, Freshwharf Estate, Barking, IG11 7BW.

6. Between May 2019 to June 2019 I received four window PCN tickets. I exhibit them as follows; Exhibit XX/01 - PCN received on 31/05/2019, Exhibit XX/02 - PCN received on 07/06/2019, Exhibit XX/03 - PCN received on 14/06/2019 and finally Exhibit XX/04 - PCN received on 21/06/2019.

Signage and Terms:

7. I now produce and refer to exhibit XX/05. This photograph shows the road where my vehicle was parked. On the left hand side of the road is a Police Station and on the right hand side is fencing, bushes and on the other side is the A406 going towards the Beckton Roundabout. This picture was taken on 19th December 2019 on a wet and cloudy day.

8. I now produce and refer to exhibit XX/06. This photograph is the same location but this time it faces the opposite direction. So the police station is now on the right hand side of the photo whereas the fencing, bushes and A406 are on the left hand side. This picture was taken on the same day around the same time as XX/05.

9. The road itself is a ‘service road’ that are for buses and police vehicles and/or police employees or members of the public to allow them access to the police station. The busses are allowed to go through the ‘service road’ and can eventually join onto the A406 or A13 at the other end.

10. It is to be noted that no signage can be seen in these photographs. Especially at the point of entry (in exhibit XX/05), the entrance terms and conditions sign is not visible.

11. At the time I was starting my shifts at 0500 hours during winter nights. The location is unlit as most street lights are not in working order and I was working well into the late hours of the night around midnight. Therefore, any signage would have been difficult for me to take notice of in any case.

12. A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and ‘bound to be seen’. I have included a copy of this sign in exhibit XX/07.

13. Upon receipt of the four PCNs I conducted a walk-through of the ‘service-road’ on 19th December 2019 and only noticed the actual signage when I was in the middle of the road. I have taken a photo of this sign and produce this as exhibit XX/08. There is a clear difference between the sign from ParkingEye in exhibit XX/07 and the photograph of the sign I have taken in exhibit XX/08.

14. I can clearly see from the ParkingEye sign that albeit parking is allowed, there are set terms and conditions such as “Park only within marked bays”, “Parking limited to 2 hours (no return within 1 hour)”, “Blue badge holders only in marked bays” and the fact that it’s a 2 hour max stay and 4 hour maximum stay for Fitness Centre Members and the failure to comply with result in a ‘Parking Charge’ of £85.

15. Upon examination of exhibit XX/08 it states in big bald letters “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING” and in smaller letters “Terms of parking apply at all times” and in even smaller print it says “This land is private property and parking control is managed by UK Parking Control LTD. Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicle’s driver.” It then has an image of a road with broken white lines in the middle and thick line near a kerb which would indicates a single yellow line against the kerb. It has the words “No roadway parking”. The image has a red cross over it. This is a misleading, as the sign would appear to suggest if there is a road with a single yellow line on it, you cannot park there. However, the part of the road where my vehicle had been parked for all four PCNs had no lines whatsoever, this is backed up by photos taken by UK Parking Control LTD. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of “unauthorised parking”. I am an employee within the estate, and it would not be unreasonable for me or anyone else who is an employee within the estate to come to the conclusion that I or they have authorisation to park. In my belief, no contract can be construed from the Claimant’s signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

16. Expanding on point number 13, prior to taking photographs of this area on 19th December 2019, I tried to read the signage, the only way this could be done is if you were in the middle of the road. I tried to read the signage 5 times but had to continuously cross over for safety due to incoming busses and police vehicles on emergency call before having to cross back into the middle of the road to continue reading the signage. The sign was confusing and fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC').The IPC mandatory Code says 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”.

17. The IPC mandatory code also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers. I refer to my point number 10 where the signage isn’t visible on entering the sight. Furthermore, on point number 11 where the signage that is displayed is under unlit conditions and on the opposite side of the road near bushes where it cannot be seen during hours of darkness.

18. Furthermore, there are numerous roads within the estate which do not have any marked bays or any double or single yellow lines, or any lines for that matter. I believe 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. I produce and exhibit XX/09 and XX/10 which is the location where my vehicle was parked during the issuing of all four PCNs, clearly showing the location has no road markings whatsoever, no bays and no yellow lines which would further indicate the prevention of parking.

19. The particulars of the claim I received (exhibit XX/11) also stated that by parking at the location the Defendant accepted and breached the terms and conditions of parking. On points 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of the particulars of the claim it states after each contravention listed “The driver of the vehicle breached the terms of the agreement by parking outside of the designated parking spaces and obstructing a roadway. The Claimant therefore issued a PCN…” The signage displayed (exhibit XX/08) makes no reference to obstructing a roadway or parking outside of a designated space and neither does the four window PCNs I received. This begs to question the terms and conditions of contract as these have clearly not been set out in the signage displayed, therefore I believe there was no contract to enter in the first place.

20. Upon examining the four PCNs (exhibits XX/01 - XX/04) the alleged contravention is listed as “parked in a roadway’. In the particulars of claim as mentioned above lists the contraventions as “parking outside of the designated parking spaces” and “obstructing a roadway”. The contraventions appear to change each time from the signage to the window PCN to the particulars of the claim submitted to the court, it appears there is no clear set terms and conditions.

Further evidence:

21. Following the receipt of the four PCNs, around late June or early July of 2019 I identified the local ticket inspector who appeared to be acting on behalf of UK Parking Control LTD. He was issuing tickets to vehicles parked on yellow lines. I spoke to the ticket inspector and identified my vehicle to him, I explained to him that I was working long hours and I had parked my vehicle outside my work place where there were no yellow lines. The ticket inspector agreed this was fine and no obstruction was being caused and did not issue a ticket. Since then I continued to park in the location various times and did not receive any further PCNs. I would describe the ticket inspector as an Asian male, with a dark beard, about 20-25 years old, about 5 foot 8 tall of slim build. He was wearing dark clothing. I do have a witness in this matter, unfortunately, that witness no longer wishes to assist me despite initially agreeing to provide evidence.

22. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any complaint ‘Notice to Keeper’ (and the ceiling for a ‘parking charge’, as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including ‘adequate notice’ of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim of £160 for each ‘parking charge’, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

23. Many informed County Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm ‘costs’ in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding ‘damages’ blatantly made up out of thin air.

24.  In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand siting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out an overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

25.  In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgement on Order of DJ Grand, who on the 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newpoint (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal’s robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones’ robs-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

26.  The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgement for these three example cases stated: “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 judgement 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”

27.  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 mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

28.  The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative and dismiss this claim in its entirety and to allow me costs that are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover. Their behaviour from the outset has been harassing and menacing with constant threats of legal action from different solicitor firms without any actual progression to court procedures. I invite the court to allow me to present these letters at court to show the level of harassment I have gone through. This includes 12 letters from a company named DRP (Debt Recovery Plus Ltd) and 4 letters from a company named Zenith Collections all constantly threatening legal action if I don’t pay the parking charge of £160.

29.  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.

30.  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 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.

PART 1 of 2

KnightRS

...Continued

Exhibit List:

Exhibit XX/01 - PCN received on 31/05/2019

Exhibit XX/02 - PCN received on 07/06/2019

Exhibit XX/03 - PCN received on 14/06/2019

Exhibit XX/04 - PCN received on 21/06/2019

Exhibit XX/05 - Area where PCN issued

Exhibit XX/06 - Opposite direction of area where PCN issued

Exhibit XX/07 - ParkingEye sign

Exhibit XX/08 - UK Parking Control LTD Sign

Exhibit XX/09 - Area of where I had parked

Exhibit XX/10 - Area of where I had parked

Exhibit XX/11 - Particulars of claim.
(This is a document which the Claimant themselves have filed to the court. The area referred to in the above statement, point 19 refers to points 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of this particular exhibit.)

References:

There are references to a few cases that I have made during the above witness statement. I will outline these references here:

Abuse of process:

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 XX/12 - transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). That case was not appealed and the decision stands.

Whilst 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.

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.’’

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 theParkingEye v Beavis case and not a damages/loss model.This Claimant can't have both.

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, 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. I quote the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 below:

ParkingEye Limited v Beavis –

98. Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. This was to be achieved by deterring commuters or other long-stay motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods or engaging in other inconsiderate parking practices, thereby reducing the space available to other members of the public, in particular the customers of the retail outlets. The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services, without which those Page 43 services would not be available. These two objectives appear to us to be perfectly reasonable in themselves. Subject to the penalty rule and the Regulations, the imposition of a charge to deter overstayers is a reasonable mode of achieving them. Indeed, once it is resolved to allow up to two hours free parking, it is difficult to see how else those objectives could be achieved.

193. The penalty doctrine is therefore potentially applicable to the present scheme. It is necessary to identify the interests which it serves. They are in my view clear. Mr Beavis obtained an (admittedly revocable) permission to park and, importantly, agreement that if and so far as he took advantage of this it would be free of charge. ParkingEye was able to fulfil its role of providing a traffic management maximisation scheme for BAPF. The scheme met, so far as appears, BAPF’s aim of providing its retail park lessees with spaces in which their customers could park. All three conditions imposed were directed to this aim, and all were on their face reasonable. (The only comment that one might make, is that, although the signs made clear that it was a “Customer only car park”, the Parking Charge of £85 did not apply to this limitation, which might be important in central Chelmsford. The explanation is, no doubt, that, unlike a barrier operated scheme where exit can be made conditional upon showing or using a ticket or bill obtained from a local shop, a camera operated scheme allows no such control.) The scheme gave BAPF through ParkingEye’s weekly payments some income to cover the costs of providing and maintaining the car park. Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.

198. The £85 charge for overstaying is certainly set at a level which no ordinary customer (as opposed to someone deliberately overstaying for days) would wish to incur. It has to have, and is intended to have, a deterrent element, as Judge Moloney QC recognised in his careful judgment (para 7.14). Otherwise, a significant number of customers could all too easily decide to overstay, limiting the shopping possibilities of other customers. Turnover of customers is obviously important for a retail park. A scheme which imposed a much smaller charge for short overstaying or operated with fine gradations according to the period of overstay would be likely to be unenforceable and ineffective. It would also not be worth taking customers to Page 88 court for a few pounds. But the scheme is transparent, and the risk which the customer accepts is clear. The fact that, human nature being what it is, some customers under-estimate or over-look the time required or taken for shopping, a break or whatever else they may do, does not make the scheme excessive or unconscionable. The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit. Unless BAPF was itself prepared to pay ParkingEye, which would have meant, in effect, that it was subsidising customers to park on its own site, this was inevitable. If BAPF had attempted itself to operate such a scheme, one may speculate that the charge might even have had to be set at a higher level to cover its costs without profit, since ParkingEye is evidently a specialist in the area.

SIGNATURE:

PRINTED NAME:

Date: 02/12/2020

PART 2 of 2

Notes:

- Incorrectly referred to 'IPC' mandatory code. UKPC is a member of the BPA. I realised this when I was reading through my statement on the day of the trial, so couldn't ammend it. The judge didn't reference it but had she done, I would have tried to highlight that it was a mistake on my end and just refer to the BPA code instead if she would allow me to.

- I do genuinely think some of it was blabbing on a bit, so it's definitely a learning curve.

- I've had to take the exhibits out, some of them need to be redacted, but I'll link them back in later.

Fruitcake

Well done on your win, and the very detailed court report plus all the other useful information.

Coupon-mad

Thanks for posting this example defence, witness statement and exhibit list. 

You handled this brilliantly from start to finish and putting in 'IPC' instead of 'BPA' won't have bothered any Judge.

KnightRS

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks for posting this example defence, witness statement and exhibit list. 

You handled this brilliantly from start to finish and putting in 'IPC' instead of 'BPA' won't have bothered any Judge.

No problem at all!

Thank you, I really appreciate all the help I received from all of you on this forum. I will be posting up the Claimant's WS shortly and my further witness statement.

Just an update -

I have not received the official court paperwork yet, will be chasing them up.

I've submitted a complaint the same day I won the case to the UKPC re data breach - they haven't even acknowledged it.

I've submitted a complaint to the DVLA re UKPC and subsequent data breach on both their ends - they have acknowledged this and are investigating.

I've submitted a complaint to the landowners who are now investigating my complaint re UKPC operating outside of the contracted areas.

I've submitted a complaint to my local MP who is now looking into the matter.

I'm shortly going to be submitting my complaint to the ICO for both UKPC and DVLA and also need to submit a complaint to the BPA.

I did e-mail Daily Mail, the local news where the area covers, Good Morning Britain and Sunday TImes but none of them have got back to me. Still trying with them!

Ralph-y

I some how suspect that you are already off UKPC's Christmas card list for this year  

Ralph

KnightRS

Ralph-y said:

I some how suspect that you are already off UKPC's Christmas card list for this year  

Ralph

Thank god! Atleast I won't receive hundreds of Christmas cards begging for money!!

KnightRS

Please find link to Claimant's WS here.

Their actual hearing bundle was about 144 pages but I've taken out most of the crap. This version includes their main evidence.