bwlegal and premier park exceeding maximum stay period

Coupon-mad

Then send a copy to your landlord quickly by email as you need to start building evidence (emails) that the landowner wants it cancelled.

KeithP

Look again at your Notice of Allocation. The Notice that gives the hearing date.

Is there not a paragraph something like:

Each party must deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than [ . . . ] [14 days before the hearing].

Might be on the back.

Those documents you intend to rely on are your Witness Statement and evidence.

You need to file and serve a Costs Schedule at the same time too.

Coupon-mad

You have the letter that tells you all this - and yet you are asking us?

FAIR.DEAL

Hi, Please help! since this forum's update, I haven't been able to read beyond 2 lines of everyone's post.  Lines on top of other lines, I really need help, I know it must be my laptop's fault but I don't know how to fix it.

I need to write my WS within a week, I haven't got enough time .. I appreciate any help.

Thank you

nosferatu1001

Install a new browser, do something. You cant just throw your hands up. 
Were not your iT support. 
You of course have got enough time. A WS takes about 90 min to write, have you even started it> Its YOUR facts abotu YOUR case. Tell it in a logical order. 

beamerguy

FAIR.DEAL said:

Hi, Please help! since this forum's update, I haven't been able to read beyond 2 lines of everyone's post.  Lines on top of other lines, I really need help, I know it must be my laptop's fault but I don't know how to fix it.

I need to write my WS within a week, I haven't got enough time .. I appreciate any help.

Thank you

What browser do you use

KeithP

FAIR.DEAL said:

I need to write my WS within a week...

You have known that for over a month.

Also, the forum software was updated over two months ago. Why the delay?

FAIR.DEAL

Thank you everyone, I was using internet explorer then downloaded chrome and all is fine  .  I'm a working mother of 2, I completely forgot about this.  my WS is just my defense copy and pasted. 

In the County Court at xxx

Claim Number: xxxx

Between

Premier Park Limited (Claimant)

and

Miss xxx (Defendant)

___________________

WITNESS STATEMENT

_______________

1. I am xxx xxx of xxxxx xxx, XX3 4XX, the defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. The facts are I am the registered keeper and was the driver of the vehicle in question.   The Claim relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 13/12/2018 at xxx Shopping centre, Leeds.

2.1. On the material date, I was working at xxstorexx in xxx Shopping Centre. Store opens X.00-XX:00 and I only parked at the rear car park for the duration I was working there (8:28-18:23).

2.2. I entered the car park in good faith with pure intentions to register VRM on permit system, however there is only one person (a security guard) in the whole shopping centre who can place VRM on system.  The Claimant is aware of this and it is my position that their enforcement system is unworkable at busy times, such as near Christmas when the retailer is short staffed and under pressure. 

2.3. Given the Claimant's shaky reliance upon one person remembering to exempt VRMs and get them right every time, it must be possible for staff and contractors’ VRMs to be retrospectively exempted.  Surely this must be why there is an appeal system in place. This entire set up fails the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2, the grey list of 'terms that may be unfair' and places an unfair burden upon the consumer and a security guard, tipping the balance and obligations unfairly against the driver rather than the trader (the Claimant). 

3. I appealed against PCN on 30/12/18 but was refused and further appeal was subsequently refused through Popla.  I am merely a human being who sometime forget or become overwhelmed under pressure, if claimant had no dispute over me being a member of staff then appeal shouldn’t have been refused.  If only the I did not follow the proposed instruction on PCN by appealing, but rather complained to the shopping centre manager directly, this PCN would have been cancelled for sure.  I believe that the Premier Park operating as an outrageous scam, only set out to pocket money from innocent hard-working people and their appeal system is unfair and unjust.

4. I have reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in contractual costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will:

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

 (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

5. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.

The Beavis case is against this Claim

6. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters.

The POFA 2012 and the ATA Code of Practice are against this Claim

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) 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' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100).

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') is against this claim

8. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

9. 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, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.

10. The Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

11. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow my costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

 Statement of Truth:

 I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

 

sig

xxxx

KeithP

my WS is just my defense copy and pasted.

What's the point of that?

nosferatu1001

Your WS is noth8ng like your defence. It just isn't. It's your story. It's your chance to lay out facts and support with evidence.