Excel Parking Services Ltd County Court Letter - Defence

Snakes_Belly

"Madam Snake ..... fancy saying that about that fella ... what's his name ..... OH YES ..JAKE ? " 

I think that it's Yasmeen that sends them out but JB may be responsible for the robo witness statement. 

I don't know if you have ever seen one of their WS. Mine was eighty pages with photo's. Whoever is responsible for preparing this document for each case seems to leave in a lot of irrelevant material. It's a dog's breakfast and does not make sense in parts. I would imagine that judges don't bother to read them and the reps don't receive the bundle until the eleventh hour. 

nosferatu1001

Theyre trying to robotocise the process, so theyre using a template with everythign thrown at it
Really courts shoudl be striking out their WS on a wholesale basis; not only are they not actually witness statements as they speculate, arent written or signed y witnesses, and they make arguments not present in the PoC, but theyre also far in excess of what is reasonable for a small claims case for a £100 alleged debt. 

Le_Kirk

painbl said:

Hi guys, I've had my hearing brought forward by a month to the 23rd September, which will now be a telephone hearing. I'm really starting to panic as I still haven't sent in my witness statement and the hearing is in 13 days!! Stupidly, I've left it really late, possibly too late.
Should I still look to submit a witness statement and hope that they'll accept it, or am I wasting my time?
Although it pains me to say it, I feel like throwing in the towel and paying up as I don't feel I'm in a particularly strong position with the case as it is.
Any advice would be appreciated.

Was this by an order from the court?  Was there a new date on that order by which you had to submit WS and evidence?

painbl

Le_Kirk said:

painbl said:

Hi guys, I've had my hearing brought forward by a month to the 23rd September, which will now be a telephone hearing. I'm really starting to panic as I still haven't sent in my witness statement and the hearing is in 13 days!! Stupidly, I've left it really late, possibly too late.
Should I still look to submit a witness statement and hope that they'll accept it, or am I wasting my time?
Although it pains me to say it, I feel like throwing in the towel and paying up as I don't feel I'm in a particularly strong position with the case as it is.
Any advice would be appreciated.

Was this by an order from the court?  Was there a new date on that order by which you had to submit WS and evidence?

Yes its an order from the court. Although there's no mention in their letter of timescales in regards to WS & evidence.
The only mention of timescales is in relation to a telephone number they can contact me on for the hearing, which needs to be emailed to them at least 7 days prior to the hearing.  

Le_Kirk

Assuming there was nothing on the reverse of the order, do as others have said and submit as soon as possible and then your phone number no later than seven days before.

painbl

Hi All, I'm at breaking point with this now! The amount of time this WS has taken me is ridiculous! I've literally had to ignore my children for the past 2 days so I can get it completed. Please could you give me some advice on my WS draft. All comments are really appreciated.

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXX (DEFENDANT) 

1. I, XXXXXXXam the defendant against whom this claim is made. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. I have carried out a good deal of research in preparation for this case, however I trust the Court will excuse me if my presentation is less than professional. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

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 asXXXXX.

3. Sequence of Events:

3.1  On the material date, 15THFebruary 2016, I travelled with my family to Swansea to begin our stay at the Premier Inn Waterfront Hotel. 

3.2 We arrived at SA1 Waterfront car park adjacent to the Premier Inn Hotel at 18:30pm. On arrival, we walked to the hotel via the car park pedestrian exit located nearest to the hotel.    

3.3  On returning to my vehicle the following day (16thFebruary 2016) at around 11.30am. I noticed a yellow plastic envelope affixed to my windscreen and found it to contain a “Parking Charge Notice”. 

3.4 That same evening on 16thFebruary 2016, I decided to take photographs of the poorly lit car park and un-illuminated signage at any of the pedestrian exits leading to the hotel. (EXHIBIT 01).  

3.5  Upon walking around the car park I was able to ascertain there were two signs from “Excel Parking Ltd” (hereafter referred to as The Claimant) within the car park. (EXHIBIT 02).

3.6  Due to their size, their placement and the size of the font used, these signs were nowhere near adequate for drawing attention to themselves from any reasonable person in a passing vehicle. None of these signs were located near the pedestrian exits.

4. Later Events: 

4.1  On 17thFebruary I wrote to the claimant to object to the parking charge they had issued to me. (EXHIBIT 03). 

4.2  I received a response from the claimant on 18thMarch 2016 dismissing my version of events as well as the photos I had taken of the car park during the hours of darkness we had previously entered at. The claimant responded with an option to appeal to a body called the “Independent Appeals Service” (IAS) was offered in The Claimant's rejection letter. Research showed the IAS to be a trading name of United Trade and Industry Ltd, whose founding directors are John Llewellyn Gladstone Davies and William Kenneth Hurley. These people are (in the case of Davies) or were (Hurley) directors of Gladstone Solicitors Limited. 

 

4.3  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. 

4.4  Due to the fact the whole situation was becoming increasingly stressful. I decided to continue with the appeal to the IAS on 20thApril 2016. My appeal was quickly rejected. Further research into the IAS, began to show this is known as a “Kangaroo court” and the majority of appeals are rejected.

4.5  On 23rd October 2017, I received correspondence from the PPC, notifying me that their    solicitors BW Legal will be looking to pursue the debt they wish to recover.Within this letter the claimant indicates that an additional £60 has been added to the parking charge balance noted as ‘associated costs’.  (EXHIBIT 03).

4.6  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 BW Legal who have sent me many harassing and distressing letters, making veiled threats towards my credit rating and even my employability.

5. No Contract Exists: 

5.1  I understand from correspondence with The Claimant that the Claimant’s case relies upon the signage at the site (as shown in EXHIBIT 02) constituting a “contract” between myself and The Claimant. The “outstanding liability” on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed “contract” formed by this signage. 

5.2  PPCs and their legal representatives often rely on the case “ParkingEye vs Beavis”, seemingly without actually understanding many aspects of the case. In that case, it was found that a contract could exist because there was a meaningful “offer” made to the Defendant (that of a licence allowing free parking for a set period of time) and that the Defendant’s agreeing not to overstay this period could constitute a “consideration” in respect of this. The ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ judgement is littered with references to the disputed charge being justifiable only in the context of the “contractual licence to park” being given to the Defendant, e.g. “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there”. 

5.3  In J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw in the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning states that ‘the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it’. This is commonly referred to the ‘Red Hand Rule’. As the terms of this “contract” are designed to discourage motorists from accepting them it follows that they must be “unreasonable” and that therefore Lord Denning’s rule should apply. 

5.4  The Claimant has not applied Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ to the terms and conditions in this case. The sentence that refers to a “parking charge” is in an extremely small font (one of the smallest on the sign) which, given that this sign is supposed to be read from a vehicle, is woefully inadequate, particularly when compared to the signage in the “ParkingEye vs Beavis” case (see EXHIBIT 02).

5.5  The very act of entering into this alleged “contract” (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. 

5.6 The signage is as can be seen in (EXHIBIT 02) is quite remarkable even from a short distance. The wording all shares the same font size and nothing is immediately noticeable as being of major importance. The signage is inadequately lit and was not anywhere near visible enough on an evening in February. 

6. Inadequate Signage: 

6.1  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. 

6.2  In this case there was no sign adjacent to my vehicle, and no signs in the vicinity that could possibly be read from inside my vehicle. There was no signage at any of the pedestrian exits leading to the hotel. (EXHIBIT 01). 

6.3  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). 

6.4  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 “contractual terms” and a “parking charge” is very small.

7. Additional Costs – Abuse of Process: 

7.1  The Particulars of Claim include £60 for “debt recovery 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 £70 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 supreme court Beavis case confirms this). Further, 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 I attach the Southampton Court approved judgement in Britannia Parking v Crosby and anor, where this was recently tested (EXHIBIT 04).It was tested again at Skipton court in a hearing in February 2020, no transcript yet available but the outcome was the same – the exaggerated parking charge claims at those courts remained struck out, as well as Warwick Court on 6thDecember 2019 by Deputy Judge Josephs.

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 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 XX 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 XX hours of my time as detailed in my costs schedule. 

8.2  I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14. 

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

Signed xxxx

Dated xxxx

KeithP

I'll just make the one observation...

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

That Statement of Truth is old and out of date.

A revised version was introduced in April this year and a copy  is in the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

I'm sure others will comment further.

Le_Kirk

You need the latest 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.

painbl

Thanks both for your replies. If anyone else can spot anything please let me know

Coupon-mad

Hi All, I'm at breaking point with this now! The amount of time this WS has taken me is ridiculous! I've literally had to ignore my children for the past 2 days so I can get it completed.

Please could you give me some advice on my WS draft. All comments are really appreciated.

I've changed it TOP OF NEXT PAGE to make it more up to date and hopefully, more relevant.   Posting it across two replies as it's too long!

Add Vine v Waltham Forest as an exhibit (NOT AS A LINK, AS A DOCUMENT).
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

Same with the case about redactions, not a link, have it as an exhibit:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Hancock-draft-judgment-final-14-July-2020.pdf  

And add the Caernarfon April 2020 Moran strike out order:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4vlhwbujltz8zkb/caernarfon-moran-strike-out.jpg?dl=0

You know you need to append a COSTS ASSESSMENT - really easy - see example in the NEWBIES thread and don't forget to ask for your costs at the end of the hearing!!