Stopping at Robin Hood Airport going to court

Coupon-mad

Yes, have a look at the threads by @keypulse and @Littlewadie and @gbbe

NearlyDone

Here is my WS first draft.

If anyone is able to give me some further help and guidance on improvements/arguments/mistakes I would be very grateful.

Thank you.

In the County Court at XXXXXXXXX

Claim Number:XXXXXXXXXXX

Hearing Date:XXXXXXXXXX

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXXXX (Defendant)

 

1.  I, XXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXX am the defendant against whom this claim is made. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person. I have no formal legal training or experience. 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 as XXXX.

 3. Sequence of Events:

 3.1 My father and I were booked in to have a presentation and viewing at the Vulcan to the Sky trust on 15 August 2016. Their location was a hanger on the Doncaster Sheffield Airport (formally Robin Hood Airport).

3.2 I had read the “getting to the hanger” information from the booking confirmation email (XXX01). I had also looked at Google Maps and used Street View to review the route using the information supplied.

3.3 I programmed my sat nav application on my mobile phone to take us to the post code for the Vulcan to the Sky Trust.

3.4 I had chosen a sat nav option to avoid motorways. This resulted in arriving at the Airport complex via a different route from the one I had reviewed or knew about.

3.4 After travelling down unrecognised roads the sat nav announced that we had arrived at the destination.  I was not aware that I was near the venue as I had not recognised any part of the route taken so far.

3.5 I could not see any signs to indicate that we had arrived at the venue and I carried on through an open gate expecting to see a layout that matched what I had previously reviewed on line.  The Vulcan to the Sky Trust confirmed via email that there were no car park signs or venue signs on the side of the premises (XXX02).

3.6 On driving through the open gate at the end of the Fourth Ave my sat nav crashed and the phone locked up.  Maps show this road as a cul-de-sac.

3.7 I drove on still expecting to recognise the road layout that I had viewed on Street View. When it became obvious that this was not going to happen I realised that I was disoriented and lost.

3.8 With my phone being out of operation and this being my only source of guidance I needed to reboot the device and review the sat nav map.  I did not want to do this while moving as this is a road traffic offence or cause an obstruction for any following traffic.  I felt that I was not concentrating on my driving with due care and attention.  I regarded this situation as an emergency that could not be dealt with while driving.

3.9 The local bye laws also state that stopping in an emergency is permitted. Doncaster Sheffield Airport, Bylaws, 2005 states: ''Except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice''

3.10 So I briefly stopped, with engine running, to reboot the phone.  Once this was completed I reviewed the map determined that we had come in via a different route and returned to the venue by retracing our route. On approaching from this direction the venue display on the front of the building was visible.

4.0 None existent or poor signage.

4.1 I had not seen any signs to say that I was now on private land. The contractual signage on the route in via Third Ave was poorly located as it did not face the oncoming driver and located near the ground between other commercial display boards.  The text on the sign is too small to be read from a car moving at the legal speed limit for that road (XXX03).

4.2 From this point until the bus stop I did not pass any other readable contractual signage. There is a contractual sign on the route I took but it is facing the traffic entering the site by the main approach roads. The location of the signs is show from the Claimants planning application map. (XXX04)

4.3 There is no signage at the bus stop.  This is confirmed by the street view image (XXX04). This is also confirmed by the claimants own image of my car taken from the Claimants video car. (XXX05)

4.4 Additional signage was added after a Planning application was approved on 23 June 2017 Image from planning application showing signage location.  Showing the existing signage was not fit for purpose. This new sign can be seen in the Street View image (XXX06).

5.0 No contract exists. 

5.1 Private parking companies 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.   The poor signage on the Third Ave road is inadequate to form a contract due to its location and size making it impossible to read while driving past it.

5.2 It is further contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking, and that the Byelaws positively set out exemptions for brief stops and this predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.

6 Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
6.1 CPR 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.

6.2. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

6.3. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. 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 the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

6.4. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

6.5. According to Ladak v DRC Locums 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.

6.6. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) (Exhibit 011) 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.

6.7. 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 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. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
The judges 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.''

6.8. 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.

6.9. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim 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.

Signature of Defendant:

Name:
Date:

XXX01  Getting to the Venue information.

XXX02  Email confirming no signs at venue.

XXX03  Picture of poor approach road sign.

XXX04  Site Map (submitted to the Planning Application) showing sign locations.

XXX05  Picture from Street View show lack of signage.

XXX06  Claimants image of car and bus stop confirming lack of signage.

XXX07  Later picture from Street View of the Bus Stop showing new signage.

Redx

The WS truth statement is incorrect , it changed 3 weeks ago

Coupon-mad

Yes you need the new statement of truth from 6th April; Google for it.

None existent 

= non-existent

disoriented

= disorientated (I think 'disoriented' is horrible and an Americanism, and it really grates on me!)

And take off all of this:

6 Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
6.1 CPR 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.
6.2. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
6.3. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. 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 the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
6.4. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.
6.5. According to Ladak v DRC Locums 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.
6.6. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) (Exhibit 011) 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.
6.7. 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 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. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
The judges 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.''

...and instead have the 'abuse of process' section there, as a separate, 'Supplementary Witness Statement' (again, with the longer 'statement of truth and your signature & date under it) like you see in the other threads at the same stage, by people like @Leviathan747and @Janetx whose threads you need to read, as I think you might be missing the latest advice re emailing all this with a covering email and DRAFT ORDER to try to get the entire claim struck out?

6.8. In summary,

Makes no sense that this is a sub-paragraph, but as you are removing #6 entirely to put it on a separate supplementary document, it will now be number 6.

Finally your exhibit list doesn't include the stuff that goes with the 'abuse of process' and it needs it!  Have a look at the threads by @Chefdave and @keypulse as well, for easy reading examples of what they put in their 'bundle' about abuse of process...you appear to have missed the Soton Approved Judgment from DJ Grand, and the CRA 2015 sch 2, off your exhibit list?

Read the TELEPHONE HEARINGS thread and that's how to play this now (yes even for cases with nothig said by the court yet about a 'remote' hearing...please read that thread).  I just edited new stuff there on page 10 today, designed to email with your WS, evidence, costs summary assessment, draft order etc., to try to get cases struck out, with no hearing.

That is what you really want - so read everything I've said!

NearlyDone

Thank you for your help.  I'll do the reading/updating as suggested and get my bundle in order.

Thank you all again it is much appreciated.

NearlyDone

NearlyDone

A quick update.

Received two letters today:-

One from the court re the 3 option available as face to face hearing not available due to Covid 19.

The only valid/reasonable/best of 3 bad deals option I can go for is the Tel hearing and send the court and Claimant my document set.   I don't want hearing in my absence.  I can not think of any valid reasons for delaying for a court appearance. Apart from it gives me the best environment to argue my case against a professional.

The second letter was the pack from the PPC. With the WS signed and Dated 20 April 2020. The PPC paralegal who signed it did not use the latest Statement of Truth.  The page numbering has been cut of at the bottom so reading the page numbers is difficult.  So about 25 pages of legal waffle to trawl through. Plus loads of pictures with dates that don't appear relevant some other pictures seem to be  relevant but no date and can be seen to be recent compared to my dated images.

Also the WS seems to jump between parking and stopping.  Which are, I believe, different events and make the WS a more troublesome to read.

At least I now can see what their arguments are.   A few days to beef up my WS and pack and get it sent off to both parties.

I will have a detailed read of the COVID_19: 2020 TELEPHONE HEARINGS - Special advice to read: post also.

Any further advice/encouragement/ideas would be welcome. Thank you.

Redx

Make sure that yours contains the correct statement of truth and points out their error

Coupon-mad

The PPC paralegal who signed it did not use the latest Statement of Truth.

Very slapdash of them! 

Are they citing VCS v Ward and have they appended that transcript?  It is so bad, it makes your stomach turn to read the rubbish that the poor Judge was misled into concluding. 

The good thing is, it was not about an Airport Road so you have the added points about the Byelaws including allowances for stopping when it is outside the control of the driver and the argument that Airport Roads are actually public highway.

NearlyDone

I'm in the process of putting the email bundle together for the PPC and Court.

I'm going to include a Draft Order word document.  I don't think there is anything to lose by this.

 I'm hoping to send it on Monday well ahead of the required schedule and hopefully before the PPC gets its act together. They were still expecting a court appearance as I have the WS as a hard copy via the post.

Thinking about this, should I delay slightly and review their WS and modify my WS to offer further suitable arguments for their reliance on VCS and Damen Ward and HHJ Saffman  + VCS v Nick Idle  (as a persuasive authority).  Both stopping PCNs.  But as CM stated not on Airport Roads.   (or can you argue points without having the printed evidence. ie Say my case is not applicable here as it on Airport approach roads rather than a private estate.)

CM asked Are they citing VCS v Ward?  Is this because HHJ Saffmen stated "....being obliged to stop because somebody is crossing the road, is no defence" 

(Loads of other cases quoted in their WS but a lot of it uses Parking Eye & Beavis.)

Apologies for this basic question but what should be transposed into the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX at the end of the Order? Or is it just signifying the end of the document and can be removed?

REASON

(a) The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the driver was contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 nor with reference to the binding Supreme Court judgement, which expressly approved the parking charge because it included costs of administration (ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 - paragraphs 98,193 and 198).  Additionally, s71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the court to consider the fairness of a contract term/notice, and the inclusion of additional charges falls into examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the indicative list of unfair terms in Schedule 2 of the Act. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Coupon-mad

 I think I was showing the end of the document!  

Thinking about this, should I delay slightly and review their WS and modify my WS to offer further suitable arguments for their reliance on VCS and Damen Ward and HHJ Saffman  + VCS v Nick Idle  (as a persuasive authority).  Both stopping PCNs.  But as CM stated not on Airport Roads.   (or can you argue points without having the printed evidence. ie Say my case is not applicable here as it on Airport approach roads rather than a private estate.)

CM asked Are they citing VCS v Ward?  Is this because HHJ Saffmen stated "....being obliged to stop because somebody is crossing the road, is no defence"  

(Loads of other cases quoted in their WS but a lot of it uses Parking Eye & Beavis

Beavis was about a private retail car park, and is 'binding' on cases of similar facts.  But your case is not of similar facts, not in terms of the signs or location or the fact that Airportts and Airport roads are subject to either byelaws or the TMA rules relating to public highways.

VCS v Ward is 'persuasive' on cases of similar facts but carries a lot less weight and is a truly ludicrous decision and fairly easy to criticise and make your Judge at least raise their eyebrows about it!  In one case, someone's Judge looked at VCS v Ward then commented ''now, back in the real World...!'' 

And your case is not 'similar' because the Airport Byelaws (and the TMA) allow for a driver being allowed to stop for an emergency or reasons not under their control, of course. 

And you also have the Consumer Rights Act 2015 s71 'test of fairness' court duty, that HHJ Saffman made NO mention of whatsoever. 

It was a truly shocking decision, steered by the VCS rep as if that sort of conduct is big and clever to get one over on a consumer who had already won his case at the first instance hearing and didn't turn up to this appeal, no doubt thinking there was no need.  The appeal should have been challenged further of course and would have been eaten up for dinner at a higher level (without a doubt, IMHO) but that's expensive, not for the faint hearted and it can't be challenged by Mr Ward now.  He was probably so astonished at 'justice' that he felt failed by HHJ Saffman, and paid.  

Certainly you can explain to your Judge why VCS v Ward was tainted by not considering the CRA s71 test of fairness, and is not relevant to an Airport anyway.

Anyway if you already have their WS then there's no need to delay as they can't change it.