Fluttering parking ticket

Janetx

Thank you so much.....We are sorry, yes we realise now, that we could have read ahead a month ago.....but life's troubles got in the way.....we also thought that maybe Excel would discontinue.Witness statement by 2pm on 3rd April 2020 is that what you mean by deadline?

nosferatu1001

4pm usually, not 2pm, usually?
Yes, the deadline YOU must serve on the claimant and file with the court YOUR bundle. You will follow the instructions in the newbies thread - you WILL hand deliver to court and you will most likely POST to the claimant, so the real deadline is 2 working days BEFORE that deadline. WORKING days, not calendar. 
Ah, you hoped they would discontinue before this point? Doesnt happen with Excel. 

KeithP

3rd April is a Friday, so 2pm deadline is probably right - for the court at least.

Coupon-mad

When looking at the NEWBIES thread just do 'control & f' on your PC keyboard and put in 'witness statement' and it searches the entire thread much better than this forum does.  Have a look at examples of WS linked there, and copy one.

Or, copy a fluttering ticket one already written!  Most here are about a firm called Armtrac as it is their speciality,scamming people for fluttering tickets. 

How about Google searching Armtrac fluttering ticket witness statement and finding the MOST RECENT forum example on Google (because the search here is currently broken) and changing the Claimant's name to Vehicle Control Services and any other facts that need a tweak, then you will have a WS to show us a draft.

Also add in a section about the Defendant's illness and how this is making her ill:

she attended the hospital yesterday as a day patient, she receives intravenous treatment for her illness/disability and it wipes her out for days!. She is so stressed and worried about this Excel claim that she couldn't cope

Janetx

Thank you all so much

Janetx

Sorry I got the date wrong its 2pm  3rd April the bundle has to be in the court.....Dyslexia strikes again!

Coupon-mad

OK, once you've read a shedload of fluttering ticket WS examples and cribbed from them, show us.  Like I said, read AMTRAC threads which are all about fluttering tickets.

Also read the threads by the posters below, re a statement about the added £60 abuse of process, and your COSTS ASSESSMENT that also has to go win with your WS:
@keypulse
and 
@Lego-9

Janetx

WITNESS STATEMENT

I XXXXXXXXX of xxxxxxxx will say as follows:

INTRODUCTION

I am the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, a xxxx. I will be defending this claim, I deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

 The contents of this witness statement are based on my own experiences and matters witnessed and within my knowledge, are true.

Along with this statement is a bundle of documents to which I will refer. This witness statement is prepared for the hearing at XXXX County Court, on XXXXX April 17th 2020 in support of my own defence against the claimant.

 It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter

The defendant will address the Claimant’s Witness Statement (WS) which the Defendant avers is inaccurate, untruthful and contradictory.

Background

1. It was my first day back in work, in my new job, following emergency admittance to Singleton Hospital. I was discharged after two weeks and then had 3 months sick leave from work recovering. I suffer from severe Ulcerative Colitis which is a chronic lifelong illness and is a disability covered by The Equality Act 2010.  (Please see Consultants letters).

2. I also have mild Spina Bifida and Scoliosis (Curvature of the Spine) along with Anaemia Folic Acid deficiency. I suffer from back pain that affects my spine, joints and muscles (musculoskeletal pain).

3.The strong medication that I take for my conditions affects my general well-being and I experience pain in my joints, hands and feet. I also have no immune system as a result of taking strong immunosuppressant medication. 

 4.The car park is across the road from my office and on the quay side in SA1, of what used to be the old docks in Swansea. The car park entrance is accessed off a roundabout from a very busy road. This road is the main thoroughfare of the entire area (please see exhibit ).

5. At the immediate entrance there are no signs. There is a sign further on into the car park once you have entered on the left (see exhibit ). The road is very busy and there is no opportunity to stop and read the signage at the main entrance to the car park.

6. Upon investigation with Swansea City Council Planning office, Excel Parking Ltd have no planning in place for the signs within this car park. Subsequently, making the signs unlawful.

 7. There is another sign at the ticket machine which faces the open sea. However, I was ill, and the weather was atrocious. The area had a yellow weather warning that day with gusts of gale force winds, up to 61 KPH. This wind speed according to the Beaufort Wind Scale is categorised as an 8 out of 12 and classed as a gale. The car park is completely exposed to the open sea (please see photos). 

8. I purchased a ticket for 12 hours for £5.00 at 08:07am. The ticket is printed out on thin flimsy paper which does not have the benefit of a sticky back to enable attachment to a car window-screen. 

9. The space that I had parked in was the first in the row at the time that I parked and there was no break from the wind. I placed the ticket on the dashboard and grabbed my belongings from the car, the door slammed shut and had to open the door once again to collect my work pass. The door once again slammed shut. As I was fighting with the wind and collecting my belongings, I suddenly started to experience symptoms of my illness, including terrible painful cramps in my stomach, which meant I urgently needed to find a toilet. As there is not one in the car park, I rushed out of the car park and across the road to the office where I clocked in and went straight to the disabled toilet. I have a record of clocking in work at 8:09am, (please see exhibit ).

At the time I was also suffering with anaemia causing fatigue, weakness and brain fog. 

10. When I returned to my car later, I found a Parking Notice Charge attached to my windscreen this was attached by a sticky backed plastic bag. I was shocked and puzzled, I couldn't understand this because I had purchased a ticket and I had purchased the ticket for much longer than I needed to park. 

11. I looked through the window to see the parking ticket, which was a non-sticking ticket, sitting face up on in the console for my gear stick. 

12. I have no idea how it got there? The vehicle may have been moved in the gusts of wind or someone may have bumped into my vehicle. However, it is possible that whoever placed the parking charge notice on my windscreen may have also looked through my window and may have also spotted the ticket sitting by the gear stick. 

13. I was so upset by receiving this ticket that I broke down and cried. At the same time whilst still sat in my vehicle in the car park, I tried to appeal to Excel Parking straight away through their portal. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attach the ticket to the email as the file was too large. I have no full copy of the appeal, as the site did not record a copy for me. 

14.When I returned home I wrote and explained that I was disabled, that I had been experiencing symptoms of my illness, that I had purchased a ticket and that it had been extremely windy, but the ticket had been displayed in good faith. I advised that I would be grateful if the charge could be removed. I also included pictures of my purchased ticket. I sent this to Excel Parking.  (Please see copy of ticket Exhibit ). 

15. Excel Parking Ltd acknowledged my appeal in the refusal of appeal letter. This was an opportunity for the Claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge. 

16. UNCLEAR & NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE FORMING NO CONTRACT WITH DRIVERS According to Swansea City Council, Excel Parking Ltd have no planning permission whatsoever granted for these signs. This makes the signs unlawful. Excel are not the landowners and therefore, I challenge Excel Parking LTD to prove they have genuine authorisation from the landowner. I thereby put them to strict proof that they have a valid and in date contract with the landowner.  

17. I also deny the wording on the signage satisfactorily sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear and discernible manner for the purpose of creating a legally binding contract. The Defendant brings to the courts attention the image of the signage which was deemed sufficient of creating a binding contract by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, evidenced on page 23 of the Defendant’s WS. The Defendant would like to highlight the difference in the text on each sign. The information and terms of parking on the Beavis case sign are set out in a clear manner, with succinct wording in large font sizes and a minimal amount of text which is easy to read and therefore hard to misinterpret. It is evident the signage presented as evidence by the Claimant has a great deal more text than the Beavis sign. The prolix text is of various font sizes, most of which are illegible unless standing directly in front of the sign. The excessive amount of wording in various font sizes creates a very haphazard and confusing document, which cannot be deemed sufficient of binding any reasonable person who attempts to read them from a moving vehicle into a contractual agreement. Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC’s CoP clearly states ‘Text 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.’
18. POFA 2O12 Schedule 4 makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that ‘The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).’ 

19. Although Excel Parking Ltd have no planning in place including no planning granted for these signs, I endeavoured to comply with any alleged terms and conditions that Excel Parking Ltd may now be attempting to rely on. 

20. I would like to also rely on Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 6 of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, whereby a term in a contract may be regarded as unfair if it ‘has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’ and Part 2, Paragraph 62(1) whereby ‘An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer’. Part 2, Paragraph 71 of the CRA 2015 stipulates that the Court has a duty to consider the fairness of the terms.

The Claimant must show the court, that given the adverse weather conditions and my disabilities and illness, that I saw, read, understood and accepted the terms. This means that a conscious decision was made to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver disabled or able bodied would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility and unlawful under the Consumer Regulations Act 2015.   

 

 

 

 

 

Janetx

21. Furthermore, Excel Parking Ltd have frustrated the obligation by providing a ticket, with a non-sticky back to it. This creates an unstable ticket, especially given the location, which must cause tickets to somehow flutter from the dashboard on a regular basis and is therefore not fit for purpose. It may even be considered a more deliberate attempt to entrap innocent motorists with many fluttering ticket situations. 

22. In their rebuttal of my appeal, the claimant Excel Parking Ltd has completely ignored my disabilities. This itself is inherently disrespectful and discriminatory. 

23. This entire incident has caused myself sleepless nights, inordinate amounts of distress, stress and upset at a traumatic time in my life, when my adored favourite Uncle who is like a father figure to me, suffered a Cardiac Arrest and died at the scene. He received CPR from passers-by for 22 minutes and was shocked and revived by the Air Ambulance Doctor five times. He was in intensive care for 6 weeks, hospital for 8 weeks and has suffered brain damage. (Please see photos Exhibit ). 

24. I have attended Singleton Hospital Swansea as a patient and an out-patient since my diagnosis and I continue to attend Singleton Hospital regularly as a day patient for a new intravenous treatment for my severe Ulcerative Colitis. The side effects mean I am extremely fatigued and suffer flu like symptoms, wiping me out for days. I also suffer from mild Spina Bifida Curviture of the Spin and Folic acid deficiency a B9 Anaemia which also causes me to be extremely tired. (Please see copies of Hospital appointments Exhibit ). 

25. My severe Ulcerative Colitis is exacerbated by stress. I am so stressed and worried about this claim by Excel Parking Ltd that on top of everything else I have felt as if I could not cope. 

26. My severe Ulcerative Colitis, is a protected characteristic and covered under the Disability Act 2010. The Claimant, Excel Parking Ltd has discriminated against me as the claimant has failed to apply any reasonable adjustments for my disabilities. Furthermore Excel Parking Ltd made an offer to me to pay £20.00 in my opinion this was a charge for reasonable adjustments to be made as a result of mitigating circumstances directly resulting from my disability. This is disallowed under the Equality Act 2010. 

27. Despite having knowledge of my disability and the protection afforded me under the Disability Act 2010, the Claimant Excel Parking Ltd has continued to pursue me causing me immense, emotional distress and stress at a very traumatic time in my life. Stress exacerbates my condition. I feel utterly persecuted by the Claimant Excel Parking Ltd.  

28. As this car park is open to the public, the landowner, managing agent, on-site outlets and the private parking company, are all 'service-providers' who have a legal duty to adhere to the 'Equality Act Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' which became law on 6th April 2011. 

29. Under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers as the operator and landowner/occupier client states, 
14.58 Indirect discrimination will be intentional where the defendant (or defender) knew that certain consequences would follow from their actions and they wanted those consequences to follow. A motive, for example, of promoting business efficiency, does not mean that the act of indirect discrimination is unintentional.

30. 5.4 Equality Act 2010 states that indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
5.34 In a case involving disability if the service provider has not complied with its duty to make relevant reasonable adjustments, it will be difficult for the service provider to show that the treatment was proportionate.

31. Unenforceable terms
(1)A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act. 

32. Service Providers, if a party provides facilities (or services) for the public or a section of the public (i.e. users of the office buildings and their visitors) then it will owe duties under the Equality Act 2010. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is a cornerstone of the Act and requires service providers to take positive steps to ensure that disabled people can access facilities and services. The duty is to make reasonable adjustments to avoid disabled people being placed at a "substantial disadvantage", compared to non-disabled people, when accessing the facilities or services. 

33.The duty, in respect of reasonable adjustments, is a continuing and evolving one as better solution may become available in the future. For this reason, it is never possible to say the business has "complied with" the Act. It needs to be an ongoing process of monitoring progress and encouraging continuous improvement. 

34.Under the Equality Act 2010, more specifically Chapter 20.3, service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities. 

35.This includes providing extra time for a disabled person to use the service. Failure to do so not only constitutes discrimination, in accordance with The EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers, more specifically paragraphs 14.58, 5.4 and 5.34 but also renders any contract unenforceable under the prevailing legislation, namely paragraph 142 of the Equality Act 2010. 

36.Paragraph 18.10 of the BPA Code of Practice states ‘18.10 so that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.’
The signage is too small to be read and understood by someone either parked in the bay, or in a wheelchair closer to the sign in question.
Therefore no reasonable adjustment has been made, and the elements of a contract have not been met. 

37. Under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 this is a detriment and puts a disabled person at a disadvantage compared to an able-bodied person. Reasonable adjustments would have been to place signs in larger font at a lower height. These signs are typical of their type in that the T&C’s are in very small font of a less than ideal contrast, either unlit or inadequately lit and mounted at 2 or more metres in height. This was not done, obviously, their signs have no planning permission and are therefore unlawful.

38. In ‘Excel Parking Services v Greenwood, case number 3QT60496 4/10/13’, the judge found in Mr Greenwood's favour on those 2 points; namely, there should have been a reasonable adjustment and the signs could not be seen from the car without requiring the disabled person to park and get out first. 

39. The claimant Excel Parking has acted unreasonably. The Court of Appeal in Dammerman concluded that the meaning of "unreasonable" cannot be different when applied to litigants-in-person in small claims cases. The test is whether the conduct "permits of a reasonable explanation" which cannot be the case here. 

40. Further, in view of the facts of this case, the Claimant’s cavalier attitude and their failure to properly consider their legal position thus far, I truly believe that there is a likelihood that they will now issue a Notice of Discontinuance (“NoD”).

41. Therefore, this means, that I must raise the matter of my costs, as fairly assessed to the best of my ability at this stage (see my Summary Costs Assessment appended to this statement, which does not exceed the CPR ceiling of two thirds of the costs that may have applied if I had had the benefit of legal representation.

42. I respectfully ask that the Judge grants my costs anyway, in the event of a NoD, and uses the court's discretion to dispense with any formal application in this case because I qualify for help with fees (exemption) on income grounds and I have surely been put through more than enough by this litigation, and because the court has a wide discretion on the issue of costs where a party has crossed the line into "unreasonable behaviour" in pre and/or post-action conduct in the small claims track. Excel Parking Ltd has indisputably caused serious distress to me, affecting my peace of mind and upsetting my partner and family for the last year, finally dragging me to court, and (I fear, in some ways more than I dread the hearing) will now issue a NoD at this late stage and expect to walk away.

43. Litigation is not risk-free for a notorious litigating parking firm such as Excel Parking Ltd and their sister company Vehicle Control Services Ltd who rely on issuing Parking Notice Charge for a whopping 92% of their incoming and pursue a person without justification (unlawfully in this case), and this Claimant must take his victim as he finds them. The thin skull or 'egg-shell' rule is a well-established principle in both English law which takes into account the physical, social and economic attributes of the other party, which might make them more susceptible to injury or distress, whether physical or mental injury as a result.

44. The principle requires the Claimant in this case to compensate me to the full extent of my distress and injury to feelings, even though they may be more serious than expected because of my pre-existing conditions, predispositions, and vulnerabilities. In this respect I ask that the Judge gives due consideration to a suitable percentage 'uplift' being applied to my Summary Costs Assessment, as the Judge sees fit, to send a message to this parking firm, in the same way that other Judges have throughout the country, that they cannot breach consumer and disability laws. 

45. Abuse of process.

Two very recent cases were subsequently dismissed without a hearing on the basis of abuse of process. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judegment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. Both Orders were identical in striking out each claim without a hearing:

46. 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 para 98 and 198 ParkingEye v Beavis 'The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme'. The Supreme Court has therefore set a precedent in that the parking charge must be for the full operational costs and also 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.'

In the Beavis case para 98 and 198 'The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme'.  The Supreme Court has therefore set a precedent in that the parking charge must be for the full operational costs.

47. 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.’
48. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, the 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 'debt recovery charges' 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.

49. The final judgement of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is not applicable to this case as the circumstances involved in each case are distinctly different. The Beavis judgement focuses on the doctrine of penalties and found that each case is fact specific and to correctly test for a penalty will depend on the particular facts and circumstances established in each individual case. I refer the court to Paragraph 255 in which Lord Hodge states:
‘I therefore conclude that the correct test for a penalty is whether the sum or remedy stipulated as a consequence of a breach of contract is exorbitant or unconscionable when regard is had to the innocent party’s interest in the performance of the contract. Where the test is to be applied to a clause fixing the level of damages to be paid on breach, an extravagant disproportion between the stipulated sum and the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the breach would amount to a penalty and thus be unenforceable.’

Janetx

50. In the case of Beavis the car park operated a scheme in which consumers could park for free for a period of 2 hours, whereas this case involves a pay and display scheme in which the consumer must pay a fee of £1.50 per hour to park. The Defendant reiterates that a fee of £6 was paid in order to park for a period of 4 hours, evidenced by the valid pay and display ticket the Defendant still possesses and which was presented as evidence to the Claimant as part of the appeal, making the Claimant aware that no monies were owed for the period of parking. The Supreme Court found that ParkingEye had a legitimate interest in charging an £85 fee which was to deter inconsiderate parking practices and to provide an income stream and make a profit. In this case the Claimant cannot claim they were serving a legitimate interest in charging the Defendant £100 as the Defendant paid to park and has proven this. The £100 charge is a clear punishment of a paying consumer who made every reasonable effort to comply with the terms of parking by purchasing and displaying a ticket, therefore the penalty rule remains engaged and the court is urged to find the charge to be extravagant and unconscionable. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours and takes reasonable steps to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach outside of their control Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

51. In Britannia v Crosby Southampton the claimant Excel Parking LTD and the private parking industry continues to demonstrate significant irregularities in their affairs and parking firms invariably trade in a way that fails to show integrity or a social conscience and disregards consumer law and the public interest, and the Court and my MP will be encouraged to report the conduct of this particular Claimant in my case, to the Secretary of State.  

52. IN THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT No. F0DP806M F0DP201T Courts of Justice London Road, Southampton Monday, 11 November 2019 Before: DISTRICT JUDGE GRAND B E T W E E N : BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD Claimant - and - (1) Defendants (2) CHRIS CROSBY  ((Please see Exhibits  the reviews of Excel Parking LTD ). 

53. C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H.  14/11/2016 Port Talbot 
Mr H parked and purchased a valid ticket which he displayed on the dashboard. When he returned to his car, he found a parking charge because at some time the ticket had turned upside down. This was the second hearing. The first was adjourned.
The judge dismissed the claim. He ruled that it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets and that he had already thrown out 6-10 of these types of cases which Link Parking had brought. 

54. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the Isle of White, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out multiple parking ticket claims from various firms all due to the adding of the false £60 costs to £100 parking charge, that already indisputably (in law and case law) includes those costs.

The Judge determined that ''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.'' further, in issuing his Orders striking out several £160 parking claims without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''. 4.(Please see Exhibits )

55. Further In the case of ParkingEye v. Cargius [2014] A0JD1405 (Wrexham County Court) Deputy District Judge C. Mahy also highlights that in cases such as these, claims are fact specific and judgement should be based on the individual circumstances of each case. The judgement distinguished the case from two previous ParkingEye Ltd cases as both cases dealt with free car parks and therefore the charges were found to be commercially justifiable as it was the only source of revenue received by the parking company; whereas in the case of Cargius, and also this case, the parking company charge a significant sum of money to park. Furthermore, the case of Cargius is distinguished from this case in that the Defendant owed £2 due to an overstay, whereas in this case the Defendant has proven that no monies were owed as they had a valid parking ticket for the time in which the alleged parking offence occurred. It was found that as the Claimant had brought the case to the County Court it was for them to prove that the £100 charge was reasonable and commercially justified. The final judgement found the £100 charge to be completely disproportionate to the level of loss, which in this case is nothing.

The Defendant would like to draw to the court’s attention a Bill which was recently enacted on the 15th March 2019. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is an act of legislation to make provision for and in connection with a CoP containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. Private parking companies will soon have to adhere to a new single CoP which will ensure parking is consistent, transparent and easier to understand. The Act also includes the provision of a new independent appeals service giving drivers greater support to challenge unjustified parking tickets. 

Summary

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

The Defendant is of the view that this 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 Protection of Freedom Act and the Consumer Regulations Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused. I invite the court to strike out this claim for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple cases such as Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14 (please see Exhibits ).

Further, at Skipton County court on 27.2.2020 - an area where Judges are also summarily striking out every parking charge case where £60 has been falsely added - Excel Parking Services failed to overturn six strike-out orders, in a mirror image application hearing. They were refused leave to appeal, the application to set aside was dismissed and the Claimant was found to have behaved unreasonably. Costs of £331.10 were awarded to a lead Defendant in claim no F3QZ38JK (one of the six) because the District Judge Fay Wright held that the Dammerman test was met by the conduct of the parking firm.

In the recent case of Dammerman v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EXCA Civ 269 (12 April 2017) the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of "unreasonable behaviour" in relation to costs in the small claims track appeal (please see Exhibits ).

The Defendant avers the £155.00 parking charge for an alleged breach of contract is unjustified and a clear punishment of a paying consumer, therefore the penalty rule remains engaged and any such sum is unrecoverable.

The Claimant has also demonstrated a clear abuse of process in their repeated attempts to claim additional inflated costs which they are not entitled to recover. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

I believe that the Beavis case does not apply to my case as I had purchased a ticket for £5.00 to park for 8 hours of which there were 4 hours remaining on the ticket when I left the car park.

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 fictitious costs which they are not entitled to recover.

My costs - to be Summarily Assessed even in the event of a Discontinuance

I request the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my fully assessed costs - not just for the attendance at the hearing - such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14. As stated above, I ask that my Summary Costs Assessment (attached) be granted and that a discretionary percentage or other sum is added, as the Judge sees fit for compensation for injury to feelings in my case, considering my physical and economic vulnerability as explained above and applying the doctrine that the Claimant takes their victim as they find them, as set out above.

Damages come from ‘injury to feelings’ and are graded by the so-called Vento guidelines. A single action like this is deemed in the lower scale and was assessed at £1000. 

It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. 

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.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature
Date