Parking ticket expired, now i have Court Claim Form.

JimsDay

Yeah I'm acting on behalf as its my partners vehicle but she has been pre occupied with a difficult pregnancy with numerous admissions to the hospital. on the day of this contravention she was at work between 9am and 5pm.

Le_Kirk

If she is the registered keeper, she has to be the one to defend it, write and submit the witness statement and attend the court hearing (whether F2F or video/telephone). You can, of course help but it has to be in her name.  Does she have evidence that she was at work some miles away that day?  Presumably you/she knows who was driving that day and, without throwing them under a tram have you got their story about the parking incident.  I am assuming the car was not stolen.

JimsDay

we can get evidence that she was at work all day. and would have only had 30minutes break off which its not possible to be in a car park for 1 and a half hours in the middle of the day. we know who was driving the vehicle. and there story is they got caught up in a meeting that lasted too long. however the ANPR photos show the vehicle entering the car park at 14:28:48 and the metric data shows payment made for the vehicle at 14:30. 2mins to park and pay? 

KeithP

JimsDay said:

Yeah I'm acting on behalf...

That is not acceptable.

If your partner is the named Defendant, then her Witness Statement has to come from her.
Of course you can do the mechanical bit of getting the words written down, but she must sign it.
"on behalf of..." has no place there.

Also remember, it is the named Defendant that has to attend any hearing.
Again, you can help on the day. Look up Lay Representative.

JimsDay

In the County Court at Leicester

Claim Number: xxxxxx

One Parking Solution Ltd (Claimant) 

V 

xxxxxx (Defendant) 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT 

FOR TELEPHONE HEARING ONxxxxxx

 

1. I am 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. 

 

3. I, xxxxx acting as the Defendant in this matter will say that the facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge

 

4. On the xxxxxx (the time of the alleged contravention), I was at work at the xxxx, and deny any knowledge of who was driving the vehicle with the registration number xxxx on this date. 

 

5. There are many family members who had access to the vehicle as spare keys are left in my home address at any given time.

 

6. The Claimant stated that there was a purchase of a parking ticket at their car park sited at G S Car Park, Leicester, LE1 3DL (“the Site”) for my vehicle.

 

7. I submitted a SAR to the Claimant on the 18/02/2020 requesting:

- All photos taken
- All letters sent 
- PDT machine record from the day of 29/05/2019, of payments made.
- All data held, and a full copy of the PCN, NTK if it was produced.
- And a list of all PCNs considered outstanding against the defendant, or this VRN.

 

8. The Claimant responded with images of the vehicle entering and leaving the site, along with all letters they allegedly sent to keeper, however they failed to provide evidence of an expired parking ticket which the claimant is pursuing payment for.

 

9.Anne Bevis’s witness statement for the Claimant states that “The driver purchased a ticket for a period of 1 hour from 14:30 – 15:30 as shown by the extract of the metric data of the Site on the date of the contravention (AB1 pages 13-14)”. This so called metric data extract is a Word document list, which can be edited by anyone, signed by no-one, with nothing to show that sections haven’t been deleted or altered in anyway. There is nothing to show that this is the true and complete record from that site or from ALL machines at that site.

 

Signage 

 

10. At the point of entry, the entrance terms and conditions sign states “Warning contravening parking conditions will result in an issue of a parking charge notice of £” the rest of the sum is un readable as it has been covered with something. (exhibit xx-01). 

 

11. There is no other clear sign at the point of entry that states the amount of money a parking charge notice will be for if a contravention is committed. (exhibit xx-02)

 

12. However, I received a PCN and now am asked to pay an charge of £182. This is because my vehicle supposedly overstayed a PAID parking ticket.

 

13. 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-03 for comparison. In this case, the signage 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”. It 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. 

 

The Beavis case is against this claim 

14. This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, where the Supreme Court found that whilst the £85 was not (and was not pleaded as) a sum in the nature of damages or loss, ParkingEye had a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing the charge where motorists overstay, in order to deter motorists from occupying spaces beyond the time paid for and thus ensure further income for the landowner, by allowing other motorists to occupy the space. The Court concluded that the £85.00 charge was not out of proportion to the legitimate interest (in that case, based upon the facts and clear signs) and therefore the clause was not a penalty clause. 

 

15. However, there is no such legitimate interest where the requisite fee has been paid in full for the time stayed. As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. This is just the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court had in mind when deciding what constitutes a (rare and unique case) 'justified' parking charge as opposed to an unconscionable one. 

 

Abuse of process - the quantum 

16. The Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as 'damages/admin' or 'debt collection costs'. The added £82 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process - see exhibit xx-04 - transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). That case was not appealed and the decision stands. 

 

17. 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-Jullienfacts 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. 

 

18. 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.'' 

 

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

 

20. This Claimant knew or should have known, that by adding £82 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 (exhibit - xx-05), 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. 

 

CPR 44.11 - further costs 

21. I am appending with this bundle, a fully detailed costs assessment which also covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in relation to misconduct (CPR 44.11). In support of that argument, I remind the court that I appealed and engaged with the Claimant at every step and they knew all along that the tariff has been paid. Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery. This is compounded by the witness altering the Statement of Truth (an attempt to avoid a personal duty) and attaching stock images of signs instead of actual images and a redacted 'landowner authority' document that could be from anyone. 

 

My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14 

22. 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. 

 

23. 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 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. 

KeithP

Para 3 - remove the words "acting as".

Coupon-mad

This isn't true. Never 'deny' if that's a lie!

and deny any knowledge of who was driving the vehicle with the registration number xxxx on this date. 

You've copied this (below) but not mentioned any redacted landowner contract higher up and I've never seen an OPS witness statement (and I've seen HUNDREDS!) where they alter the Statement of Truth:

21. I am appending with this bundle, a fully detailed costs assessment which also covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in relation to misconduct (CPR 44.11). In support of that argument, I remind the court that I appealed and engaged with the Claimant at every step and they knew all along that the tariff has been paid. Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery. This is compounded by the witness altering the Statement of Truth (an attempt to avoid a personal duty) and attaching stock images of signs instead of actual images and a redacted 'landowner authority' document that could be from anyone. 

You need a section about no landowner authority as well.  

I wonder if @Parking Mad can sweep by this thread and send you a copy of this landowner contract by pm, with some tips.  I'll ask her as she has a collection of OPS landowner contracts, including this one.  I seem to recall there are issues with it!

Have you both found time to do the GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS about the parking industry, yet?

Coupon-mad

 

PLEASE CHANNEL YOUR ANGER ABOUT THIS PATHETIC CHARGE TO CHANGE THE WAY THE PARKING INDUSTRY WORK:

CALLING ALL NEWBIES! 

 

An urgent task – deadline approaching in a week or so:

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have yet, and time is running out. 

The Government is consulting for just a few more days, about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework intended to rein in the rogue parking firms. 

Does it go far enough?  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation (two separate consultation documents).

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

BSI PAS 232 – COMMENTING ON THE CODE OF PRACTICE AS DRAFTED:

1.    You will need to register then log in, to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker.  

 

2.    Register, log into the BSI page, and download & read the cover letter here:

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

 

3.    Read the cover letter again and note the suggested extra questions... if you agree that, say, the 'loading/unloading and dropping off, asking for directions, and disabled people parking on double yellows as they can on street' activities listed should be exempt (not parking events, what do you think?) then please go to the Annexes at the end of the PAS Code and find the one about Exempt Vehicles and state what other activity you think should be added to the exempt list. 

 

4.    Download the PAS itself and start commenting on what you wish to say something about.  Quick links to each section appear on the left of your page. 

 

You don’t have to comment on everything, e.g. you might want to skip the definitions and focus on later sections, and certainly look at the Annex tables at the end that show things like consideration & grace periods and exemptions.

 

5.    Submit comments when you are happy with them. Don’t just ‘SAVE’ and forget!

 

THAT IS HALF THE JOB DONE!

THE MHCLG CONSULTATION IS EASIER AS IT IS JUST A LIST OF QUESTIONS. 

 

6.    You can do it first if preferred or pushed for time:

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=EGg0v32c3kOociSi7zmVqAVPfAOtwRxLhHRwQ610oElUMzhQSVo0WUQ4SERVSEZaUU9DTUhFQ1VMUy4u

If your answers exceed 4000 characters (approx. 500 words to a single question or 16000 words (approx. 2500 words) for all the questions below, you can email your answers to parking@communities.gov.uk as long as you state who you are.

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU WILL SEE, FOR RESPONSES TO THE FRAMEWORK:

Q1 Do you agree or disagree that members of APAs should be required to use a single appeals service appointed by the Secretary of State?

Strongly agree/Somewhat agree/Neither agree nor disagree/Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree

 

Q1.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q2 Please provide any other feedback on the determination of appeals, including the funding model and features that an appeal service should offer e.g. telephone or in-person hearings, the ability to submit evidence online

(free text)

 

Q3 Please provide any comments you have on the proposal to enforce the Code by combining the ATA’s existing audit procedures with additional safeguards.

(free text)

 

Q4 Please outline any alternative means by which the Code could be monitored and enforced. You may wish to cite evidence from other regulatory frameworks which are relevant.

(free text)

 

Q5 Please provide any feedback you have on the proposed governance arrangements for monitoring the new Code of Practice

(free text)

 

Q6 Which parking charge system is most appropriate for private parking?

 a) the Three-tiered system

 b) Mirroring the Local Authority system

(free text)

 

 Q6.1 Please explain your answer. You may, for example, wish to make reference to other deterrent frameworks (for example, for railway tickets or traffic violations)

(free text)

 

 

Q7 What level of discount is appropriate:

40% as is currently offered in private parking and suggested in the three-tiered system, or

50% as is offered in Local Authority parking?

a) 40%

b) 50%

 

Q7.1 Please explain your answer, including whether the discount should be set at a different level

(free text)

 

 

 Q8 How should the level of parking charges be set and how should the levels be revised in future?

(free text)

 

 

Q9 Do you agree or disagree in principle with the idea of the Appeals Charter?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q9.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q10 Do you agree or not that the examples given in the Appeals Charter are fair and appropriate? Agree/Disagree

 

Q10.1 Please explain your answer.

You may wish, for example, to suggest additional cases to be covered in an Appeals Charter or query existing examples.

(free text)

 

Q11 Do you agree or disagree that the parking industry should contribute towards the cost of the regulation?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q11.1 Please explain your answer.

(free text)

 

YOU CAN INSTEAD GIVE MORE CONCISE ANSWERS ONLINE, USING THE MHCLG PAGE LINK.

Don’t forget that answering these questions is the easier bit…

Looking at the BSI PAS (the draft code of practice itself) involves logging in and submitting comments again, and again and again and takes more time!

There is a discussion about PAS submissions and what the pages look like, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6195417/am-i-doing-something-wrong/p1

 

1505grandad

Para 9  -  "metric data"  should be "meta data".

Paras 16 & 20   -  just checking  -  should "added £82" be perhaps either £60 or £70?

JimsDay

You need a section about no landowner authority as well.  

thank you, but what should i include on this, something about it being redacted? it could be signed by anyone ?