Help on WS - Horizon Parking - Gladstone solicitors

macka1

Hi, first of all want to say thanks to all the help so far - This is my witness statement that needs to be submitted by the end of the week - is there anything that needs to be added? Exhibits will be sent with the WS and are all pretty self explanatory.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXX

BETWEEN:
Horizon Parking Ltd (Claimant)

 - and-

 XXXXX (Defendant)



WITNESS STATEMENT

1.1 I, MR XXX XXXX of XXXXX Road, Urmston, Manchester, XXXXXX being the Defendant in this case will say as follows:

 

1.2  I am an unrepresented consumer with no experience of Court procedure. Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant’s, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience.

 

1.3 This claim refers to an alleged parking incident in Sumner Way, Urmston – Eden Square Shopping Centre on XXX

 

1.4 Although I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle XXXXX I may or may not have been the driver at the time of the parking incident. Being almost 2 years ago I cannot remember for certain who was driving the car, both myself and my Father were in the car at the time and either of us could have been driving. I refer to “Exhibit A” which shows my Father listed as a named driver on my insurance policy from 2018.

2.1 There is signage for drivers to see upon entry to the car park, however the size of the font found on these signs is way too small to actually read whilst driving in a vehicle and there is no public pathway to actually properly read these signs as shown in “Exhibit B” (this is video footage).

2.2 There’s no distinctive signage for drivers to see upon parking their cars indicating a parking time limit or restriction as “Exhibit C” and “Exhibit D”. Signs are sporadic and too high up to be read easily with extra small font, being at least 6 feet in height.

3. Upon initial receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant via mail, I assumed that the ticket issuer had no legitimacy of issuing parking charge notices. The parking charge notice from the claimant was pictures of the vehicle registered XXXXXX. These pictures are merely images of the vehicle in transit and not evidence of the following; the vehicle parking, that the vehicle was parked, permission to park, or purchase/display of a parking ticket. The parking charge notice was therefore ignored.

4.1 Horizon Parking Limited are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have reason to believe that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they do not have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

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

5.1 The Claimant is attempting to claim £XXX which is a more substantial sum and a highly unreasonable sum compared to the initial £80 demanded and in regard to CPR 44.3 (2) I invite the court to make their own decision on the basis of the amount the claimant is attempting to claim.

5.2 I invite the Court to refer to “Exhibit E”, a hearing transcript of Britannia Parking v Crosby & Anor, detailing Southampton County Court Hearing Centre striking out parking charge cases that include added £60 (or more), described as 'debt collection' or 'contractual' or admin, business or indemnity costs.

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

 

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

 --------------------------------

 I feel for the most part i've covered but would appreciate massively if you have any more ideas to add. My next post will be my final defence that I sent a few months to have a look over anything I should add - thanks

macka1

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:
Horizon Parking Ltd (Claimant)

 - and-

 XXXXXXX (Defendant)



DEFENCE

1.1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the keepers's alleged breach of contract; which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below.



1.2. The allegation appears to be that the vehicle in question was ‘parking without a valid paid parking ticket', and this assumption is based upon still images produced by their ANPR cameras. 

1.3. These pictures are merely images of the vehicle in transit and not evidence of: the vehicle parking, that the vehicle was parked, permission to park, or purchase/display of a parking ticket. The images of the vehicle in transit is not evidence of the registered keeper parking without a valid paid parking ticket'; nor would they be evidence of parking without permission.

 

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. 

 

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

 

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom. 

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

 

 

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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. 

11. 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. 

12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) 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.

13. 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 Judge 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...''.

beamerguy

The "amazing" Gladstones pushing their scam again.. Have you read what happened today ...

GLADSTONES SPANKED AGAIN, THIS TIME BY THE WORTHING COURT ?
Gladstones did not bother to turn up again (such a rude bad habit). 
proudsonofduck was awarded £293.02 with the judge quoting Judge Grand's reasons being ABUSE OF PROCESS and adding ....
"Deliberate attempt to mislead the court"
"In contempt of court"
"Cut and paste witness statement with no attempt to address the defence"

READ ABOUT THIS HERE
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6113071/win-vs-uk-cpm-gladstones-today#latest