Private parking ticket gone to court - Help Needed!

hilly2020

Coupon-mad said:

OK. What exactly did your defence say?  Word for word please. 

We need to see what we can build on for your WS.

And do you have to do something yet?  Did the Judge require that you now file & serve a better defence before anything else happens?

Or are you awaiting a court date and must then do the usual WS & evidence that it seems you didn't do at all?

I am waiting on a court date to submit my new WS & evidence.

Yes! The judge told me to go away, speak to citizen advice and come back to court with a better defence.

This is a copy of my defence,.........  

It's obviously awful but its for a completely different ticket.

Would you like to see their WS?

Coupon-mad

Yes please, show us their WS and evidence including photos and the 'landowner authority' document.

D_P_Dance

IMO the sign is unfit for purpose,  too wordy and the typeface too small.  read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

some judges may feel that it is unfit for purpose.  

Please, I know the OP was not ticketed by PE.

hilly2020

Coupon-mad said:

Yes please, show us their WS and evidence including photos and the 'landowner authority' document.

I have attached the majority of their WS, I have numbered it from 1-13 as it didn't upload in sequence.
The rest of the WS is just photos of my car parked up. I can attach them if needed?!

Coupon-mad

If you get District Judge Jenkins you will be better off than some Judges at Brentford. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/tim-jenkins

Was it him who handed you this lifeline?

You will need to look up the landowner for that parcel of land using Land Registry and buy a copy of the title documents (costs about £3.50) to expose that Artisitic Spaces Ltd may well not be listed as leaseholder or freeholder.

You will need a witness statement like those you see in other threads, look at those by @Bexon and @Chefdave and @keypulse, to see what you should have done, and play catch-up now that the court has given you that lifeline.

Do any of the photos show the sign on the day such that it can be read?  None of the pics you've shown us so far, show the sign in situ (and readable/close up) that day.

Were the PCN photos for this event only taken for about two minutes flat?  Predatory ticketing, no grace period?

Did you have legit business there?  Are there any permits, or how do people get authorisation, does everyone have to pay & display or what?  Why didn't you?  Were you only loading or unloading, not parking for a period of time?

These (above) are the things you need to say in your WS, plus include a section pulling theirs apart, like this below:

The Claimant’s witness statement and evidence

The entire statement should be given the lack of weight any hearsay statement deserves.  Several errors and omissions are noted in this witness statement, which is a template seen multiple times - with a few tweaks each time to make it look bespoke for a case - and has been prepared not by the Claimant but as an obvious Gladstones document, appending Gladstones ‘GS’ exhibits.  The Defendant should have the opportunity to question the supposed signatory about this template and the oddly cropped piece of paper they say gives PCM authority to operate.  

Using PCM's numbering:

re 6.  It is odd that the witness doesn’t know the name of the Trade Body.  IPC is the International Parking Community, not the ‘Independent Parking Company’ (which has never existed).  In 2015, BBC’s Watchdog sent secret cameras into Parking Control Management’s offices to expose their dodgy practices. Their staff were heard to say 'we make up stuff all the time'.  http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html 

This is worth noting, due to the irregularities in the witness statement and the suspiciously odd exhibits, as well as the signature of Annie Clark being used when she changed her name the year before and is not ‘Annie Clark’ at all.  In Claim Nos. F1GF5E2P, F4GF8N61, F1GF9E6W – PCM (UK) -v- Miss S, before Deputy District Judge Chohan on February 7th 2020 at High Wycombe County Court, it was submitted that Ms Clark, if she even exists, had never seen or signed the witness statements (duplicates almost to the letter, of the one in this case) and they had clearly been cobbled together by an anonymous ‘statement writer’ working for Gladstones as a freelancer and were false instruments.  The Judge ordered that PCM were required to file and serve a copy of Ms Clark's passport, driving licence, and copy of her contract of employment with PCM (UK) to prove this hearsay witness exists.  When these documents arrived it included a Deed showing that on 28 August 2019 she gave up the name Annie Clark, and adopted Annie Oliver as her legal name 'for all purposes'.  

The reason this is relevant to draw to the court's attention now it that it strongly suggests that one of Gladstones' freelancers produced this witness statement for the instant case and photocopied one of Ms Oliver nee Clark’s old signatures on to it, or that Gladstones are re-using a template that already has this electronic signature embedded in it, and they are just changing the date under the signature each time.  Gladstones are currently being investigated by the SRA for this and other similar conduct involving various parking firms' signatures on witness statements that cannot possibly have been seen/signed by the 'witness', including one where the surname of the witness was misspelt.

re 10.  Alder v Moore was about a footballer and the case has nothing to do with parking and predatory ticketing such as this.  It is trotted out by Gladstones every time and the Defendant would have wanted to question Annie ‘Clark’ (Oliver) about the relevance, if any, of the cases she has mentioned.  The case of Alder v Moore is not case law and is not even appended as evidence - research shows that it never is, by Gladstones.  Much of this witness statement is cut & paste filler from Gladstones, seemingly designed to confuse and intimidate defendants with a weighty set of irrelevant paperwork, rather than as a useful statement from a true witness, to assist the court.

re 15.  Signage is not 'prominent' throughout the parking area and there is nothing about any grace period rules to allow loading/unloading, as would be needed at any commercial unit to allow it to function.   PCM-UK are characterised by their habit of placing their signs very high up.  As they have very small writing it is a common complaint that they are unreadable.  Despite her assurance at the start of her witness statement, these are not facts within Annie ‘Clark’ (Oliver)'s knowledge.  It is unlikely that this young clerical staff member has visited any/all of PCM’s locations.  She is office-based in Slough and there is nothing to explain on what basis she presumes that the signs are ‘prominent’ at a location in NW10.  Yet by not attending the hearing, this purported 'witness' cannot be questioned about whether her words about the signs are a guess, or (more likely) a mere regurgitation of a Gladstones template, or (unlikely) actual knowledge of the site.  Signage at every location is not audited by the IPC.  Only a selection of sites are spot checked.  The so-called plan with ‘x’ markings  is a mock-up of an image from Google Earth with some crosses dotted about.  There is nothing to say who created this Battleships-style ‘plan’ or when it was created, who checked it against the actual site and how often it was reviewed, and what it is supposed to mean.  This ‘plan’ has no probative value and nor do the 'stock' images of some typical PCM signs, which in reality are very pale green on white and completely illegible for a driver, even if standing underneath and looking up at them.

re 19.  Whilst it seems the appeal referred to in the defence was about another parking charge from another loading event, it is odd that the Claimant has referred to that appeal and not pointed out the Defendant’s error and saved the court time.  If the Claimant had pointed out that the Defendant had misunderstood the event referred to in the sparse particulars, and had the Claimant served a copy of a thorough and properly checked witness statement that actually referred to the event that is the subject of this claim, then the Defendant would have been able to respond with a measured witness statement, making informed decisions and being better prepared for the June 2020 adjourned hearing.  As it was, the Defendant was left on the back foot with no information until now, and is grateful to the court for recognising the Claimant’s failure to serve their statement and evidence.

re 20.  Any breach of contract is denied, but the allegation of breach does not grant a parking operator ‘damages as of right’.  In fact the opposite is true and no additional sum can be claimed over and above a parking charge.  It was made clear in ParkingEye v Beavis that a parking firm not in possession could not have pleaded their case in damages: [97]

‘‘ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass.  This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.’’ 

Further, paras 98, 193 and 198 in Parking Eye v Beavis, confirm that a parking charge pleaded on a ‘legitimate interest’ and contractual sum basis, must already include all pre-court costs of the operation.  To add more on top is double recovery and an abuse of process, as has been confirmed in almost every parking claim heard since 2019, including when District Judge Grand refused an application from another robo-claim solicitor, BW Legal, at the Southampton court in Britannia Parking v Crosby & anor, on 11.11.19 (appended to the Supplementary witness statement about the matter of this abuse of process).  This has been tested twice more with application hearings in Caernarfon (where the claim continued but the £60 remained disallowed and VCS were warned by the court not to repeat it) and at Skipton (a repeat of the Southampton judgment in February 2020 - transcript not yet available but DJ Faye Wright agreed with DJ Grand's rationale).  Parking firms have never won this argument when tested at application hearings and many courts are now striking these exaggerated claims out, including at the Isle of Wight, Warwick and Luton courts, to name three.

re 21.  That the Claimant’s Trade Body purportedly ‘allows’ a sum to be added says more about the self-serving parking trade bodies and their woeful lack of a social conscience, than it does abut the legality of a trader charging an inflated amount and trying to claim the same costs twice.

re 23.  Clearly adding sums to a parking charge when that sum is false and not even quantified on the signs, breaches the Consumer Rights Act, Schedule 2 (CRA) ‘terms that are likely to be unfair’ and this is covered also by DJ Grand in his approved judgment.   The court will be aware that s71 of the CRA requires a court to consider the fairness of all consumer contracts and signs/consumer notices, whether a defendant raises the Act or not.

re 24. This paragraph is more of the same Gladstones’ template and very clearly an untrue statement regarding the ‘business’ of a private parking firm.  Their very raison d’etre is all about sending a series of aggressive and intimidating debt demands to try to make a consumer come to heel and pay a ludicrous sum of money for what is very often (as in this case) a frivolous and predatory parking charge notice.  There are quite simply no other elements of a parking company’s business; they charge landowners nothing, and only make money by penalising people.  They live and breathe penalties (but of course they will say these are ‘agreed’ contracts).  It is disingenuous to suggest that issuing letters in terrorem of consumers is somehow not ‘business as usual’ for this industry.  It is denied that there is any debt or contract in this case, given the predatory nature of the images taken and the woefully inadequate signage – a feature of PCM’s ‘rogue ticketing’ business model since they were prevented from clamping cars in 2012 and had to reinvent their oppressive conduct.

The Claimant’s exhibits

The so-called landowner authority is a curious single page.   It is not on headed notepaper.  The date is in a different hand and in a noticeably darker black ink than the other scrawled writing, almost as if it’s been added later.  There are no schedules or definitions about the service offered by PCM, and/or any hours of operation, the regulations, the permit arrangements (if any) the exemptions, the obligations of the two contracting parties – nothing.  This is not a contract, it’s suspiciously small piece of plain paper that has been mysteriously cropped from the usual A4 size.  It would be reasonable to expect the witness to be able to explain these irregularities and provide the full document to the court in evidence.  There is a cross next to ‘freeholder’ and this seems to have been altered and a tick placed next to ‘leaseholder’ and yet the Land Registry records for this parcel of land show that the landowner is in fact xxxxxxxxxx and no leasehold interest is mentioned on the title records.  Who are ‘Artistic Spaces Ltd’ and what is their connection to the land?  Companies House shows that the only two officers of ‘Artistic Spaces Limited’ Company number 07150124 are George Garnier and Joseph Lowe, and yet (contrary to the Companies Act) this purported ‘agreement’ has not been signed by those two Directors, nor by PCM at all.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07150124/officers 

hilly2020

Really appreciate your help Coupon-mad 

I have paid for the land registry and attached it but it seems like the land is owned by Artistic spaces, I have also had my court date through which is 26th of August and it has been assigned to a new judge, doesn't tell me who?

I am going to do my best in writing up my witness statement based on all of your advice and I will post it again in here, in the next couple of days.

Coupon-mad

OK, just remove this bit, then:

and yet the Land Registry records for this parcel of land show that the landowner is in fact xxxxxxxxxx and no leasehold interest is mentioned on the title records.  Who are ‘Artistic Spaces Ltd’ and what is their connection to the land? 

Add £3.50 LR fee to your costs assessment and attach proof of paying that (NOT the LR record!).

Redx

if you have had the new order listing the 26th august, does it tell you to do anything ?

like file a WS etc by a certain date ? or 14 days before

does it tell you to agree a set of documents with the claimant ?

does it say if its a telephone or video hearing , or face to face in person hearing

you need to let people here know the details, nit just a skim taste and a hint of flavour, but the full red hot chilli pepper

Castle

hilly2020 said:

Really appreciate your help Coupon-mad 

I have paid for the land registry and attached it but it seems like the land is owned by Artistic spaces, I have also had my court date through which is 26th of August and it has been assigned to a new judge, doesn't tell me who?

I am going to do my best in writing up my witness statement based on all of your advice and I will post it again in here, in the next couple of days.

At "B: Proprietorship Register" of the Land Registry record it states that Artistic Spaces Ltd registered the freehold on 31st January 2020, more than a full year after your PCN; so they weren't the landowner in December 2018.

Also in the so called "contract", I see that the IPC is still referred to as the "Independent Parking Committee" more than 2 years after it changed its name.

Fruitcake

Further to C-m's observations regarding the scammer's WS and exhibits: -

In para 8 they say no payment was registered. This is not the same as, no payment was made. It is quite possible that a payment was made but the scammer's system failed to register it, and you should put the scammers to proof that this was not the case.

In para 11 they say this was in principle the same as the Beavis case, but that was for an overstay in a free car park, not an alleged failure to pay in a permit/P & D car park. Therefore it can be distinguished from Beavis for that reason.

As for the alleged contract, it is nothing of the sort. It is a wish to have a contract, not the contract itself. There is no proof a contract was ever agreed or implemented.

The X next to the word Freeholder is printed but then crossed through by hand without being initialled and dated. The word Leaseholder has a tick against it, done by hand but not initialled or dated. 

The alleged contract has only been signed by one party, but the signature is illegible so may but just as likely may not have been signed by David Fox.

The alleged contract has not been signed by anyone from the claimant so there is no proof they even knew about the contract, let alone agreed to it in writing. There is no agreement at all with the claimant's signatures on it.

The alleged contract fails the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 that requires two signatures from each party in order for a contract to be executed (valid).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

"44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company."

The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because it has not been signed by two authorised people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

As such the contract is not valid in accordance with the above Act of Parliament, and thus the PCNs are also invalid since there was no vailid contract to act on the land in question.

As mentioned by C-m, the date looks dodgy. The word April is a capital followed by lower case letters, where all the preceding words, except the illegible signature, are in capital letters. The A of April bears no resemblance to the A in DAVID so it can reasonably be assumed they were not written by the same person at the same time.

David Fox is not nor never was a director nor company secretary of Artistic Spaces and therefore not authorised to sign contracts on behalf of his employer.

Quote this case where the judge said the signatory could not sign a contract as she was not a director of the landowner. His exact words were that "... Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

Claim number F1DP92KF, District Judge Middleton Truro County Court, 3/7/20