TWO Multiple PCN Court Hearings - Gladstones - Horizon

TolsBols

I have posted this on Pepipoo as well, but thought I'd try here too for a second opinion as I haven't had a response yet. Basically, I have received multiple PCNs for overstays at a supermarket and now have two Claims, each containing 3 PCNs. It has progressed to two separate Court Hearings, both taking place within a week of each other. I am currently preparing a Witness Statement for both claims, and I've received a WS for each claim from Gladstones.

Gladstones did e-mail me at the start of June, offering to drop the charge for one of the Claims from £575 down to £420, but I didn't respond.

The Claimant's WS is from William Dickson, who runs Horizon. I've copied and pasted below, but basically he says things like my Defence is a generic template found online and that I don't understand the underlying complexities. He also says the case is distinguishable from Beavis and Vine v Waltham (both alluded to in my Defence), and he references VCS vs Idle and VCS vs Ward.

I'd be really grateful for some feedback on my Witness Statement. The reality of going to court has hit home and though I’m heartened by reading some success stories on here, Gladstones seem confident they can win this one so I'm very nervous.

I know I need to include the Beavis sign and I'll check out the Newbies sticky. I also know I need to include case transcripts, but which case applies to mine?

For info, I have pasted the Claimant's WS below, followed by my original Defence and also a first stab at a WS for the first hearing.

Many thanks to anyone who can help.

CLAIMANT WITNESS STATEMENT (sorry, different URLs for each page)

hxxps://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/2295/PLORjY.jpg

hxxps://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/6646/sv3fpx.jpg

hxxps://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/6566/izJKjL.jpg

hxxps://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/712/73LRb8.jpg

hxxps://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/8262/UwgOxT.jpg

MY DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the Vehicle, registration ???, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, appears to be parked on the material date in a marked bay in a car park managed by the Claimant. The car park in the claim is a free supermarket car park, but there the possible similarity with ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') ends. There was inadequate notice of any parking charge or restrictive terms, as any signs were positioned at an inconspicuous height and any 'parking terms' were buried in small print and not seen.

2.1. On the pertinent facts - including but not limited to the inadequate signage at this location - the Beavis case is distinguished and the binding case which in fact applies and has similarities with these facts is the Court of appeal case of Vine v Waltham Forest, where the signage was inadequate (applying the well known 'red hand rule') and Miss Vine did not see them and could not be bound by them.

2.1.1. Roch LJ held at para. 19 of the judgment:
''Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning. In this case the recorder might have reached such a conclusion about the plaintiff's state of knowledge, but he did not do so. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff did not see the sign. That finding is not surprising in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space and the plaintiff's distressed state, the reason why the plaintiff parked and left her car hurriedly. It was the plaintiff's evidence that she did not see the sign. There was never any suggestion that the plaintiff was other than a truthful witness.''

2.1.2. At paragraph 20 he went on to add: ''The Recorder held, correctly, that the plaintiff by parking her car where she did was trespassing. Unhappily, the recorder jumped to the conclusion that the plaintiff had consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her car being clamped. In making that leap the recorder fell into error, in my judgment. Consequently I am of the view that the recorder's decision on the basic issue in this case must be reversed.''

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed at a height and 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.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

8. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- 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.

9. 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.
10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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). The claim includes an additional £70 per PCN, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery and an abuse of process.

14. 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...''

15. 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 misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

16. 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.

17. 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 fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

DRAFT WITNESS STATEMENT (which case transcripts do I attach?)

1. I am Joe Bloggs, of 10 Downing Street, London; the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:
2. I am a patron of the ??? store, where I regularly purchase items ranging from lunch edibles to larger grocery shops. I am a ??? at the nearby office who usually works from home most days. Occasionally, I am required to attend site and I usually combine this visit with shopping duties at ???. The dates specified in the Claim are those where I made such journeys.
3. On the dates and at the times specified in the Claim, I arrived at ??? in the morning. My vehicle at the time; registration no. ??? was subsequently parked in the car park (i.e. the Relevant Land) for a period of time. During this period, I would have shopped at the supermarket, carried out work-related tasks whilst having a snack or coffee in the café, and I would have also refuelled my vehicle at the adjoining petrol station. Upon departing the Relevant Land, I would make the short journey to the works car park to attend site in the afternoon.
4. As a paying Customer of ???, I was surprised to receive the PCNs. I did not respond to the PCNs, in part owing to work-related pressures combined with the demands of caring for newborn twin girls at home. However, I also believe the charges were spurious in nature for reasons outlined in my Defence, and thus I was not inclined to immediately respond. Furthermore, as a patron of the store, I believe the Claimant was attempting to exploit the well-meaning intentions of Customers for its own monetary gain.
5. Wherever a vehicle is parked on the Relevant Land, it is unlikely for one's attention to be drawn to the notices unless one is actively looking upwards, for which there is no reason to do so.
6. Furthermore, the notices placed on the Relevant Land are at least 10 feet high and it would be impossible for the naked eye to read the small print outlining the terms and conditions. As can been seen from the Claimant's exhibit photos, the Vehicle is parked in locations distanced from the signs such that the Driver would have had no reason to look up and read.
7. In addition, the sign on the approach road is placed next to a mini-roundabout. At this point, my attention would be drawn to observing other vehicles exiting the petrol station to the left, and any people attempting to cross the zebra crossing.
8. 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.

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.

Redx

if the 2 claims are both for the same company at the same location, then you should be asking the judge to consolidate them into one claim with one hearing, you should have done so right from the start and should keep on doing so, under their case management powers

Horizon and Gladstones should have done one claim for all, not two claims

as for their blurb, you are not expoected to be ROBERT RINDER or a lawyer, you are an unrepresented litigant in person , so a judge decides on the legal facts of your defence and WS + Exhibits, that is the whole point of the small claims court, its supposed to be for the layman or woman , a standard response by all these companies and claimants in these cases

and Gladrags are always confident, so confident that they never turn up

TolsBols

Redx said:

if the 2 claims are both for the same company at the same location, then you should be asking the judge to consolidate them into one claim with one hearing...

They are both Horizon, but at two different locations (albeit within a hundred yards of each other), and one location involves ANPR. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I would much rather this is all done in one hearing, but because the two locations are different I suppose its unavoidable.

Umkomaas

I have posted this on Pepipoo as well, but thought I'd try here too for a second opinion as I haven't had a response yet. 

Is this the thread started in February of this year, with the latest post this afternoon at 16:29 asking for a critique of a multi-thousand word court submission?  How soon were you expecting a tiny clutch of volunteers to respond?  And there are only a similar small number based here on MSE.  Both forums are set up to provide advice on dealing with private parking tickets at first base; neither is a legal forum. Just some information so you can manage any expectation. 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=133183

Do a forum search on 'Cause of Action Estoppel' and read other threads where multiple claims are in play. 

How did so many parking charges rack up?  Fly parking?

Redx

TolsBols said:

Redx said:

if the 2 claims are both for the same company at the same location, then you should be asking the judge to consolidate them into one claim with one hearing...

They are both Horizon, but at two different locations (albeit within a hundred yards of each other), and one location involves ANPR. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I would much rather this is all done in one hearing, but because the two locations are different I suppose its unavoidable.

I suspect you are correct now that you have clarified its 2 different adjacent locations , so 2 different contracts

TolsBols

Umkomaas said:

I have posted this on Pepipoo as well, but thought I'd try here too for a second opinion as I haven't had a response yet. 

Is this the thread started in February of this year, with the latest post this afternoon at 16:29 asking for a critique of a multi-thousand word court submission?  How soon were you expecting a tiny clutch of volunteers to respond?  And there are only a similar small number based here on MSE.  Both forums are set up to provide advice on dealing with private parking tickets at first base; neither is a legal forum. Just some information so you can manage any expectation. 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=133183

Do a forum search on 'Cause of Action Estoppel' and read other threads where multiple claims are in play. 

How did so many parking charges rack up?  Fly parking?

Yes, that was mine. Sorry, I'm just a bit overawed with it and desperate for a bit of guidance. I understand this service relies on the goodwill of volunteers and if time allowing someone can advise tomorrow, then I'm grateful.

With regards to the parking charges... yes, I used the supermarket car parks to park due to the limited spaces at work. I gambled on the PCNs disappearing into thin air and never reaching Court, and hear I am now preparing to face a judge and a qualified lawyer! I did use the supermarkets for shopping, but needless to say I am never risking overstays ever again.

Being honest, do I have a leg to stand on in Court over this??

Redx

not based on the above , no

if your argument is that you used their free for customers car parks so that you could work elsewhere and not be inconvenienced in paying out money for parking or walking further or getting the bus then no , no legs to stand on whatsoever

a judge is going to want to see legal arguments as to why you as keeper or as driver or as both had the right to park there , like landowner permission etc , so 6 overstays on 2 free car parks at 3 on each beggars belief

dont get me wrong , I hope you find the legal loophole like Beckham did when MR LOOPHOLE got him off a speeding charge in his Bentley , due to paperwork arriving a day late, but Beckham paid NICK FREEMAN thousands of pounds in order to keep his licence

on a side note, if you expect a legal eagle to read all the Horizon guff and your own and give you a legal opinion , you probably wont get it here or on pepipoo, but by paying a solicitor hundreds of pounds to take on your case, spend hours pouring over it and doing a MR LOOPHOLE with it

or not

good luck

TolsBols

Redx said:

not based on the above , no

if your argument is that you used their free for customers car parks so that you could work elsewhere and not be inconvenienced in paying out money for parking or walking further or getting the bus then no , no legs to stand on whatsoever

a judge is going to want to see legal arguments as to why you as keeper or as driver or as both had the right to park there , like landowner permission etc , so 6 overstays on 2 free car parks at 3 on each beggars belief

dont get me wrong , I hope you find the legal loophole like Beckham did when MR LOOPHOLE got him off a speeding charge in his Bentley , due to paperwork arriving a day late, but Beckham paid NICK FREEMAN thousands of pounds in order to keep his licence

on a side note, if you expect a legal eagle to read all the Horizon guff and your own and give you a legal opinion , you probably wont get it here or on pepipoo, but by paying a solicitor hundreds of pounds to take on your case, spend hours pouring over it and doing a MR LOOPHOLE with it

or not

good luck

Thanks for being straight. I feel even more worried now, and I hope Redx's prediction comes true and the Gladstones rep doesn't bother turning up! I guess this is ultimately why PPCs will probably exist for a while no matter what MPs say in Parliament. I didn't entirely just use the supermarket parking for convenience and did shop there as well. I have tried to articulate that in my Witness Statement, and will tweak some more. I went to the supermarket again today to take some photos to add to the exhibits, to try and articulate that the signs were unnoticeable based on their height and small print.

The sticky thread advises to include a Beavis case sign as part of the bundle. Where do I find that (apart from Googling 'Beavis case sign').

Redx

they never turn up , they use these rent a lawyer firms to do it instead, as Bargepole pointed out in another thread only last week (or the actual in house claimant turns up instead, a D I Y job)

google it , or look for it in other peoples bundles that may be on here

TolsBols

Quick one. Does anyone have a link to Beavis with Para 98, 193 and 198? I've looked on Parking Prankster and I can't find the full case featuring those Paras, only transcripts. Want to include in my bundle to post today.

Many Thanks.

Le_Kirk

TolsBols said:

Quick one. Does anyone have a link to Beavis with Para 98, 193 and 198? I've looked on Parking Prankster and I can't find the full case featuring those Paras, only transcripts. Want to include in my bundle to post today.

Many Thanks.

Search this forum or look at the new standard defence template (it is one of the sticky announcements) or search for a post by @Coupon-mad with Para 98 as your search terms.