UKCPM Free Parking Overstay - Another one bites the dust ! 26/10/23

jag_run

How strange, just came back on here as had the witness statement from Gladstones, and my thread has been bumped same day.

@B789 - What is on the email is CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk 

General question… I was surprised to see on the email with the witness statement…

The Claimant, without intending any discourtesy, hereby gives notice that it will not be attending the final hearing.

This notice is given pursuant to CPR 27.9.

The Claimant kindly requests its attendance be excused and that the claim be decided in its absence.

The Court has been notified of the Claimant's non-attendance and have been asked to deal with the Claim in the Claimant's absence.”

I’ve not seen anything about non-attendance on other threads, wondering if that changes anything?

Second thing to note is the witness statement shows a mock up of the sign they say is at the site, which is ‘2hrs free parking’, with some Google map images (from 2018) to support. The actual signs there at the time were different, had a lot more writing and allowed 3hrs. Wasn’t sure how to play that, and if I should include an imagine of the sign that was there? I want to show their sign is incorrect, without potentially dropping myself in it by showing what was actually there.

Thank you

KeithP

jag_run said:

General question… I was surprised to see on the email with the witness statement…

The Claimant, without intending any discourtesy, hereby gives notice that it will not be attending the final hearing.”

What they don't say is "...but we will be sending rent-by-the-hour advocate to represent us".

They really can't take the risk of having to answer awkward questions in court and if awkward questions are asked of their representative the rep just answers "I don't know".

Coupon-mad

Second thing to note is the witness statement shows a mock up of the sign they say is at the site, which is ‘2hrs free parking’, with some Google map images (from 2018) to support. The actual signs there at the time were different, had a lot more writing and allowed 3hrs. Wasn’t sure how to play that, and if I should include an imagine of the sign that was there? I want to show their sign is incorrect, without potentially dropping myself in it by showing what was actually there.

Yes, do exactly that.

BTW, sometimes Gladstones send no-one.  But it can be no easier because the Judge goes through their evidence and almost takes up their case for them.  Hence your dissenting photo evidence will be crucial.

jag_run

Thanks @Coupon-mad

I’ve got 2 photos of the sign in question. One taken from in the car where the text is illegible (due to sign height and font size), but it’s clear from the format etc it is a different sign. And also another clear copy of the actual sign.

I wasn’t sure if the blurred one would be sufficient on the basis ‘we don’t know what the sign says’, or that would be seen as a deceitful move by the court and go against me?

B789

jag_run said:

@B789 - What is on the email is CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk 

You'll note on the official link that I gave you that the general email address for the CCBC is ccbc@...

The ccbcaq@... is for filing Defences. I'm sure you could try either for your complaint.

Fruitcake

PPCs generally include a stock image of a sign held on a computer file. One that is clear and legible. You need to state this, and that it does not represent the signs on the site at the material time.

Your blurred image and explanation that it is still obviously different is a good point and still needs to be included, plus the clearer one.

63realfan

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80013257#Comment_80013257

Appreciate that. I've made that mistake multiple times including using "CBBC" 😂😂

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80014260#Comment_80014260

I'd use just the blurred one otherwise you are helping them.

jag_run

Working on the Witness statement now. I'm fairly happy with the signage aspects as I've got photos to show the sign they say is there is not. Also I've got photos of 5 of the 10 sign locations they've put on a map showing they are not actually there.

I'm struggling with what to do around the below part of their Witness Statement as although I've read through the Stickies dozens of times by now, and checked out the very good @robertcox999 Witness Statement as recommended  I don't know how to rebut what Gladstones have put regarding Percy and Beavis cases. Any help greatly appreciated.



*********************************************************
33. Thereafter the Defence seeks to raise many arguments regarding the Claimant’s ability to claim additional costs on an indemnity basis, associated with the PCN issued, each point is denied and the Claimant responds as follows.

The Defendant’s submissions with respect to contractual costs in this regard were considered in the recent appeal of Vehicle Control Services Ltd and Mr Adam Percy [County Court at Leeds] [28th September 2021] (the “VCS Appeal”) whereby HH Judge Saffman found the following regarding costs at paragraph 37:

“Had Mr Percy paid as a result of the PCN (stage 1) there would have been no further work for the appellant to undertake. Because he did not pay, the appellant was obliged to proceed to stage 2 consisting of sending a final notice and…instructing solicitors to send a letter before claim and those solicitors sending the letter of claim. The £60.00 is clearly for stage 2 work.”

The Defendant’s submissions with respect to exaggerated costs is addressed in the VCS Appeal at para. 39:

“…it is inevitable that further work of some kind is necessary where the motorist does not respond to the PCN. Fundamentally, it requires the appellant to undertake the stage 2 activity which would have been avoided if payment had been made at stage 1. Whether £60.00 is fair for stage 2 work is a different question. It might be unfair but it is not double recovery. It is an attempt to recover in respect of stage 2 work that would not have been incurred if payment had been made at stage 1.”

In conclusion, the Defendant’s submission that the Additional Charges Term is unfair HH Judge Saffman, in the aforementioned appeal case, stating at para. 57 that:

“…I am satisfied that the Additional Charges Term is not unfair and the District Judge, in common with a large cohort of his colleagues, has erred in finding that it was.”

In light of the above, the Claimant submits that additional costs claimed are therefore not “exaggerated” as averred by the Defendant, and are not an attempt at double recovery, but are costs incurred which the Claimant are entitled to claim due to work undertaken in an attempt to recover the debt owed, of which the Defendant failed to make any payment. Furthermore, The Defendant asserts that under POFA schedule 4 (4.5), the maximum amount recoverable in these circumstances is the amount specified on the notice to keeper, in this case £100. However the Claimant rely on POFA schedule 4(6) which states that the paragraph does not affect any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle. Consequently as the Claimant are seeking to recover additional costs on an indemnity basis as outlined above, due to the Defendant’s breach of contract; this is not affected.

Further, the Claimant has a contractual right to seek the costs given on the basis the sign specifically states:

“Non-payment will result in additional charges which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis”

In view of the above position, as both the notices and the Sign advises contractual costs will be sought in the event of further action, it is the Claimant’s position it has the ability to seek the same as a part of the contract entered into for the parking charge; where the Claimant submits the Defendant as the admitted driver of the Vehicle agreed to the same further to terms on the sign.

34. The Claimant notes the Defendant makes multiple inferences that this case is distinguishable from the Beavis Case. In this regard, it is the Claimant’s view that this is not the case. In the VCS case, Judge Saffman found at paragraph 52 the following;

"In the particular circumstances of the case, as was the case indeed with Mr Crutchley, the outcome, to the effect that Mr Ward is penalised for stopping for no more than 4 seconds to deal with the unforeseen illumination of his car's engine management light, may be seen to be a harsh one. Nonetheless, that is where the authorities clearly lead me. I really cannot find any basis for a proper distinction between this case and Beavis. It is true that one relates to overstaying in the car park for almost an hour and the other relates to stopping on a road for a matter of seconds but the principles in both are identical. Not only are the principles in Crutchley identical, but the facts are almost identical."

It is therefore the Claimant’s view that the principles of the contractual license in this matter are no more or less different than in the VCS Appeal and therefore, this matter cannot be distinguished from the Beavis case.
*********************************************************

Coupon-mad

Read the NEWBIES thread about WS and evidence tips but don't use the example by RobertCox (at all).  IT IS OUT OF DATE AND HE LOST.

Look at the WS bundles from:

@aphex007 
@Daiapolon2021 
@laurenjo12
@SJRRJS