Euro Car Parks fine

FoxGl0ve1998

Ah right yes 🙈 I'm going to look at my witness statement tonight just in case it's going ahead 

FoxGl0ve1998

Hello. I don't know what I'm doing wrong but I was on hold several hours in total this morning to various departments at my local court and no one could seem to help me check if my hearing was going ahead. They all just said its not within their jurisdiction. I'm trying to look after two toddlers at the same time so I'm at thr end of my tether. Do you know if there's a way to check online? 

FoxGl0ve1998

Hi I've been down to the County court and I have another number to try tomorrow 🙃

Coupon-mad

When's your WS and evidence deadline?

FoxGl0ve1998

By 4pm on the 30th 

Coupon-mad

You'll likely get a discontinuance from DCB Legal this week. Have you checked your junk emails? If nothing, do your WS this week.

FoxGl0ve1998

Thanks, I drafted a witness statement last night so I'll go over it tonight. I've checked my emails but nothing from them at all.

FoxGl0ve1998

Could you look over my statement, please? Am I using the correct template? For the exhibits do I just need to paste these at the end of the statement? for number 20- loss of leave, to get the time off I've had to swap a day with my colleague who I job share with, but that means I have no childcare for the day I'm now working (if that makes sense) so my husband is taking one day leave to watch the kids. Can I claim for this as 'leave' or do I need to put it down as childcare cost. I missed the call but DCB have rang and left a voicemail this evening asking me to call them back tomorrow.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Insert Claim Number]
Between:
[Claimant’s Name] (Claimant)
and
[Your Full Name] (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [Your Full Name]

I, [Your Full Name], of [Your Full Address], state as follows:

1.    I make this statement in support of my defence to the claim brought against me regarding a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued in respect of a vehicle I parked on DATE at LOCATION

2.    On the date in question, I parked my vehicle at the location mentioned above and went to meet work colleagues for a gathering.

3.    I used the pay-and-display machine at the location and paid for parking using cash. I distinctly recall inserting a 50 pence coin and four 20 pence coins, amounting to a total of £1.30.

4.    I was shocked to later receive a PCN alleging that I had only paid £1.00.

5.    I appealed the PCN on the grounds that the coins may have bounced through the machine without registering, or that the machine was faulty at the time of use.

6.    In a further effort to resolve the matter and cover any reasonable administrative costs, I sent a cheque for £10 to the claimant. This amount was intended to cover the cost of a data request and the administrative expenses of sending out the letter. My offer and cheque were rejected.

7.    After receiving a Letter Before Claim from the claimant, I made a formal request for the following information:

a. A full record of the Pay and Display (PTD) machine on the date in question, DATE

b. Copies of the maintenance checks carried out on the machine;

c. The date and details of the most recent calibration checks performed on the machine.

8.    The claimant refused to provide any of the requested information. This has left me feeling frustrated, as it appears they are unwilling to properly investigate the matter or ensure the reliability and accuracy of the parking machine.

9.    I believe I took all reasonable steps to pay for my parking and to resolve this matter in good faith. The refusal to provide technical and maintenance information relating to the machine undermines the claimant’s assertion that the machine was functioning correctly at the relevant time.

10. I respectfully request that the court take into consideration my attempts to resolve this matter amicably and the lack of cooperation from the claimant when assessing the fairness and validity of this claim.

11. I would also like to point out that the car park was mostly empty at the time I parked, as can be seen from the photographs provided by the claimant. This indicates that my vehicle was not preventing others from using the space or causing any loss of income to the landowner. Furthermore, the cost to park for the entire day was only 30 pence more than what the machine recorded. I attempted to resolve the matter amicably by offering £10 — a sum that far exceeded the 30 pence difference — to cover both the underpayment and any reasonable administrative costs. This offer was rejected by the claimant, which I believe demonstrates an unwillingness to deal with the matter proportionately or fairly.

The Beavis case is against this claim

12. 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.

13. However, there is no such legitimate interest where the landowner is not disadvantaged by the motorists’ stay, as in this case parking is free of charge. As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. The absence or concealment of signage are precisely the sorts of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court considered in deciding what constitutes an unconscionable parking charge.

 

Abuse of process – the quantum

14. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added an unidentified sum of £70, that is then disingenuously described as 'recovery fee’ or ‘administration’. The Claimant stated that this misleading £70 cost was incurred by the Claimant when instructing DCBL to recover the unpaid penalties. The Claimant is intentionally trying to mislead the court by suggesting these costs represent renumeration for the work of DCBL which is untrue. Consequently, this is a feeble attempt at double recovery by using a generic template in the hope of intimidating the reader into paying for their unjustified charges.

15. With the added £70 constituting double recovery, the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is seen in Exhibit 01) . The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.

16. After hearing this ‘test case’, which followed numerous Judges repeatedly disallowing the £60 sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims, Judge Jackson at the Bradford County Court went into significant detail before concluding that parking operators (such as the Claimant in this case) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Others, like Judge Hickinbottom of the same court area, have since echoed Judge Jackson’s words and struck out dozens of cases. Judge Hickinbottom recently stated ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

17. The fairness of terms where no sum is specified, was recently ruled upon by Recorder Cohen QC, sitting at the Central London County Court, in the case of Chevalier-Firescu v Ashfords LLP [2021] F83YX432, transcript seen in Exhibit 02, where it was held that a term stating that the appellant would be held liable for costs on the indemnity basis was improper in purpose and thus unfair pursuant to s62 of the CRA, as it created imbalance between the parties. Such a ‘contractual indemnity costs’ clause sidesteps the Civil Procedure Rules and cannot be recoverable, absent unreasonable conduct by the Defendant.

18. Recorder Cohen held that: ''it does seem to me to be clear that this clause has an effect which is unusual, perhaps even abnormal in effect'' and at [13] he summarised the two issues arising from this remarkably similar clause to that in this case, which had the object or effect of creating a more generous basis of costs recovery than there would ordinarily be, in the case of both default judgments and defended cases, whereby consumers stood to be penalised as if CPR 27.14(g) applied.

Landowner Contract

19. The claimant has given no evidence of an BPA compliant Landowner contract which contains wording that specifically assigned them any rights to form contracts with the drivers in their own name.

 

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

20. Upon confirmation that attendance at any hearing would result in a loss of leave, I will ask for my fixed witness costs of £95 as specified by CPR Practice Direction 27, 7.3(1), and due under CPR 27.14(2)(e).

 

CPR 44.11 – further costs

21. As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend considerable time researching the law online, attempting to correctly interpret the legal terminology, preparing my defence and preparing my witness statement. On top of this, due to the threatening and harassing language of the Claimant’s automated letter chain (behaviour akin to that acknowledged by Lord Hunt of Wirral – “Highly undesirable practices in the private parking industry range from threatening letters sent to motorists, poor signage in car parks and aggressive debt collection practices”.) I have had to endure the emotional strain of this harassment through the pregnancy and birth of my second child.

22. Therefore, I am appending with this bundle a fully detailed costs assessment, see Exhibit 03, which 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).

23. Secondly, given the specificity of the conclusions of Judges Jackson and Hickinbottom, and their direct relevance to this Claim, the Claimant’s business model and that of the Claimant’s legal representation, pursuit of the inflated sum including double recovery in full knowledge of such conclusions is clearly vexatious.

 

Statement of Truth

24. 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.

 

Signed: ___________________________
Name: [Your Full Name]
Date: [Insert Date]

FoxGl0ve1998

Thank you    

Coupon-mad

A costs assessment isn't an exhibit.

You need to look at the other exhibits listed in the NEWBIES thread WS section,