Claim form received. Help needed

KeithP

Why not Google County Court at Manchester and find an email address?

Umkomaas

KeithP said:

Why not Google County Court at Manchester and find an email address?

I did that @KeithP - and it took all of 0.44 seconds to give it to me. Can no one use any initiative or think for themselves these days?  We are getting more bogged down with handholding each passing day. 

Redx

aso2007 said:

They have only provided a postal address so I take it that i cannot send it by email.

Read the Manchester court website

aso2007

Umkomaas said:

KeithP said:

Why not Google County Court at Manchester and find an email address?

I did that @KeithP - and it took all of 0.44 seconds to give it to me. Can no one use any initiative or think for themselves these days?  We are getting more bogged down with handholding each passing day. 

Maybe it did take 0.44 for you. But trust me I would not ask the question if it was that clear to me. I did check the newbies and I spend some time searching the forum and i did not find what i wanted. My question was not just about finding an email online, it was about whether the reply form could be sent by email. Also I googled "County Court at Manchester email" and it came up with different email addresses. 
Anyway Thanks Umkomaas for taking the time and answering my questions.

Redx

If in doubt , post it , or email it and post it , but don't expect us to know the local procedures for every court in the land !!

Clearly the Manchester court included that reply form , so post is a definite option. , Old fashioned but very common

The court has defaulted to a papers only , unless the caveats apply , meaning you objected on papers or you miss or ignore the deadline whereby a decision on a hearing method comes next , probably by video link or telephone , a face to face hearing being the final option

Redx

If in doubt , post it , or email it and post it , but don't expect us to know the local procedures for every court in the land !! Plus you won't find it on here , it's not a legal forum !!

Clearly the Manchester court included that reply form , so post is a definite option. , Old fashioned but very common

The court has defaulted to a papers only , unless the caveats apply , meaning you objected on papers or you miss or ignore the deadline whereby a decision on a hearing method comes next , probably by video link or telephone , a face to face hearing being the final option

aso2007

Hi,

Here is my draft of a witness statement. Any comments are much appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hearing date: xxxxxxxxxxx

 

Between

Excel Parking Services Limited 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                        

 (Defendant)

____________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

____________________

1.       I am Mr xxxxxxxxx, the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief.

2.       It is admitted that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is also denied that I was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident (As I am a teacher, I was in school at this time: See Exhibit 1)

3.       The alleged incident happened on the 19th March 2020, and the first letter was supposedly issued on the 30th March, which was the peak of the first full lockdown. Therefore, letters can get delayed and in my case, they were lost.

4.       I first heard about this parking charge after receiving ‘demand for payment letter’ dated 14/05/2020(Received on 19/05/2020). The Claimant suggests that a Notice to Keeper was sent on 30/03/2020 and a reminder was sent on 28/04/2020; however, such letters were never received and I would not have ignored them, as is shown by my level of engagement since (See Exhibit 2).

5.       There was very little information about the parking company. I searched their address online “2 Europa Court, Sheffield Business Park” and the email I found was litigation@vehiclecontrol.co.uk which I contacted on the 19th May 2020 (See Exhibit 2). I have received an auto-reply to acknowledge receipt of my email. However, I have not received any response to my email.

6.       I submitted the Subject Access Request SAR to obtain all information that the claimant holds on me. The claimant is required to respond within 30 days of this request. The request was sent on 04/06/2020 and a reminder was sent on 22/06/2020. The claimant did not respond until 22/07/2020. This is a direct violation of the data protection act of which the claimant claims they are compliant.

7.       I felt harassed by the bombardment of debt recovery template letters. I tried to resolve the matter and contacted the claimant by email but I was denied an opportunity to appeal the claim. Additionally, some of my emails were ignored.

Signage

8.     Signage is on the passenger side on entry and does not engage drivers. It is at right angles to car on entry, so it would be unsafe for driver to turn head 90 degrees to read a sign.

9.    Sign is a mass of confusing words. The charge is £100 hidden in the small print at the bottom of the sign. Additionally, large parts of the sign are in blue on yellow, a combination warned against by the British Parking Association code of practice as hard to read.

10.     Additionally, the terms on the 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.

11.     A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this (See Exhibit 3 for comparison). In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.

Abuse of process - the quantum

12.     The Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as 'damages/admin' or 'debt collection costs'. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process - see exhibit 4 - transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). That case was not appealed and the decision stands.

13.     Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.

14.     The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

15.     This stopped ParkingEye from using that business model again, particularly because HHJ Hegarty had found them to have committed the 'tort of deceit' by their debt demands. So, the Beavis case only considered an £85 parking charge but was clear at paras 98, 193 and 198 that the rationale of that inflated sum (well over any possible loss/damages) was precisely because it included (the Judges held, three times) 'all the costs of the operation'. It is an abuse of process to add sums that were not incurred. Costs must already be included in the parking charge rationale if a parking operator wishes to base their model on the ParkingEye v Beavis case and not a damages/loss model. This Claimant can't have both.

16.     This Claimant knew or should have known, that by adding £60 in costs over and above the purpose of the 'parking charge' to the global sum claimed is unrecoverable, due to the POFA at 4(5), the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 (See Exhibit 5), the earlier ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield High Court case and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA') Sch 2, paras 6, 10 and 14. All of those seem to be breached in my case and the claim is pleaded on an incorrect premise with a complete lack of any legitimate interest.

17.     This same Claimant had a case that was struck out on the same basis (Abuse of process) at the county court at Skipton in February 2020 (See Exhibit 6).

CPR 44.11 - further costs

18.     I am appending with this bundle a fully detailed costs assessment which also 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). In support of that argument, I remind the court that I engaged with the Claimant and they knew that I had not received the first two letters and that they denied me the opportunity to appeal this penalty. Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery.

19.     As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs. I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave.

20.     The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD 27, 7.3(1) ''The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person.''

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

KeithP

Of course a glaringly obvious mistake in your Witness Statement is in the first sentence of your Statement of Truth.   

aso2007

KeithP said:

Of course a glaringly obvious mistake in your Witness Statement is in the first sentence of your Statement of Truth.   

Could you please direct me where the mistake is 

KeithP

aso2007 said:

KeithP said:

Of course a glaringly obvious mistake in your Witness Statement is in the first sentence of your Statement of Truth.   

Could you please direct me where the mistake is 

Yes, of course.

That first sentence should read...

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.