District Enforcement Limited Residential Parking Fine County Court

Umkomaas

upsetbanana said:

Hi all, so I've just received a letter. They didn't pay the trial fee and it's been struck out! !!!!!!! There is a second parking ticket that was received with a separate court date in July. So I'll still finish the defence as I was already half way through but I suspect that it'll be the same and probably dropped. 

Great result, very well done. 👍. Here's a little reminder of just where you were only 7 days ago!

But I must admit...I'm beginning to feel a little uncertain as to whether I'll actually be able to win the case. 

..... and

Essentially I'm just at that point where I'm wondering if I should contact them to pay before I get any further costs through court as I'm really not sure I'm going to win and hoping that some of you that have more experience and know about successful cases could allay my fears. 

I'm so glad you trusted the advice here, and stuck with us.  Nice start to an early weekend for you. 🥂

Coupon-mad

upsetbanana said:

Hi all, so I've just received a letter. They didn't pay the trial fee and it's been struck out! !!!!!!! There is a second parking ticket that was received with a separate court date in July. So I'll still finish the defence as I was already half way through but I suspect that it'll be the same and probably dropped. 

Great news, if the court got that right! 

Just a word of caution that some courts are struggling with backlogs and people are being told this, then the Claimants reinstate the case by proving they had sent the fee.

upsetbanana

Coupon-mad said:

upsetbanana said:

Hi all, so I've just received a letter. They didn't pay the trial fee and it's been struck out! !!!!!!! There is a second parking ticket that was received with a separate court date in July. So I'll still finish the defence as I was already half way through but I suspect that it'll be the same and probably dropped. 

Great news, if the court got that right! 

Just a word of caution that some courts are struggling with backlogs and people are being told this, then the Claimants reinstate the case by proving they had sent the fee.

That is disappointing to hear! But I'm hoping not the case here....the court date was meant to be next week! 

Fruitcake

Assume the case is still going ahead until you get confirmation from the court in writing that it has been struck out or cancelled by the defendant.

If/when you have the claimant's WS, please show it to us. Only redact YOUR personal data and tell us if the claimant has redacted anything.
The best way to show it to us is to upload it to Dropbox or similar and post the link here.

upsetbanana

Hi all, the second claim they are going through with and received their defence today. I've got mine ready to go as it remains unchanged really from the previous claims that they didn't continue (I think they dropped that one as they had me on what they call the 'whitelist' so they wouldn't give me a parking ticket whilst considering my application for a permit). 

Annoyingly they have sent the WS as paper instead of Pdf. Probably because they don't have my email address though? I'll try and upload it shortly by taking photos of it! 

upsetbanana

Hi all, 

Please see link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qu78u3wvxiapnzo/GS Def final.pdf?dl=0

They actually use an 'Internet Defence' and state my defence should be struck out because it's 'copy and pasted'. Haha. 

You'll note some pgs missing, I didn't include these as wasn't worth copying. I didn't include the Exhibit first page (just names, claim no repeated again) and then I didn't include some photos. They inserted photos outlining all of the car parks they cover around the estate (not just car park for the building I'm in) drawing around the car park and showing where signs etc are placed. Nothing of interest to note with it. I also left out the last exhibit which is just the PCN letter they sent to me. It saved me having to redact loads of stuff! 

They redacted nothing. 

Important to note that they contract they have used is dated 2020 in the exhibit, the parking charge was in 2019 and so they haven't shown evidence of their contract in place at the time of the parking ticket. Should I point this out in my WS? Or just flag it on the day? 

Le_Kirk

upsetbanana said:

Hi all, the second claim they are going through with and received their defence today. I've got mine ready to go as it remains unchanged really from the previous claims that they didn't continue (I think they dropped that one as they had me on what they call the 'whitelist' so they wouldn't give me a parking ticket whilst considering my application for a permit). 

Annoyingly they have sent the WS as paper instead of Pdf. Probably because they don't have my email address though? I'll try and upload it shortly by taking photos of it! 

Do you mean witness statement or is it the defence to a counterclaim?

upsetbanana

Le_Kirk said:

upsetbanana said:

Hi all, the second claim they are going through with and received their defence today. I've got mine ready to go as it remains unchanged really from the previous claims that they didn't continue (I think they dropped that one as they had me on what they call the 'whitelist' so they wouldn't give me a parking ticket whilst considering my application for a permit). 

Annoyingly they have sent the WS as paper instead of Pdf. Probably because they don't have my email address though? I'll try and upload it shortly by taking photos of it! 

Do you mean witness statement or is it the defence to a counterclaim?

Sorry! Absolutely meant WS! 

upsetbanana

My redacted WS is laid out below (I've not attached the actual exhibits):

"IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No.: XXXX

 

Between

District Enforcement Limited

 (Claimant) 

 

- and -  

 

XXXX

 (Defendant)

 

BUNDLE – TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Contents	Page(s)
Witness Statement	2 – 7
Exhibits Index	8
Exhibit XX-01 – Email dated 06/09/2019 (Purchase of Permit)	9
Exhibit XX-02 – Email dated 11/09/2019 (Vehicle added to whitelist)	10
Exhibit XX-03 – Email 18/09/2019 dated of rejection of application for permit	11
Exhibit XX-04 – Car Parking Rules as per Resident Handbook	12
Exhibit XX-05 – Email dated 30/11/2020 (landlord and Housing Association)	13
Exhibit XX-06 – Photograph of estate parking sign	14
Exhibit XX-07 – ParkingEye Limited v Beavis – Paragraphs 98, 193, and 198	15
Exhibit XX-08 – Excel vs Wilkinson Approved Judgement – Bradford CC	16 – 25
Exhibit XX-09 – Schedule of Costs	26

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No.: XXXX

 

Between

District Enforcement Limited

 (Claimant) 

 

- and -  

 

XXXX

 (Defendant)

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

 

 

1.         I am XXXX of XXXX and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.         In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

Sequence of events and signage:

3.         I am a resident of the XXXX which is owned by the XXXX Housing Association. I entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord of XXXX at the end of August 2019 with an immediate move in date in September 2019. XXXX is a block of flats with car parking situated on the property and I had been informed by District Enforcement Limited (the Claimant), my landlord, and the Housing Association that I may purchase a permit to park on the estate from the Claimant.

4.         On XXXX I sent documentation to prove that I was now a residence of the estate and make an application to purchase a permit from the Claimant (exhibit XX-01) and due to unknown circumstances on the side of the Claimant and Housing Association I did not hear back from them for a few days.

5.         On XXXX the Claimant issued a parking charge (not the parking charge this claim relates to) and alleged a breach of contract had occurred. I made a complaint to the Claimant about this issued fine alongside appealing against it. This appeal was rejected, however, the Claimant did agree to put my vehicle onto their whitelist to prevent any further fines (exhibit XX-02) whilst I was awaiting permission to purchase a permit.

5.         On XXXX the Claimant rejected my application for a permit on the grounds that they only accept a V5C as evidence of residency (exhibit XX-03). The claimant then issued their second parking charge on XXXX which this claim relates to and alleged a breach of contract had occurred. For information, the claimant finally accepted my application on XXXX.

6.         I am conferred a right to park in the residential car park of the XXXX by the Housing Association by way of being a resident on the estate. This is stipulated in the Resident Handbook for the estate (exhibit XX-04) and this Resident Handbook, whilst not being a legal document, does makes up part of the documents held between my landlord and the Housing Association; therefore, this right is passed down through the lease with my landlord to myself.  It is argued that I have primacy of contract and it is denied that the signs placed by the Claimant replace my right to park, nor constitutes entering into a contract with the Claimant whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’.

Primacy of Contract

7.         As a resident of the XXXX and with knowledge that I have the right to use the shared parking facilities with fellow residents, it is argued that a reasonable person (the resident) would not have believed the parking signs, of which there are four small signs in total, two of these are located by the two entrances to the building, placed by the Claimant replace their right to park on the premises. It would be the reasonable belief of the resident that these signs apply only to non-residents to deter them from parking on the grounds. The signs do not state that they are applicable to residents or provide any information as to how residents obtain a permit.

8.         It is argued that I have, by way of my lease with the landlord, primacy of contract, and that there are no terms within the leases which outline any further terms or restrictions to parking access beyond being a resident as outlined in the Resident Handbook. Further, it was confirmed via email between my landlord and the Housing Association of the right to park and that to acquire a permit, a resident only needed notification from the landlord and evidence of residency (exhibit XX-05), this advice is contrary to that which the Claimant dictated in their emails (exhibit XX-03). It is therefore additionally argued that as I had supplied evidence which satisfied the requirements outlined by the Housing Association, the claimant should not have rejected my application for a permit.  

9.         There are multiple residential parking cases to call upon to support my defence, in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading. Further, in the cases of Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 and Link Parking v Ms P [2016] C7GF50J7 the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a parking permit. I maintain that I followed the instructions of the Housing Association and applied to purchase a permit. The permit should have been granted sooner, nevertheless the Claimant delayed the granting of permission, in part by providing the wrong information. The Claimant should not have issued the first or second parking charge from the outset, however, they did then have the chance to set it right but they refused to do this which evidences that the claimant has no intention to protect residents interests by deterring non-residents from parking and instead targets the residents to make a profit.  

The Beavis case is against this claim

10.       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.

11.       However, there is no such legitimate interest where the landowner is not disadvantaged by the motorists’ stay, as in this case where I parked in a residential car parking space designated for residents. As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. The absence or concealment of signage and varying acceptability of parking areas 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.

12.       Even taken as an extreme close-up, with no proof as to its visibility from the parking area, the sign that the Claimant has presented as evidence has vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, so as for it not to allow the opportunity for anyone to become acquainted with its terms (exhibit XX-06). As such, as specifically outlined in Example 10 of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the signage constitutes an unfair customer notice, and, pursuant to s62 of the same act, any terms would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law. Consequently, it is my position that, even if I had seen signage of the sort presented by the Claimant – which I did not take as applicable to residents – no contract to pay an onerous penalty would have been seen, known or agreed.

Abuse of process – the quantum

13.       In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The 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) and the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 (exhibit XX-07) and that it constitutes 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 exhibit XX-08). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.

14.       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''.

Landowner Contract

15.       The Claimant has appended a contractual agreement which has little or no probative value. The document is dated in effect from 06th July 2020, whilst the parking charge was issued in 2019. Therefore, the claimant has not provided any evidence of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.

16.       It is also clear that the document has not been signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

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

18.       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

19.       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. The Claimant knew that I was a resident and I had engaged with them throughout to try and avoid this claim. 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 that results from this type of unscrupulous and vexatious behaviour.

20.       Therefore, I am appending with this bundle a fully detailed costs assessment (exhibit XX-08) 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).

21.       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

 

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.

 

Witness’ signature:

<SIGN HERE>

 

 

Date:

<DATE>"

It's a Teams hearing expected to take 1hr. In costs I've included the £95 for attendance, but I'm going to guess that it wouldn't be accepted as I haven't gone into court! I didn't outline that for the first parking charge they discontinued the court claim, but as it's important for the sequence of events to understand everything, the first parking charge is referenced. 

Please let me know what you think! I will try to email it to the court and GS before end of today as I received theirs today and I don't want to be seen to be difficult by leaving it too long. 

Thanks for everyone's help so far! It's been appreciated.

Le_Kirk

4.         On XXXX I sent documentation to prove that I was now a residence resident of the estate and make an application to purchase a permit from the Claimant

either you are a resident or you are in residence
You keep referring to fines, which they are not, either speculative invoices or Parking Charge Notices (PCNs)