PCN Where I bought an online voucher.

Scribeok

Here is my proposed statement (Most of which is taken from other people's statements in this forum. Any advice would be much appreciated. 

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

I am ....... and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated ......2021 requesting for the claiments application to be dismissed:

1.1. I am not the registered keeper of the vehicle and have not supplied my postal address to the claimant.

 

1.2. I am aware that the claimant is HX Parking Limited, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge 11/11/2019. I contest this charge for the reasons outlined in Part 2 of this defence.

 

1.3. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

1.3.1 I discovered a CCJ potentially lodged against me after receiving a letter from Gladstones Solicitors a significant ammount of time after they filed for a CCJ.


1.3.2 On 7th January 2021 I have wilfully submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case.

1.4. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle or contacting me directly.

1.5. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address where the Defendant resides. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to contact me. This has led to a defective service and an irregular judgement.

1.6. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses."

The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.” Furtherance to points raised above.


ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIM

 

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

 

2.2. The Particulars of the screenshot Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 11/11/2019. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates 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.

 

2.3. The Particulars refer to the material location as Marco Island Huntington Street Nottingham on the date 11/11/19. During this period, the Defendant held a valid parking ticket (see attached)which was purchased at the cost of £4.90 to permit parking for a period of 12 hours, from 6:35am until 6:35pm. The defendant parked for no longer than 4 hours.

 

2.3.2. There are no terms within the signage agreement requiring customers to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

 

2.4. The Defendant, followed the instruction on the signage contained within Marco Island Car Park, namely downloading the online Parkonomy application and purchasing an online voucher for the period of his stay.

 

2.5. Further and in the alternative, the Defendant sent a subject access request to the Applicant on the 15th December via post and further subject access request to the applicant via email on the 5/1/2021 and has received no reply. The defendant is yet to see any evidence to allege or show he parked beyond the 12 hours paid for or is in any violation of the parking terms.

 

2.6. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the parking agreement and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to clients routinely.

 

2.7. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case. and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

 

2.8. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or reasonable justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

 

2.9. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £263.63 per PCN, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

 

2.10. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

2.11. I further submit that the parking charge notice is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following reasons:

a. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The claimant is not the landowner of the car park in question and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder and only they would have been able claim for any damages or trespass.

b. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so they must demonstrate their actual or genuine pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any driver or registered keeper of the vehicle. I further submit that any loss to the landowner (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be minimal.

c. The Charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the parking charge is nothing but an unenforceable penalty as it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged infraction.

d. No Contract with the Claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance, and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the claimant to the driver. Therefore, there is no consideration from the driver to HX Parking LTD.

2.12. On this basis I believe that the claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

2.13. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as a driver of the vehicle I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the claimant.

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.

Signed

 

 

Scribeok

I'll also attach the parking voucher as evidence 

Le_Kirk

WITNESS STATEMENT
 I am ....... and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated ......2021 requesting for the claiments application to be dismissed:
 reasons outlined in Part 2 of this defence.

Confusing!  Maybe say Part 2 of this document.

Coupon-mad

Please let's not have that wrong word 'wilfully' copied again!  

Scribeok

I've recieved an email today:

Dear

 

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the Claim.  Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court.   You will note the Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further Court intervention. Should you agree to mediation, please inform the Court who will contact both parties to arrange a mediation appointment. 

Yours sincerely

Lorna

Litigation Assistant

Scribeok

This is totally ridiculous. Now they want to organise a mediation session.
Surely this costs them more than they would even recieve from me if they won?

KeithP

You were expecting that weren't you?

Remember that list you were following when you filed your Defence?

Item 7 on that list is...

Fruitcake

Do not agree or even consider mediation for one second. The same applies to a hearing on papers.

Scribeok

Yes, but I didn't expect them to want to mediate

Fruitcake

They can want all they like, but there is no requirement for you to do so.

I say again, do not agree to it.