Premier Parking Logistics Court Claim Defence (Case Closed - Lost with reduced fees)

ArticAvenger

Hi All

Thanks to everyone helping on this forum it has been really helpful to me. 

I have a Court Claim from Premier Parking Logistics, it was dated 20th Nov 2020, I submitted my Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) on 29th Nov 2020, so i believe i have until 23rd December to submit my defence. 

I have already submitted a SAR to the parking company and received a response, which just contained the original parking notice and a link to a website to see some of the picture evidence. This picture evidence was never provided to me previously. I never appealed the original notice as deemed it a waste of time. 

Below is the site template for my defence with my section 3. filled in. My defence is based mainly on the fact the parking area wasn’t clearly sign posted or marked but appears to be a legitimate parking area of a small high street retail store because they have marked some areas with the store name, although this is not clear and it appears that my car was parked outside that area but how would i have known, they don’t mention anything in their claim about the retail spaces. The only signage that was present was the standard small print signs plastered in a few places that if you squinted hard enough you could see it claimed a requirement for permits to be displayed in that general vicinity without specifying any particular spaces.  Any feedback would be appreciated, am i tackling this in the correct way? 

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

The vehicle in question is used by multiple members of the Defendant’s family and the Defendant has no recollection of whether they were the driver of the vehicle on the date of the parking charge.

 The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the alleged contractual breach. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) .

The Defendant denies that this Claimant fully complied with Schedule 4 of the POFA and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

3.

The Defendant believes that the parking in the designated area was and is for an adjacent retail store and that there was no clear overriding signage stating otherwise. The clearest signage was the markings on the floor in the name of the store making it clear that this was retail parking. 

The Defendant has also parked in this area multiple times in the past being a regular customer of this store and has on many many occasions observed others doing that same. 

The Defendant has evidence that a member of their family was a customer of the store at the exact date and time of the infringement giving additional weight to the fact they were not attempting to park in any way likely to infringe on any restricted parking but was attempting to park only in an area believed to be for the retail store, for the sole purpose of using that store. . 

There are parking areas further up from the offending area that are clear that they are for another adjacent residential building consisting of flats and apartments.These are clearly marked and it is safe to say it would be reasonable to assume the Claimants signage applies only to these areas. 

The Claimant has done nothing to denote the correct areas that they claim to cover, even going to the extent of placing some of their ambiguous signs in areas that contradict with the area of parking designated for the retail store. This is further shown by the fact that the contradicting signs have been removed from sight since the date of the parking fine issue date. 

The defendant would like to bring to the attention of the court that over 10 months after the alleged contravention occurred vehicles are still parking in this location and that the parking operator has made no efforts to provide clear signage or hatched lines and anything that would make it clear that the area is restricted. It can only be assumed that this action is an intentional effort to mislead customers into parking in these ‘restricted’ locations and then issuing them with extortionate fines in a bid to gain revenue or wasting the courts time with cases that could have been avoidable had the parking operator had the due diligence to provide adequate markings and signage.

4.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

5.       It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

6.       Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.  

7.  The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

8.  Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).  It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land.  There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.

 

The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

9.       Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable.  However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.  

10.       Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

11.   Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  

12.   The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.

13.       The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

14.   Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

(i)                 Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

(ii)                Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(ii)                 Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.  In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio.  To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

15.   Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

 

16.  In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

 

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

17.   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

18.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

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.

Coupon-mad

Let us guess - Shaw's Passage?  Have you read al the other Walton Wilkins threads and seen the photos of that place with the unlit, broken signs?

Your defence looks good except #3 is too long (but the wording is good).  So simply add more paragraph numbers!

KeithP

ArticAvenger said:

I have a Court Claim from Premier Parking Logistics, it was dated 20th Nov 2020, I submitted my Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) on 29th Nov 2020, so i believe i have until 23rd December to submit my defence. 

You are right with your Defence filing deadline but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 23rd December 2020 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

ArticAvenger

Thanks, I will amend secon 3 to split it out a bit and I've set a reminder to file thie defence. This wasn't at Shaw's Passage but looking at that place its just as bad.They really put no effort into maintaining their 'car parks' to be fit for purpose do they. 

Coupon-mad

Did you know about good old Walton?  Been around the block a bit for parking practices, that man:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/no-honour-amongstoperators.html

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birmingham-woman-won-car-back-4859

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birmingham-car-clamping-boss-to-carry-91288

''the judge found their fee of £390 was not extortionate for clamping and towing as British Parking Association guidelines suggest £410''.  
WOW.  THAT'S THE BPA FOR YOU (IF TRUE).  NO WONDER THEY RECKON £100 NOW ISN'T EXTORTIONATE. 
THE PARKING INDUSTRY IS JUST NOT ON THE SAME PLANET AS RIGHT-THINKING CONSUMERS...

...BUT CLEARLY HIS LEVEL OF PARKING CHARGES IS THE SAME AS THE BPA'S VIEW - SO THEY ARE ON THE SAME PAGE AS A CLAMPER - BECAUSE WHEN CLAMPING WAS BANNED HE DECIDED TO ISSUE TICKETS FOR UP TO £150:

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2012-09-27/birmingham-clamper-says-new-laws-will-make-his-job-easier

''He says the new legislation means he can instead issue motorists with legally enforceable parking tickets worth £150 a time.  He also says ticketing is much less hassle as it costs him less than clamping.'' 

He seems to like to mislead people about how much money he made from clamping, before it  was made illegal:

Rich beyond his wildest dreams?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387286/Clamping-boss-Walton-Wilkins-claims-10m-impounding-cars.html

But maybe not:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7636110.stm

"If I was out to make money, I'm in the wrong business as my company actually made a loss last year, and I don't know where the council gets its figures from.''


Likes his sports memorabilia, though:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19168876

Le_Kirk

When you do edit your #3 and add the extra numbers and paragraphs, change the word "fine" as it is not such, at best it is a "speculative invoice" or a PCN.

ArticAvenger

UPDATE - COURT DATE - WITNESS STATEMENT REVIEW REQUEST 

Hi All, thanks for your help so far. I have a court date and have prepared the first version of my witness statement accordingly. Could i ask for any constructive advice on it. Looking to get it finalised and sent off before the end of the week. Thanks. 

My Witness Statement -> Apologies won't let me include links so here is the main text:

1. I am XXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below 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: 

3. Firstly my main point will be reference to the fact that the arrangement of this area that the claimant claims to manage as a car park is unclear and misleading. The area is a small side road between two retail units, and leads up to a residential apartment complex. There are a couple of defined parking areas along this side road, a couple to the left as you enter and a couple further up to the right. Then there is a main car park within the residential apartment complex.  The confusion comes in the fact, backed up by the claimant’s evidence, that they only have a contract to manage a portion of these area’s or parking.  

4. The clearest point in this defence is the fact that the claimant themselves does not even appear to be able to determine the area covered by their contact as shown in their own evidence (see picture from Exhibit XXXX) that shows a second car, a small white Toyota, parked in an adjacent space to the defendants vehicle, which has also received a PCN ticket from the claimants parking company at the exact same time as the defendant. This car is, according to the claimant’s evidence of the parking area that they manage, definitely outside of their jurisdiction. This determination has only been possible thanks to the evidence of the site layout and contracted area controlled, provided by the claimant, there is no chance the driver of the other vehicle or the defendant could of ascertained this on site at the time. 

5. The claimant has also obviously staged this area as a trap to capture unsuspecting motorists, and they have not set it up in a way that is of any benefit to the landowner that contacted them. See picture from Exhibit XXXX, which shows the claimants PCN signage placed above the small white Toyota (mentioned in the previous paragraph) clearly placed in an illegal position as this is not on land owned by the land owner. In fact this signage is not even marked on the claimants provided site map. Therefore it must have been placed there with the intention of entrapping additional motorists that were legally parked on separate land to that managed by the claimant. This means the claimant is in breach of clause 1 of their contact with the land owner which states “The Company agrees to supply and erect car park signs in clear and visible manner within the Location subject to the Client prior approval in accordance with the ATA code of practice for Parking Enforcement”

6. Additionally, when entering the site the clearest signage is for the next door retain until (RETAIL UNIT NAME), and this is where the driver of the vehicle was going to on the day in question. The parking area to the left as you enter the site also has the name of this retail location in white surface paint on the floor in multiple locations. So when you enter the site these are what your attention is drawn to, and any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion that the parking area to the left was for the use of people visiting the retail unit opposite.  

7. It is completely unclear, and only now partially understandable via evidence supplied by the claimant, that only 2/3 of this area is supposed to be for the retail use and the final 1/3 is supposedly under the control of the claimants parking restrictions. There is no markings or clear signage denoting any differentiation of any part of this side parking area. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the more prominent markings denoting this as parking for the retail store are the correct and is what any motorist using this area would consider to be the case. 

8. The claimant states their signs are prominently placed and clearly visible. However the opposite is true. Their signs are scattered about along the road leading up to the apartment complex. The clearest text on the sign states Private Land. This is something you would expect to see on a road leading up to some Private Land. So therefore the first assumption is that these signs are there just to denote the existence of that private land and therefore you may glance at them but then pay them no further attention. Even if you did stop to read these signs they are placed high up on lampposts and contain a lot of small text that would be difficult if not impossible to read at a reasonable distance. Indeed none of the photographs provided by the claimant give any clear sight of any legible text on these signs and the photographs are not taken from an unreasonable distance back from the signs. 

5. The claimant has raised the fact that I did not attempt to appeal the parking charge via their appeals process. This was due to the fact that I was well aware from other motorist’s experiences that this would be futile as the IAS appeal service is not independent (During debate of the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2019, member Kevin Foster stated “The reality is that the current system of regulation is absolutely hopeless. It is like putting Dracula in charge down at the blood bank. There are two different sets of regulations and companies can choose which they use, so there is an incentive to dismiss as many appeals as possible.”). I did not want to take this disputed claim to the court stage but however in the absence of any truly independent appeals process it was the only way to receive any fairness in the matter. 

Abuse of process – the quantum

6. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and 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 included in Exhibit XXXX). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.

7. 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''.

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, if the landowner is not disadvantaged by the motorists’ stay, as in this case. In fact in this case the landowner has been disadvantaged by the claimant. The claimant has done nothing to make the parking arrangements clear or attempted to delimit the parking areas covered by the landowner. As such they have done nothing to discourage unwanted parking of vehicles on the landowners property, and therefore the setup is designed primarily as a trap to encourage the exact opposite. As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. The confusing arrangement of the parking area is precisely the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court considered in deciding what constitutes an unconscionable parking charge.

12. Even taken as an extreme close-up, 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. 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 didn’t as it was not present – no contract to pay an onerous penalty would have been seen, known or agreed.

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. 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 dealing with this harassment, stress of preparing for this case and the worry of the future financial costs and threat of impact to my unblemished credit records.

20. Therefore, I am appending with this bundle a fully detailed costs assessment (Exhibit XXXX) 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.

Le_Kirk

In point 3 you do not need to say "Firstly my main point" and in point 4, you do not need to say "the clearest point"  Just go straight in with "The arrangement of this area ......." and "The claimant themselves does do not .........."
Not sure how your point 4 helps you but if you are leaving it in change this: -

defendant could of ascertained

to: -

defendant could of have ascertained

Check for any similar grammatical errors.

Fruitcake

If/when you have the scammer's WS, please post it here for the regulars to look over. Make sure that you show us all of it including exhibits and the all important contract. Only redact YOUR personal data.
If the scammers have redacted anything, please tell us.
The best way to show it to us it is to upload it to Dropbox or similar then post the link.

ArticAvenger

Thanks for the suggestions I'll tidy things up a bit. Do you not think point 4 is useful in general? I'd say it makes it very clear they aren't sticking to the legal boundary of the land they are allowed to manage, and also the fact that boundary is not clear to any motorists, if it isn't even clear to the company managing it!

KeithP

No-one has suggested that your paragraph 4 isn't useful. 

Your paragraph numbering goes a little awry...
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20 and 21.