County Court Claim - NCP Parking outstayed by 20 mins

Monseymoo

Just to update I will spend a few more hours on Sunday going over their WS and mine to see if there is anything else worth adding.  I will by then have all my photographs to submit with the WS (will take tomorrow at the car park and shop where my wallet was handed in).  My deadline is Monday at 4pm to submit to the court which I will do by email then follow up with a phone call to check they have received it.  I've seen a few threads about having to deliver it by hand also to the courts is this required or not atm due to Covid?  I will also email a copy to BW legal before 4pm.
Any other thoughts or things I may be missing?  I really would appreciate anymore feedback guys I'll be checking responses over the weekend so please provide feedback on anything else I should be adding to my WS - Thanks!
@Redx @Coupon-mad @Jenni_D @KeithP @Le_Kirk

Le_Kirk

I think courts are using e-mail now for WS submissions.  There should be instructions, possibly with a special e-mail address for this purpose.

Monseymoo

Hi guys I'm trying to complete my WS today and noticed on the Claim form from the courts the breakdown of the charges for me are:
£175.24 (amount claimed) this originally was £100
£50 Court fee
£50 Legal rep costs
Can I argue the £175.24 amount claimed as being excessive?
@Redx @Coupon-mad @Jenni_D @KeithP @Le_Kirk
I was thinking of adding these paragraphs in but would appreciate your thoughts?

1. I have conducted further research into the Claimant and their associates which has revealed that they are pursuing claims like these on an industrial scale using intimidation tactics and threatening court action to force people in to paying charges for which they are not necessarily lawfully liable. They have abused the courts, and threats of using the courts, as a cheap form of 'debt' collection and acquiring default CCJ's, in the knowledge and hope that many people would not have the determination to fight through the many threats.
   
2. The Claimant’s threats gave the impression that if I did not pay immediately then a CCJ was inevitable and that it would destroy my ability to borrow money and destroy my career prospects. There were many times I felt like giving in to the Claimant’s demands despite strongly believing I do not owe the money demanded.
   
3. The Claimant has added a further £75.24 to the original £100 charge without any breakdown or explanation of how these costs are made up.  In the recent claim F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor struck out the claim as it "is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover".
4. The fact that the Claimant has inflated its Claim in the face of court action further increases the suggestion that it is reliant on individuals not defending themselves and abusing the courts in order to obtain default CCJs.

Le_Kirk

There is a better example for "double recovery" or "false costs".  Search the forum for Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V.

Monseymoo

@Le_Kirk this is great thanks!  I found it can you have a read of the WS now Ive taken out the beginning bits with my details and gone straight to paragraph 1:

1. I am xxxxx xxxxxx of  xxxxxx Road, Bournemouth, Dorset xxx xxx the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On 26th January 2020, I parked my vehicle registration No. xxxxxxx in the NCP car park at Bournemouth Terrace Road, Bournemouth, BH2 5NN.

3. I purchased a ticket using the paybyphone app on my mobile for 1 hour of parking starting at 11.10am.

4. I entered the local town from the car park and carried out some shopping, around 55 minutes later I returned to my vehicle.  Upon entering my vehicle and opening my bag I realised that my purse was not in my bag.  Understandably concerned I first went through my vehicle floor to see if it had fallen out of my bag.  Upon not finding my purse I then began to retrace my steps from the car park back into the Primark shopping center lift (SS01 - photograph) which takes a customer to the main level of the shopping store at address :

Primark

48 - 54 Commercial Road

Bournemouth

United Kingdom

BH2 5LR

During this time I carefully was checking the ground in case the purse had fallen out.  It’s worth noting that on the day in question the weather was bad with heavy rain and strong winds, trying to look on the ground retracing my steps for my purse in such conditions added time.  I approached the security guard in the entrance of the store and asked if a purse had been handed in, I was asked to go to customer services where a purse had been recorded.  Given it was a busy Sunday and the store is incredibly big (SH01 - showing size of the store and regular queues) I then made my way upstairs to the customer services area where I had to queue for around 10 minutes.  I was then asked to identify personal items in the purse to validate my identify which I did, I then returned back to my vehicle using the lift up into the car park. 

5. I got into my vehicle extremely grateful but understandably distressed following the concern over the potential loss of money and personal items within my purse.  The car park at the time of returning was very busy given it was peak shopping time on a Sunday.  There is only one entrance and exit to the car park meaning people can often queue to leave especially if people are in the middle of parking.  On the day in question it took a considerable time to leave the car park given the amount of people parking which is evident by the Claimants records showing the parking phone payments made.  It’s additionally important to note that this car park is in the centre of town and has a much smaller number of spaces to other car parks in the town as such it is regularly busy and often a customer will have to wait for spaces as people leave.

6.  I enclose photographs of the car park (SH02) to show the limited space for people waiting for spaces as people exit and the the single exit which will hopefully illustrate on a busy day how this would lead to delays in exiting the car park.  Due to all these factors this added to time in me leaving the car park as photographed at 12.31pm.

7.  Purchasing another ticket after losing my purse was at the time the last thing I was considering given the immediate panic and distress I was under. 

 

8. I have included evidence of my purchased ticket in the car park (SH03).

9. I have contacted Primark to ask for any evidence of the property being handed in however have been advised that all property logs are destroyed after 3 months.

9.  I have considered the Code of Practice ("CoP") of the British Parking Association ("BPA"), of which the Claimant is an accredited member. A copy of paragraph 13 of the CoP, which relates to grace periods. In order to be an accredited member of the BPA, compliance with the CoP is compulsory.  The significance of being a member of the BPA and subscribing to its CoP is that the Claimant is only entitled to ask the DVLA for the details of a car’s registered keeper if it is a member (so without membership a private parking company would not be able to function without the ability to trace drivers/registered keepers).

10. Paragraph 13 of the CoP version 8 (current at the time of my parking) clearly states that a grace period is to be applied to parking. The CoP makes clear that such grace periods are to be applied both at the start of any parking period and also at the end of any parking period. The whole point of these grace periods is to allow drivers time to find a parking space and to read the signage prior to commencement of the period of parking, and time to exit the carpark once they have finished parking. Grace periods are not defined, but the CoP requires them to be "at least 10 minutes" (paragraphs 13.3). It is worthy of note that the recommendation is a minimum of 10 minutes, not a maximum. 

 

11. In the Witness Statement from the Claimant dated 2nd June 2021, paragraph 21 states

“Pursuant to the paragraph 13.3 Code of Practice, the grace period allowed for up to 10 minutes for the Defendant to vacate the Car Park”

This is not accurate I have added below the actual wording from the Code of Practice as below from section 13.3:

“13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.”

This clearly shows that a driver should be given at least not up to 10 minutes at the end of any car parking paid to leave the car park no a minimum as stated by the Claimant.

 

12. Additionally in paragraph 46 of the Witness Statement from the Claimant it states that I overstayed my parking by 24 minutes.  The parking was purchased at 11.10am therefore the overstay was actually 21 minutes not 24 putting more inaccuracy to the claim made against me.

 

13.  I have conducted further research into the Claimant and their associates which has

revealed that they are pursuing claims like these on an industrial scale using intimidation tactics and threatening court action to force people in to paying charges for which they are not necessarily lawfully liable. They have abused the courts, and threats of using the courts, as a cheap form of 'debt' collection and acquiring default CCJ's, in the knowledge and hope that many people would not have the determination to fight through the many threats.

 

14. The Claimant’s threats gave the impression that if I did not pay immediately then a CCJ was inevitable and that it would destroy my ability to borrow money and destroy my career prospects. There were many times I felt like giving in to the Claimant’s demands despite strongly believing I do not owe the money demanded.

 

15. Furthermore the extra charges are an abuse of process, I refer you to the case of G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson whereby it was ruled that given the costs of recovery are built into the parking charge as a cost of operating the scheme, this is a double recovery or an attempt by the claimant to try to add in an additional charge.

 

16. The fine listed on the PCN charge £100 and yet the claimant is attempting to recover £175.24 (plus £25 court fees and £50 legal representative's costs) a difference of £72.24.

 

17. The fact that the Claimant has inflated its Claim in the face of court action further increases the suggestion that it is reliant on individuals not defending themselves and abusing the courts in order to obtain default CCJs.

 

17.  Having made recent contact with BW Legal they have refused to see reason for the unfortunate circumstances and that additional reasonable grace periods of time in such circumstances should be provided.

18. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14 (SH04 - summary of costs assessment).

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.

Included in this Witness Statement are Exhibits references above in the relevant paragraphs and are summarised as follows:

·       SH01 – Photo of the Primark store where the purse had been located showing the size of store leading to time delays in obtaining the purse at Customer Services

·       SH02 – Photo of the car park showing limited space for waiting customers and single exit for all vehicles

·       SH03 – Evidence of the payment to the NCP car park on the 26th January 2021

·       SH04 – Summary of Costs Assessment

 

 

D_P_Dance

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

Coupon-mad

You should talk about there being no legitimate interest in pursuing a genuine customer under these circumstances. 'legit interest' is what carried the Beavis case through.  Also, I didn't see you say anything about putting the Claimant to proof of the authority from the landowner in the form of a management agreement which would set out such matters as the grace period, allowed parking time, applicable hours, definitions, contraventions and rules to be enforced, the enforcement boundary map, etc. and whether this Claimant has a the right to sue customers without prior consultation with the retail park owners, or whether the party with title retains that right and merely allows this Claimant a bare licence to put signs up and issue parking charges as agents on the landowner's behalf.

1505grandad

Your para 10  -  "The CoP makes clear that such grace periods are to be applied both at the start of any parking period and also at the end of any parking period."

Have you taken into account para 13.2 of the BPA CoP which states:-

"13.2  The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place."?

Therefore as you state a 21 mins overstay (vs minimum 10) are grace periods still applicable?

Perhaps some of the posts in the first few pages of the following thread may help:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6088431/new-bpa-code-of-practice-6-1-2020/p1

Monseymoo

@Coupon-mad thanks good shout I have now added in this new paragraph:

18. Following analysis of the Claimants documents in their Witness Statement relating to the land ownership, there has been nothing provided in the form of a landowner management agreement which would set out such matters as grace periods, allowed parking time, applicable hours, definitions, contraventions and rules to be enforced.  I would like to question whether the Claimant has the right to sue customers without prior consultation with the business/landowners.  Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case.

thoughts?

Monseymoo

@1505grandad I wonder if I should just update my paragraph 10 by removing the reference to grace periods before paying from:

10. Paragraph 13 of the CoP version 8 (current at the time of my parking) clearly states that a grace period is to be applied to parking. The CoP makes clear that such grace periods are to be applied both at the start of any parking period and also at the end of any parking period. The whole point of these grace periods is to allow drivers time to find a parking space and to read the signage prior to commencement of the period of parking, and time to exit the carpark once they have finished parking. Grace periods are not defined, but the CoP requires them to be "at least 10 minutes" (paragraphs 13.3). It is worthy of note that the recommendation is a minimum of 10 minutes, not a maximum.  

To:

10. Paragraph 13 of the CoP version 8 (current at the time of my parking) clearly states that a grace period is to be applied to parking.  Grace periods are not defined, but the CoP requires them to be "at least 10 minutes" (paragraphs 13.3). It is worthy of note that the recommendation is a minimum of 10 minutes, not a maximum.  

Thoughts?