Urgent help needed - County Court Claim - First Parking / DCB Legal

nosferatu1001

There is no requirement to reoffer a drivers discount to the keeper. So where there has been a NtD, if there is no discount left, then there is no breach in the NtK.
I would also suggest you look at the highway code, whcih also shows that the definition of parking is not the same as loading/unloading - it is an even better authority than Appeals court. You cannot park on DYL, but you can unload and load. 

AlwaysTrying23

nosferatu1001 said:

I would also suggest you look at the highway code, whcih also shows that the definition of parking is not the same as loading/unloading - it is an even better authority than Appeals court. You cannot park on DYL, but you can unload and load. 

Good to know and state thank you. 

AlwaysTrying23

Hi guys. 

I have received my Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing). It states the date for my Dispute Resolution Hearing is Thursday 5th August. I must present my Witness statement no later than 14 days before this date, which I have down as Thursday 22nd July.

My circumstances briefly relate to me delivering goods to a Uni and using their staff permit holder car park to do so. The claimant has presented images within a 3 minute time frame of my car before and after being ticketed. 

I have images of the signage and geographical location of the Staff car park in relation to the building I was delivering to. Do you think it is worth me getting written confirmation from the Uni that I was delivering goods to them and video evidence of how the car park barrier operator grants me access (via intercom) to enter the car park when stating my intentions are to deliver goods?

Redx

Should have been done ages ago !! So yes !!

The dispute resolution hearing is unlikely to be the final hearing

Read the telephone hearings thread by coupon mad , from a year ago

And don't forget about the Jopson versus Homeguard case , loading and unloading is not parking

Coupon-mad

. It states the date for my Dispute Resolution Hearing

Not your actual final hearing then.  We assume you've read enough threads to know about DR hearings.

AlwaysTrying23

Hi guys - I have searched the forum and understand these DR Hearings to be an unavoidable waste of time, nevertheless a hoop that must still be jumped through. 

With this in mind, can you please have a look over my draft Witness Statement ahead of my DR Hearing. I will be adding references in tomorrow. Your time is always appreciated!

Questions:

Is there a need to reiterate points that are already in my defence?

Is there enough reference to Jopson in the WS below?

Should I include a separate paragraph for Beavis ?

Sequence of events 

1. The car park in question is situated on a busy main road which had no safe places to stop and unload. See Exhibit x. The land is secured via an electronic barrier for entry/exit, which is manned via intercom. There is a sign on entry, see Exhibit x, which states ‘Permit Holders Only’ and to see signs for terms and conditions. 

2. After pressing the intercom for entry, a male operator answered. I mentioned I had a delivery for the on-site contractor and he granted me permission into the car park. Email confirmation of delivery from the University, see Exhibit x. No stipulations were given from the operator for my entry so I entered in good faith believing the operator had given me permission to be there. As a result, my vehicle was de facto authorised to be there and the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. 

3. On driving in, there were small signs fixed high up on poles around the car park which were not legible from the car. See Exhibit x. After finding a space, I could see that they stated ‘Staff Permit Holders Only’ along with a number of restrictions but the text on the terms and conditions were far to small to be legible. See Exhibit x. There were no larger versions of the sign around the car park to assist in understanding its interpretation. 

4. My understanding was that loading/unloading was not clearly prohibited, nor did the signs clearly state there was a limited time to do so, therefore I briskly proceeded to the Medical building to deliver the package, which is approximately a 3 minute walk away. 

5. On returning to my vehicle, I noticed the PCN attached to the windscreen. Over the coming days I raised my concern with the contractor and believed it was resolved until learning of the letters subsequently posted by the claimant, chasing payment for increasing and inconsistent amounts of penalties. I went on to complain to the University but was told the case was too far down the line for them to stop it at that point. 

Unloading is not parking  

6. The Claimant states that my vehicle was parked however photographic evidence provided by the claimant fails to prove that the vehicle was indeed parked for a significant duration of time. Time stamps range from 14:13 to 14:15, see Exhibit x. Furthermore, this PCN would fall under the grace period allowed by the International Parking Community Code of Practice, version Six June 2017 and version Seven November 2019, see Exhibit x and further supported by Judge Harris in paragraxph 19 of the Laura Jobson versus home card services Ltd case 9GF0A9EC, see Exhibit x. 

No Contract was formed

 

7. The Claimant has stated that it’s grounds for the claim relate to a ‘breech of contract’. I do not believe that a contract was formed between myself and the Claimant. Nowhere within the generic terms and conditions sign, does it inform the reader that by parking in the car park, they are entering into a contract with the Claimant. Furthermore, the words “contract” or “agreement” do not appear in the Claimants sign, which only talks about matters relating to ‘Permit Holders’ or ‘Staff Permit Holders’. Manchester County Court District Judge Iyer in PACE Recovery and Storage Ltd v Lengyel [2017] C7GF6E3R noted in his judgement that the “words “contract” or “agreement” do not appear at all within the sign, which merely refers to the driver “accepting liability for a charge”” and that “the phrase “terms and conditions” are not synonymous with a contract”, see Exhibit x. DJ Iyer rightly dismissed the case against the Defendant stating that a contract had not been formed between the two parties.

 

8. Furthermore, any signage by the Claimant is directed towards the ‘Permit Holder’ or ‘Staff Permit Holder’, neither of which category I fall within. I believe that in this case, even if it is decided by the court that a contract was formed (something which I explicitly deny), the principle of promissory estoppel applies as I was granted access by the entrance barrier operator.

 

Abuse of Process

 

9. The Claimant has added a sum described as 'recovery 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 x - transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). That case was not appealed and the decision stands.

 

10. The Claimant has stated that these ‘recovery costs’ are costs incurred by the Claimant in instructing DCBL to recover the unpaid parking charge. However it is extremely confusing to see even higher disproportionate charges appear in correspondence from ‘National Debt Collectors Ltd’ prior to the involvement of DCBL, see Exhibit x. The Claimant is intentionally trying to mislead the court by suggesting these costs represent renumeration for the work of DCBL which is untrue. Consequently, this is a feeble attempt at double recovery by using a generic template in the hope of intimidating the reader into paying for their unjustified charges.  

Landowner Authority 

11. The claimant has given no evidence of an IPC compliant land owner contract which contains wording that specifically assigned them any rights to form contracts with the drivers in their own name. 

My fixed witness costs

12. 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 (see exhibit-16). 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.

13. 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.’’

14. The court is invited to dismiss the claim and toward my costs of attendance at the hearing searches are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14

My statement of truth:

15. 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

AlwaysTrying23 said:

Hi guys - I have searched the forum............

Questions:

Is there a need to reiterate points that are already in my defence?

You could start your WS with the words: - "this Witness Statement is produced in support of my defence as already filed".  Any points in your defence should be backed up and supported by your WS.

Coupon-mad

Copy and adapt the WS by @jrhys which shows what it all looks like, but add in the other wording and transcript by Recorder Cohen QC that I set out in a thread last month.

1505grandad

Also please note that if you have to refer to First Parking as a member of an AoS it is BPA not IPC (para 6)

AlwaysTrying23

1505grandad said:

Also please note that if you have to refer to First Parking as a member of an AoS it is BPA not IPC (para 6)

Thanks for the info. I’m wondering whether to remove the point about grace period as it seems to refer to expired tickets, not permits/lack of. The question is does the 10 minute period also cover entering the car park as it seems it may vary… regarding time to consider the T&Cs, “The amount of time in these instances will vary dependent on the site size and type but it must be a minimum of five minutes”