EMA airport fine for stopping at double yellow line - court date in near future.

SayNoToPCN

You need to get on this. 

the concern is that you only have about 4 weeks left. In 3 weeks all you did was the above.
It suggests you are not prioritising this. WHich might be all you can do, but you cannot expect us to write it for you, as we cant do so. 
Even worse, you put in a bad defence, so you are now having to write a better-than-average WS to rescue it


None of this is meantr to dishearten you, it is meant to get you to realise your position you put yourself in, and how seriously people who dont even know you are taking this. It is meant to act as a wake up call, because currently you are, for want of a better word, sleep walking into a loss when that doenst have to happen. Your case is rescuable otherwise we wouldnt be telling you otherwise. 

san2020

OK, I believe I posted this but I clearly did not.

I also believe C-M classed this as not relevant as the original defence was not up to scratch. Could you please comment on this WS. I also have another claim received for the same date few minutes later at EMA airport (Fuel station). the deadline for the Defence is 13th April. So I have focused more on that compared to preparing the WS for the original claim at EMA airport.

Please ignore formatting, that is ruined for the moment.

Claim No.

Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)

and

(Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, of , will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter.

1. I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Notice to Keeper (NTK) on or around

**/**/****.

The PCN states “Contravention Reason: 46) STOPPING IN A ZONE WHERE STOPPING IS

PROHIBITED” at East Midlands Airport.

2. The Particulars of Claim submitted by the Claimant do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or driver” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability and is not a “concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies” in accordance with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4

3. The vehicle is insured and used by more than one driver and the driver of the vehicle on

the day in question has not been evidenced by the Claimant on any occasion. There is no reasonable presumption in law that the keeper was the driver so I assume that they are pursuing the Defendant “as the registered keeper of the vehicle”. Claimant claimed to be entitled to pursue Defendant as the keeper under Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

4. Schedule 4 of PoFA allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle but the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on

relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c)

excludes “any land ........on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”

5. The road on which the alleged contravention took place is subject to the Road Traffic Act

1988, (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) of RTA and it being a road “to which the public has access”. Schedule 4, of PoFA therefore, does not apply, and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges.

6. In the alternative, the Airport is covered by the Airport Byelaws at exhibit x and the official Government Guidance on the POFA confirms the land where the POFA applies and 'byelaws land' is specifically excluded.  There can be no 'keeper liability' on non-relevant land and neither was the parking charge issued as a 'penalty' under any specific byelaw, so there can be no owner liability under the byelaws themselves, either.

7. I have seen no evidence of authority flowing from the Airport, that includes the section of road in question and put the C to strict proof of where the car actually stopped within the many Airport roads, some of which are averred to be outside any purported authority that this Claimant relies upon.  As seen in other cases reported online recently where this Claimant has lost in court, tickets appear to be being issued outside of any purported authority on roads and even in a petrol station so the C is put to strict proof of (a) their standing and (b) exactly where the images were captured.

8. Furthermore, Section C of the NTK states that notification of driver/hirer/keeper details must

be made within 28 days of the Issue Date. Paragraph 9(f) of PoFA Schedule 4 states that the

response period is “28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” and

paragraph 9(6) states the “given” date for a “notice sent by post is to be presumed, ...... to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working

day after the day on which it is posted;”. As such, the Claimant’s NTK does not meet the

requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 so they do not have the right to claim unpaid parking charges

from the keeper of the vehicle.

9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60

described as “contractual costs and interest” or “Debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.

10. Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been

incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. In addition to this, in 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''.

12. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from

the keeper is the charge stated on the NTK which in this case is £100

13. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to

include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67.

14. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. I am of the opinion that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck

out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4)

15. The Claimant has not provided evidence that the landowner has given them the necessary

authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation

16. The Claimant has failed to provide details of the alleged signage upon which they are relying

to form a contract with the driver and neither have they demonstrated that

it is appropriately positioned to allow all drivers to read and understand the terms of the alleged contract

17. I would also question the existence of the alleged contract which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopp

ing is prohibited”. The signage is wholly

prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration. In the absence of consideration, no contract

exists

SayNoToPCN

That is too painful to read, sorry. Can you correct the weird formatting? 
Copy it into Wordpad THEN copy here. It should sort it out.

Coupon-mad

I think at #5 I would add:

In the alternative, the Airport is covered by the Airport Byelaws at exhibit x and the official Government Guidance on the POFA confirms the land where the POFA applies and 'byelaws land' is specifically excluded.  There can be no 'keeper liability' on non-relevant land and neither was the parking charge issued as a 'penalty' under any specific byelaw, so there can be no owner liability under the byelaws themselves, either.

Then have a look at the example WS and evidence posted just now by @jrhys and copy some of his wording and evidence (Excel v Wilkinson).

Also add in something stating that you have seen no evidence of authority flowing from the Airport, that includes the section of road in question and put the C to strict proof of where the car actually stopped within the many Airport roads, some of which are averred to be outside any purported authority that this Claimant relies upon.  As seen in other cases reported online recently where this Claimant has lost in court, tickets appear to be being issued outside of any purported authority on roads and even in a petrol station so the C is put to strict proof of (a) their standing and (b) exactly where the images were captured.

san2020

SayNoToPCN said:

That is too painful to read, sorry. Can you correct the weird formatting? 
Copy it into Wordpad THEN copy here. It should sort it out.

Updated in original post with Comments of C-M. 
Is there a template which I can work on? The WS and exhibit documents looks full of formatting. I will spend some hours over the weekend to produce a similar doc as  @jrhys.  Many thanks, Especially Coupon-mad. You are a star and can probably guess that I am struggling.

Coupon-mad

No there is no template.

san2020

In relation to WS and signatures, does it need a proper signature or can I type the correct wording of signature on the WS document and Exibits doc? I don't have a scanner which would allow me to send it electronically. Can you assist?

also: Could I include in my WS that another case of similar nature at Fuel Station at EMA airport is due for which I have submitted the defence. Am I allowed to add in my WS the option to consider both of these cases as one?

Redx

Sign a piece of White paper in black ink , take a picture of it , merge the picture into your documents as a digital signature , so yes it needs a proper signature

No different to what lawyers do

Having no scanner is irrelevant

san2020

Could I include in my WS that another case of similar nature at Fuel Station at EMA airport is due for which I have submitted the defence. Am I allowed to add in my WS the option to consider both of these cases as one?

san2020

any comments on the WS before It goes?
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/r472un9j7nf3jjf/_WS_template%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0