DCB Legal on behalf of Highview Parking - Advice on Defence for Claim

Redman2186

Coupon-mad said:

Very good, OK I am working on it a but more!

Thank you, I very much appreciate the help.

Redman2186

Feel like I have a long few hours ahead of me. 

Strong coffee in hand!

Redman2186

@Coupon-mad

how are you looking timing wise?

Coupon-mad

I am having something to eat and will come back to you tonight here so don't sit with that coffee!  Will take me tonight to go back through it all  - I want to check you have enough and I had to stop looking at it earlier as I am also doing some home decorating (stopped now!)

Redman2186

Coupon-mad said:

I am having something to eat and will come back to you tonight here so don't sit with that coffee!  Will take me tonight to go back through it all  - I want to check you have enough and I had to stop looking at it earlier as I am also doing some home decorating (stopped now!)

Thanks - I'm just cleaning up as best I can with what I've got so everything (as it currently stands) is exhibited properly - Then I can just deal with copy and paste to update. 

I think it will be one of many coffees

Redman2186

I've cleaned up the sections below - will tweak and incorporate @Coupon-mad changes later - wanted to share incase any relevant/not relevant

Abuse of process – the quantum

 52.           In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £85, the Claimant has added a sum of £70 that is disingenuously described as 'debt recovery costs'. The added £70 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process.

53.           As was found 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, the transcript of which is exhibited to this statement as “Exhibit BL-12”. 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''.

54.           The fairness of terms where no sum is specified, was recently ruled upon by Recorder Cohen QC, sitting at the Central London County Court, in the case of Chevalier-Firescu v Ashfords LLP [2021] F83YX432, the transcript of which is exhibited to this statement as “Exhibit BL-13”, where it was held that a term stating that the appellant would be held liable for costs on the indemnity basis was improper in purpose and thus unfair pursuant to s62 of the CRA, as it created imbalance between the parties.  Such a ‘contractual indemnity costs’ clause sidesteps the Civil Procedure Rules and cannot be recoverable, absent unreasonable conduct by the Defendant.

 55.           Recorder Cohen held that: ''it does seem to me to be clear that this clause has an effect which is unusual, perhaps even abnormal in effect'' and at [13] he summarised the two issues arising from this remarkably similar clause to that in this case, which had the object or effect of creating a more generous basis of costs recovery than there would ordinarily be, in the case of both default judgments and defended cases, whereby consumers stood to be penalised as if CPR 27.14(g) applied.

 Redacted Landowner Contract

 56.           The Claimant has appended a ‘Witness Statement’ (Claimant’s Exhibit 1) as evidence of their company’s agreement with the Land Owner (“ Landowner Agreement”) This document has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. The ‘Client’ signatory of the ‘Agreement’ could be anyone, even a stranger to the land, and the Claimant provides no evidence that the ‘Client’ is the landowner.

 57.           It is also clear that the document has not been signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

 58.           Furthermore, the “Witness Statement” was arbitrarily executed on 20th October 2020 and does not reference this claim in any way.

 59.           In the recent Court of Appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907 for which a link to the full transcript and extracts of paragraphs [74] and [75] have been exhibited to this statement as “Exhibit BL-14” the Court of Appeal are now clear that most redactions are improper where the Court are being asked to interpret the contract. In this case the Claimant has failed to even provide a redacted Contract of their right to operate.

 60.           For the avoidance of doubt [74] and [75] “Exhibit BL-14” state “…The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole...”  “Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision...''

 In respect of the Counter Claim

 61.        Exhibited to this statement is the following correspondence chains (“Exhibit BL-15”) which includes:

                        i.         All correspondences with Group Nexus (Parent Company of Highview Parking Limited)

                       ii.         All correspondences with Debt Recovery Plus

                     iii.         All correspondences with Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited & DCB Legal

 62.        During this whole process DCB Legal (the Claimant’s legal representative) have been particularly challenging to deal with. In addition to the earlier noted “Privilege” issue [39]-[43], they also failed to supply me with all my data requested when I submitted a Subject Access Request (“SAR”).

 63.        My request was as follows:

                        i.         For the avoidance of doubt, I am requesting that ALL DATA that you hold relating to me is provided, included but not limited to:

a.  all letters/emails sent and received, including any previous correspondence

b. all data held

I would also like to know if you have shared my data with any third parties and if so, which third parties, which data and for which purpose.

 64.        As is evident in “Exhibit BL-15”, DCB Legal have chosen not to provide the correspondence which I requested under my SAR i.e., [63.i.a]. Given they have processed my personal data to send correspondence, I expected that they would comply by providing. I have subsequently re-requested this from them and await their full cooperation.

 65.        Having ignored threatening demand after demand from both DRP and Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited, a letter from the Claimant’s legal representative DCB Legal arrived. This is not exhibited as I am unable to locate and DCB Legal declined to provide as part of the SAR at time of drafting Witness Statement. It was a “FINAL NOTICE” with a last warning that if a payment was not forthcoming - a County Court Judgement (“CCJ”) may be issued against me.

 66.        The threat of a CCJ is worrisome, it affected me. I was worried that it could ruin my credit worthiness and employability. The frequent letters brought a state of distress and anxiety, I was so shocked and angry to have to be put to defend against this false claim.

 67.        Demands after demands and threatening letter after threatening letter were sent. Always with varied amounts, I worried that these letters were some sort of scam and rightly or wrongly I chose to ignore them.

 The effect of the demands on myself and my family

 68.        Letters from Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited provided in “Exhibit BL-15” were headed as “Notice of Debt Recovery” were particularly worrisome. The letter contained such menacing wording “Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!”. These notorious enforcement agents are seen on TV and my impression is that they just go out of their way with the sole aim to recover the monies for their client.  I didn't realise until this point that I was being pursued to court, that in fact these earlier letters were never from the Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited ‘Bailiff Arm' seen on TV because the wording was misleading and designed to intimidate me.  I honestly had visions of someone knocking on my door to take things away or clamping my car.

 69.        Finally, at the point when a “Claim Form” arrived, I realised that this was not going to disappear, I would need to take action to defend myself. The threats at this stage were threefold in nature: those to start legal proceedings against me could cause considerable anxiety, distress and harm having bailiffs turn up at my door to remove goods and having a CCJ being recorded at the credit reference agencies for 6 years.

 70.        My employability was under threat, not only would a CCJ would harm my employment prospects should I lose my current job.

 71.        My credit rating would be destroyed, causing significant problems applying for loans and mortgages.

 72.        The whole situation has been so frustrating, I sought to outline in the Defence to the Claim as best I could that there was a Clear and Obvious ANPR failure and that notwithstanding that, I had no recollection of who was or was not driving across two separate unremarkable dates nearly 5 years ago. This was all to no avail, the Claimant and the Claimant’s legal representative just ignored my pleas for them to take a closer look at the images and come to the same conclusion that I had that they had no cause to issue the PCN and by follow through no cause to seek this Claim. My frustration was then compounded further when I saw the Claimant’s witness statement where they have now changed track entirely from suggesting a stay of 03:52 (hh:mm) to an updated duration of 27:52 (hh:mm) due to a “typographical error”. In my view this change of track was made to align with the images that resulted from the ANPR flaw which have clearly defaulted to first in last out photos from a return visit within a short time. As I have demonstrated throughout this witness statement and during the sequence of events [20]-[38] that my family and I were in multiple location across the timeframe in question which is evidenced by the purchases made by my Husband and I at numerous locations both at Waterfields Retail Park and away from “Exhibit BL-5” and “Exhibit BL-6”. There can be no cause to believe the vehicle was left on site during this time, which would have included an overnight stay, only to then make a purchase the next day and return home.

 73.        I have wasted so many hours of my life on this, more importantly, I was brought to a state of considerable anxiety and distress on multiple occasions, not knowing whether or not I would end up with a County Court Judgment or a bailiff would come knocking to remove my possessions, whether I missed a court claim form such that legal proceedings might have already been brought upon me or it had already been reported to a credit rating agency.

 74.        The thought of having to go to court to defend yourself, particularly against something that you know to be wholly untrue is frankly terrifying, I have worked tirelessly with my Husband to prepare for the court proceeding, I hope this is evident through this witness statement.

 75.         I appreciate that a document of this length is most likely overkill, however, as I noted in my opening, I have no prior experience and I wanted to leave no stone unturned on pure principal. The Claimant has pursued me for 5 years for an ever-changing amount of money without merit, they did not even take the short amount of time to consider the ANPR flawed images. Throughout this 5-year ordeal is has become clear that the Claimant is simply looking to collect money, the tactics they employ through various third parties is frightening. However, I would like to note that I am proud to have seen this process through to this stage. From my extensive research, I know many others simply give up the fight in the face of these tactics and pay the few hundred pounds regardless of whether they were at fault or not, simply because the prospect of court is daunting.

Fruitcake

Ref your para 57, I knocked this up a while ago regarding landowner contracts and the Companies Act to help someone else. Have a look and see if any of it is relevant to your case.

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk) Section 43

 

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk) Section 44

 

For S43

 

43 Company contracts

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a contract may be made—

(a) by a company, by writing under its common seal, or

(b) on behalf of a company, by a person acting under its authority, express or implied.

(2) Any formalities required by law in the case of a contract made by an individual also apply, unless a contrary intention appears, to a contract made by or on behalf of a company.

 

1 (a) Rarely used

1 (b) Express authority means a statement from a person such as the owner, a company director or company secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company, has the authority to form legally binding contracts with another party.

Implied authority would usually be found in the company’s Articles of Association or similar as held by Companies House stating that a person holding a specific title such as Regional Manger or Property Manager has authority, or a person specifically named by the owner, director, company secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company has authority.

  

For S44

 

44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because the neither party has affixed its common seal, it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

  

District Judge Simon Middleton said in his judgment of case number F1DP92KF heard at Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020 that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

 

 

Redman2186

Thanks @Fruitcake

From their WS: "At the time of issue, my Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to manage parking on the Land. A copy of my Company’s agreement with the Landowner (“Landowner Agreement”) is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 1”.

This is the document they have provided in their exhibit - what do you think?

"Exhibit 1"

Witness Statement

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of (landowner) I can confirm the following details: The site is Waterfields Retail Park, Watford, the Landowner/owner of the site is Nuveen Global and the Operator is Highview Parking Ltd.

Furthermore, I can confirm that the Operator has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management, control, and enforcement at the site. This authority was in effect during the time the PCN was issued and we can confirm that the contract was in fact in place from 1 st January 2013 and remains in force. In addition I can confirm the notice period to terminate this contract is one calendar month and it will therefore remain in force until at least the 16th November 2020. Included in this authority is the authorisation by the Landowner for the Operator to issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking.

The terms and conditions are clearly set out on signage on site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site. The issuing of parking charge notice is subject to the agreed criteria and exemptions, as also clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.

The Operator is authorised to issue a parking charge notice for breach of any of the terms and conditions referred to above. The Operator is also authorised by the Landowner to pursue the outstanding parking charge in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

I confirm that I am authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Landowner and that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Adam Stone
Position: Senior Portfolio Manager
For and behalf of: Nuveen Global
Date: 20 October 2020
Signature: (with his signature)

Coupon-mad

I don't think a Judge would have a problem with that and it's a tangent you don't need!  The bottom line is your car was not there overnight and the Claimant didn't even realise this was an ANPR error until you pointed it out when you finally saw images in the SAR!

This is what I would put and it is still long, in support of the counterclaim (£500, yes?):

Claim No: xxxxxxx

IN THE xxxxxxxxx Court (name of local court)

 

BETWEEN:

 

PPC NAME LIMITED

 

-and-

 

DEFENDANT’S NAME

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT AND PART 20 COUNTERCLAIMANT

 

1. I am xyz of abc, and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts outlined in this Witness Statement 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 and counterclaim are both repeated; the fundamental points being that:

(a) no Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') should ever have been issued and my DVLA data should never have been processed and shared - and certainly not for the best part of five years.  The Claimant has failed in its duty and obligation as an accredited member of the British Parking Association ('the BPA'), to undertake manual checks of their automatic camera images, and

(b) if they had carried out even a cursory check over the years when reviewing my case, they would have noticed what I saw in about five minutes flat when they eventually disclosed their ANPR images, sadly after issuing their claim.  The images show that their camera had captured two visits on two consecutive days and defaulted (as ANPR does) to 'first in, last out' images, and

(c) in any event, this Claimant admits that they do not seek to rely on (and cannot rely on) the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') and a registered keeper cannot be held liable outwith that legislation, so there was no cause of action against me at all, absent any evidence of the identity of the (likely two) drivers.

 3.  In response to the Claimant’s belittling comments about me in their witness statements from Paragraph 20 and 23, I am a litigant in person that had zero prior knowledge of UK parking law, I think it is reasonable that I researched the applicable laws and case law in the limited time that I’ve had since being made aware of the claim and finally uncovering the facts when I received their Subject Access Request ('SAR') response. I have no baseline for a 'complex' defence and I took the decision to use a reliable online resource and adapt it to include everything that I deemed as potentially valuable to best present my case.  In addition, I filed a properly pleaded counterclaim, so the statements and exhibits required to support that will understandably fill more pages than a run of the mill parking case about signage.

Background

4.  I live locally to Waterfields Retail Park, Watford and my family and I have regularly used the various shops there for a number of years.   The drivers in the family used and were insured on the vehicle mentioned in the Particulars of Claim and as the registered keeper, I was unaware of any alleged 'overstay' (and there was none, as it turns out).   I did not receive any PCN relating to this alleged incident.  

5.  The reason for this, I have only recently discovered, was because the Claimant obtained my old address from the DVLA and even when one of the many debt collection agencies the Claimant shared my data with carried out an address check/trace and sent a series of demands to me out of the blue, this Claimant did not at any point attempt to re-serve the PCN or offer appeal despite knowing that they had used an old address and that my silence at first was because I had not received the PCN.  I would not have ignored a PCN and have successfully used the POPLA appeals service in the past, but this was not offered to me.

6.   Had they sent me a copy of the PCN to appeal in 2016 when their agents, Debt Recovery Plus Ltd had traced me and informed the Claimant of my new address, this court claim could have been avoided because the images disclose an error that is fatal to the claim.  The SAR provided to me by this Claimant, after issuing their claim, finally disclosed a 2016 PCN (exhibited at “Exhibit BL-01”).  It shows images captured by ANPR camera and I noticed almost immediately just as I was preparing to file my defence, that the PCN has 'entry and exit' Date and Time stamps as follows:

                            i.         Date and Time of Entry – 1st October 2016 11:55

                            ii.         Date and Time of Exit –  2nd October 2016 15:48

7.  This PCN incorrectly states that the recorded duration of the alleged stay was 03:52 (hh:mm). I invite the court to reach the same conclusion that I did when writing my defence; something does not add up here. Clearly the images attached to the PCN have recorded my vehicle entering and exiting on two separate days.  

8.  In almost five years since the Claimant first shared my DVLA data with a debt recovery agency and aggressively-worded demands started to shower me like confetti, not a single human being has bothered to check the images, not even when reviewing the case before issuing the claim.  Even their Data Protection Officer apparently failed to notice when replying to my SAR.  I have found that unjustified 'double visit' PCNs issued in error by ANPR parking firms are far from a rare occurrence.  Hundreds of accounts are reported in newspaper articles and online forums and this Claimant being an 'ANPR specialist' was required to take steps to identify such cases and avoid even applying to the DVLA for my protected data, back in 2016.  

9.   Fast forward to 2021 and with the claim hanging over my head, I pointed out this clear and obvious error more than once to the Claimant, expecting at long last for them to admit their error and discontinue the claim, bringing an end to the matter at last.  This was stated clearly in my Defence and Counterclaim and followed quickly by a desperate subsequent communication I sent to them, repeating what I had noticed, because they had ignored this in their response.  

10.  Astonishingly, the Claimant is now dismissing the fact that they have collected, processed and shared my DVLA data without 'reasonable cause', issued an unjustified PCN in haste and failed to even look for what the parking industry call 'orphan' ANPR images, and are saying it is merely a typo!  They have changed course after filing the claim and are now saying that my car was there overnight, a ludicrous allegation.  They could and should have discontinued the claim when I pointed this out (Email to DCB Legal exhibited to this Statement at “Exhibit BL-02” and my RESPONSE TO CLAIMANT’S “REPLY TO DEFENCE AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM” exhibited to this Statement at “Exhibit BL-03”).

11.   I find it abhorrent that the Claimant has in their Witness Statement, carried on accusing me of owing them money as a result of their erroneous PCN and has dismissed the entire five years of harassing letters, and tried to sweep their error and lack of diligent checks under the carpet with the words "No prejudice has been caused to the Defendant as a result of this simple error".  

12.  Oh yes it has.  There would have been no debt demands, no threat of court, no court claim - nothing about this should ever have seen the light of day because they never had a reasonable cause to obtain my data, from the outset.  

13.  Notwithstanding this, I will demonstrate how the Claimant’s accusation of a 27:52 (hh:mm) overnight stay at a retail car park, which is about 3 miles from my house, is simply preposterous and untrue and I invite the court to reach the same conclusion on the balance of probabilities and considering the fact that this is a well-known inherent flaw with ANPR systems.  The Claimant knows all of this and I am incensed to have been wrongly treated as a 'debtor for five years and that it seems to have been my burden to spot the issue with the PCN.  If I had not defended the claim, I would have suffered a damaging and enhanced CCJ for no reason whatsoever and I cannot understand why the Claimant is carrying on and making light of the effect on me.

14.   The Claimant cannot be heard to say they were unaware of their duty (before applying for DVLA registered keeper data) to seek out 'orphan images' where the 'in and out' images span a 24 hour period.  An extract from BPA website is exhibited to this statement as “Exhibit BL-04”.  As well as 'manual checks' of ANPR images being a consistent obligation within the BPA Code of Practice over many years, this article by the BPA (dating from a couple of years before the parking event) specifically warned:

"As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:  a)    Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur."

Coupon-mad

15.   The Claimant’s witness poses two questions in Paragraph 20 of their Witness Statement, which I will respond to in turn over the following two paragraphs:

                         i.         “were they driving?”

                       ii.         “did they overstay?”

 16.   In response to “were they driving?” it is somewhat late for an operator to ask five years later, but I was heavily pregnant (7.5months – my son was born in December 2016) at this time and on the balance of probabilities, I was likely not the driver on either day.   As outlined in my defence the identity of the driver(s) at the material time is unknown.  I was not the only insured driver of the vehicle in question and I am unable to recall who was or was not driving on two separate shopping visits to Waterfields Retail Park across two separate unremarkable days in 2016.

17.   In response to “did they overstay?” – No, as I will outline in the sequence of events below, this is simply a case of two separate visits.   For completeness, it is my honest belief that we have never overstayed and both visits would have been for less than the "2 hour max stay".  Further, the returning driver the next day may well not have been the same person who shopped the day before. 

18.  Hence the terms of any contract with the claimant were not breached and these ANPR images are not just unhelpful, they are misleading and have caused the Claimant to go off on a wild goose chase for five years.  This is no laughing matter when I was the person pursued, and the first Debt Recovery demand arrived in the same month that my baby was born.  Many more demands arrived, sometimes one a month and often with the amount demanded fluctuating.  I felt these letters bore all the hallmarks of a scam and I felt on edge all the time when I should have been relaxed and enjoying my child's first year. 

19.  I feel I have to make a stand and it was the realisation that all this was avoidable that tipped the balance and confirmed my decision to counterclaim for damages for distress.  To be honest, the series of letters that followed were horrific and impacted on my family life.  (See Exhibit BL-05, just some of the various 'debt recovery' demands that I endured).

20.  Whilst I do not believe it was likely to have been me driving on those two days (not that the drivers did anything wrong) I can illustrate the frequency with which my husband and/or I visit Waterfields Retail Park.  I have trawled back through our bank statement transactions from Autumn 2016 (exhibited as “Exhibit BL-06).

21.  This clearly establishes a pattern of behaviour including shopping there or nearby on the same day and consecutive days, something that parents of young children often have need to do.  On the 1st October 2016, my vehicle entered Waterfields Retail Park Car Park at 11:55, this is documented on “Exhibit BL-01”. My bank statement “Exhibit BL-06” shows a purchase at Boots for £8.58, so I suspect I was a passenger that day.  My vehicle then exited the Waterfields Retail Park Car Park and given I was heavily pregnant and we would have had our toddler with us, it would have been too tiring to hang around, so this would have been significantly prior to 13:55, i.e. “2 Hour Maximum Stay”. This is one of the orphan images that I’ve suggested that the claimant locates due to the ANPR flaw.  They have not bothered, even now.

22.   After the visit to Waterfields Retail Car Park we ended up at Tesco Car Park in Watford. I can be confident of this because my Husband’s Credit Card statement covering the time period in questions which is exhibited to this statement as “Exhibit BL-07” and shows 2 purchases from this location, at Giraffe and Tesco.  After Lunch at Giraffe (location which is not Waterfields Retail Park), my vehicle would have returned home for the evening and been parked on my drive.  We did not camp out!

23.  On the 2nd October 2016 around 11:30 we visited Delisserie in Mill Hill (Café which is no longer open). We used to visit for brunch. My bank statement “Exhibit BL-06” shows a purchase at Delisserie.  For context, that cafe was approximately 8 miles from Waterfields Retail Park. Later in the day, my vehicle entered that Retail Car Park and I can safely say this was between 13:48 & 15:48 ensuring we would not have breached the 2 Hour Maximum Stay. 

24.  This is the other of the orphan images that I’ve suggested that the claimant locates due to the ANPR flaw, and given the work I have put into this to prove my honesty and patronage of the retail park, I think expecting them to evidence the missing ANPR images (or admit they have long since deleted them, and finally admit to fault and apologise for the years of harassment) is the least I can expect from this Claimant's Data Protection Officer.  

25.   My bank statement “Exhibit BL-06” shows a purchase at Next, 532 for £9 and I distinctly remember this visit as the primary purpose of this trip was to decide on a bed for my 1 year old son.  After visiting Next at Waterfields Retail Park, my vehicle exited the Car Park at 15:48, this is documented on “Exhibit BL-01”, culminating in a stay of less than 2 hours.  Whilst at home my husband then purchased the bed we had seen in-store. My Husband’s Credit Card statement “Exhibit BL-07” shows this purchase on the 2nd October 2016 from Next Directory.co.uk for £395.38 so we are (or were) valuable shoppers for the stores at this location.

26.  To further illustrate how ludicrous the suggestion is, I’ve included a Google Maps view showing distance between locations is exhibited to this statements as “Exhibit BL-08” showing distance between:

                         i.         Waterfields Retail Park and my house – 3.4 miles

                       ii.         My house and Delisserie in Mill Hill – 5.4 miles

                     iii.         Waterfields Retail Park and Delisserie in Mill Hill – 8.4 miles

27.  Being 7.5 months pregnant at the time, with a 1 year old in tow, I am 100% certain that I would not have left my car at Waterfields Retail Park, walked the 3.4 miles home, walked 5.4 miles from home to Delisserie in Mill Hill for brunch and then walk back the 8.4 miles to Waterfields Retail Park just to collect my car and return home. Nor would I have ever chosen to spend the night sleeping in the car at a Retail Car Park!

28.  It is my position that I have tried on numerous occasions to demonstrate to DCB Legal and the Claimant that this PCN was issued in error due to the ANPR flaws and that this whole circumstance could have been concluded weeks ago without the need to waste my time or the court's time. I am of the conclusion that the Claimant and their legal representative have continued to demonstrate unreasonable behaviour and continued harassment and it is respectfully requested that the Court considers whether they conclude the same.

Redacted Email Appended to Claimant Witness Statement - altered evidence?

29.  The claimant has appended an email on their Witness Statement “A copy of the email from my Company confirming the error is exhibited at “EXHIBIT 5”. This email exchange is between some completely unknown characters namely Gemma Bramhall (on behalf of the Claimants legal representatives) and Renata Sakirova (Claimant). They have not been part of any other communications and have never been mentioned to me. I have no idea who either are nor whether they will be available for cross examination.

30.   When copying the email across to append as an exhibit of my own, it became apparent that there is redacted text. When pasting into Microsoft Word, I was presented with the redacted text (highlighted) from the email exchange between Gemma and Renata both of which is have exhibited to this statement as “Exhibit BL-09”.  I have formerly asked DCB Legal for the unredacted email chain, to which they have refused, citing “Legal Privilege”, hence me deferring to the Judge’s expertise on this matter. 

31.  From my limited understanding, none of the redacted information could be considered “Privileged” or “Confidential”. I find this to be purely obstructive from the Claimant’s legal representative, but further, there are more concerns about this 'evidence':

 i.         The Claimant’s legal representative has signed a statement of truth on 13th July 2021 where in Paragraph 20 it is cited “A copy of the email from my Company confirming the error is exhibited at “EXHIBIT 5”. However, the dates of the email exchange between Gemma & Renata is from the 21st July 2021 some 8 days after that signed statement of truth.

ii.         Despite me having pointed out the ANPR flaw more than once by then, as demonstrated by Gemma’s email, there is no mention of this to the Claimant. As outlined in Paragraph 16 rather than spend 30 minutes to investigate my suggestion, the Claimant frankly chose to ignore and quickly came to the conclusion (11minutes), that there must be a “typographical error”.