County Court Claim - QDR Solicitors (NSGL Parking LTD)

KeithP

What I am saying is... that as you have already missed the 4pm deadline, then there is no point in worrying about it now. Worrying about it won't help at all.

I am also saying that there is absolutely no point now in rushing to file stuff as soon as possible because whether it arrives a midnight tonight or 8am Monday morning, as far as the court is concerned it has arrived at the same time.

It's a bit like your bank...
If you pay someone some money now via online banking, your bank will treat that transaction as having taken place on Monday - not Friday evening or Saturday.

You say you don't know what else to add...
Well if you allow people time to read your dropbox file, and you now have time for that, it is possible that you will get some ideas for improvements, additions or corrections.

Rosht

Thanks for explaining that Keith. Yes your right It's been a bit of a panic today.

Coupon-mad

Rosht said:

Sorry I am rushing as I have only had few hours today to get this written up from scratch. I have changed it now to NGSL LTD.

Please see my witness statement below:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sk0bmpr0iexwzd7/W.S V2 Details removed.docx?dl=0

Does anyone know what email address or who I should send this to? I only have a couple of hours before it is past the 14 day deadline.

Para 12 doesn't make sense for your case at all so I'd remove it and replace it with something like this and re-number the rest below that:

12.  Before even issuing the postal PCN, this Claimant's staff knew from day one - from their own ticket 'serial number' system mentioned in their Witness Statement -  that the VRM (typed by the passenger, not the Defendant) was incorrectly keyed and did not match any vehicle.

13.  I did not know any of this and thought in early 2021 that I was merely defending what is known as a 'fluttering ticket' (i.e. slipped off the dashboard) case.  I concluded this and defended the claim on that basis, based on what I'd seen in the series of vague but intimidating letters - that bore all the hallmarks of scam demands over Covid lockdown - and from reading the extremely sparse and incoherent pleadings in the Particulars of Claim ('POC').

14.  There was no prior notice of this 'wrong numberplate' issue that the witness suddenly introduces; not on the PCN, nor on any of the appalling ZZPS letters, nor in the allegations in the woeful POC that I duly answered in my defence.  The claim was about 'incorrect display' and that was what I addressed in my defence.

15.  I respectfully ask the learned Judge to look at the sparse/generic POC in this case and compare it to the sudden (different and accusatory) allegations in the Claimant's legal representative's witness statement.  I hope the court might agree with me that none of this was pleaded; certainly not an allegation of 'transferred' ticket, a bare and unjustified accusation to which I take offence and which constitutes a personal attack and an unpleaded ambush. defying any reasonable explanation.

15.1. Rothschild v Charmaine De Souza (2018] EWHC 1855 (Fam) is one of many cases which demonstrate the danger of including invective in witness statements; in a short closing remark, Mr Justice Mostyn stated that unjustified attacks in witness statements like this should affect costs.  It is not a third party paralegal's place to suddenly attack me with bald assertions and new information, which has in fact revealed that the Claimant knew from their records all along that this was merely a 'keying error'.

15.2. Further, I ask that the Judge might consider striking out all or part of the so-called witness statement of Shannon Leering who is based at QDR's offices in Leamington Spa and has most likely never been to the car park in question.  The lady making these unpleaded and unevidenced allegations is not a true witness, nor is she even an employee of the Claimant.  The court requires the witness statements of the 'parties' (NGSL LTD and myself) and there is nothing from the Claimants themselves, who are also unlikely to attend the hearing.

16.  If the Claimant's Witness Statement is allowed to stand, and bears scrutiny at the hearing, naturally I believe that less weight should be given to it than to my own account.

17.  Now I am having to answer for something not originally pleaded, which cannot be right, but I will try.  I have researched and found that this is classed as a 'major keying error' (human error by the passenger; perhaps a near miss for his own car registration).  It was not transferred from another vehicle, as disingenuously suggested by this non-witness third party paralegal.  It is indisputably an innocent human error because:

(a)  the timing of purchase (parking start time) tallies with our arrival/parking time;

(b)  the VRM is not correct for any car at all, let alone another vehicle that was in that car park;
(c)  the Defendant and their passenger are ordinary honest people who pay for parking, and
(d) the ticket was placed on the dashboard of the Defendant's own car in good faith and I will say all of the above in oral evidence.

18.  I have found that the 2020 version of the British Parking Association's Code of Practice (the 'CoP') which the Claimant's witness statement admits they must comply with, states that where it becomes apparent that a 'major keying error' has occurred, AOS members must reduce the charge to £20 to cover administration only.

18.1. The January 2020 version of the CoP can be found here:
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

18.2.  The concept of removing "unjustified charges" for known 'keying errors' was a specific new clause in 2020 (the year of this parking event). The rationale is explained by the BPA here:
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/AOS-Code-Changes-2018
Which refers to the requirement to offer to settle for "a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified" because "No one wants to receive a parking charge for making a mistake when entering their vehicle registration number into a Pay and Display machine or parking validation terminal, when they have paid for the parking event. Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges."

19.  The Claimant did not comply with this CoP clause at any stage and cannot now be heard to argue that they "didn't know" or that it was my burden to somehow know about the issue (in the absence of a windscreen PCN to alert me), identify the keying error myself and retain the receipt I did not know I'd have to keep.  The evidence from Shannon Leering upon which this Claimant relies (from a serial number record they produced) reveals that they certainly did know, from the outset, exactly which incorrect numberplate matched and was attributed to our payment by 'serial number 1324'.

20.  Nor did they even tell me that this was the issue.  Had I known, I now find I would have had a solid case to appeal to the self-serving POPLA that I avoided due to its well-known lack of independence (it is a clear breach of the CoP not to offer to settle at £20 when a major keying error is known).  Or at the very least - if they had admitted at that early stage, what they already knew from the ticket serial number 1324 - I would have been offered a very low settlement.  

21. Operating in breach of the CoP is bad enough but the position identified by this new evidence also destroys any semblance of  'commercial justification'.  The Claimants knew there was no loss, from day one and should have avoided issuing this postal PCN altogether.  They were merely trying to punish me. 

22.  Obtaining my DVLA data after not bothering to alert me with a timely and prominent PCN on the windscreen on the day (thus denying me the chance to spot the VRM error and keep the receipt to support an appeal) is also unfair conduct, set to be banned in 2024 as part of the new statutory Code of Practice at 15.2, which says "Parking operators’ attention is drawn provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 relating to ‘prominence’ of terms and ‘consumer notices’."

23.  Thus, the ParkingEye v Beavis case is distinguished.  Punishing a contract-breaker, in and of itself, can never be a legitimate interest (para 32).

24. The Government agrees that charging paying motorists for keying mistakes is unconscionable.  The new incoming statutory Code of Practice (linked later in this statement) will remove even the £20 supposed 'admin' settlement that the BPA allows, because the Government states that operators have the ability to use modern systems that prevent motorists from accidentally typing in a car numberplate that does not match a vehicle in the car park.

25. Even though the new Code is not yet secured as part of statute, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 most certainly is and the relevant section is found here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2/enacted

25.1. It is trite law that putting a disproportionate and onerous burden on consumers is unfair.  "Unfair terms are not binding on the consumer".  Attention is also drawn to s71 "Duty of court to consider fairness of term:(2). The court must consider whether the term is fair even if none of the parties to the proceedings has raised that issue or indicated that it intends to raise it."

Rosht

Wow thank you so much Coupon, you are a legend
Very kind of you to go out of your way to write all that, it is much appreciated.

I have added what you have said and tidied up my formatting a bit.

This is the witness statement now:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wi36nj4znuzw5zu/W.S V3 Details removed.docx?dl=0

Many thanks

B789

The only point I would raise and I stand to be corrected by the experts is with reference to paragraph #1 which states:

I am xxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts beloware true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge

As we have sometimes seen Claimants add supplementary WS accusing the Defendant of just copying and pasting from "internet forums" without any "knowledge" of what they are actually saying, would it not be worthwhile adding:

"...upon my own knowledge and research"

?

Coupon-mad

Yes, good point.

This bundle must be filed & served on Monday morning (local court and Solicitor). Google for the court's hearings Email address (or ring them to ask) if the Claimant's bundle in 2021 wasn't emailed with the right court email cc'd in?  They usually are.

If this exceeds 50 pages, also post or deliver by hand to the court. a full bundle hard copy in a ring binder.  Do not include your original defence as that's already in the case file.

ALL PAGE NUMBERED WHETHER YOU POST IT OR NOT.

Rosht

B789 said:

The only point I would raise and I stand to be corrected by the experts is with reference to paragraph #1 which states:

I am xxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts beloware true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge

As we have sometimes seen Claimants add supplementary WS accusing the Defendant of just copying and pasting from "internet forums" without any "knowledge" of what they are actually saying, would it not be worthwhile adding:

"...upon my own knowledge and research"

?

Thanks B789, I have added that to the statement 

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, good point.

This bundle must be filed & served on Monday morning (local court and Solicitor). Google for the court's hearings Email address (or ring them to ask) if the Claimant's bundle in 2021 wasn't emailed with the right court email cc'd in?  They usually are.

If this exceeds 50 pages, also post or deliver by hand to the court. a full bundle hard copy in a ring binder.  Do not include your original defence as that's already in the case file.

ALL PAGE NUMBERED WHETHER YOU POST IT OR NOT.

Many thanks Coupon, I have added the page numbers now.

The Claimants Witness statement was sent by post so I don't have an email addressee CC'd.

I have two email addresses of the court. One for which I sent the Questionaire and Defense to (CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk), and the other of which I sent my contact details to (enquiries.bournemouth.countycourt@justice.gov.uk). I presume it is the former but I was going to send to both to be sure. I will call them today to verify.

Should I mention about being past the deadline in the email or just write similar to what was said in the Defence email?

 i.e.
URGENT RE CLAIM xxxxxxxx  -  Please find my Witness Statement attached.

My final witness statement can be seen below:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ybgm7lxkki9eznt/Witness statement V4 Details Removed.docx?dl=0

Many thanks all

Jenni_D

It is most certainly NOT the former ... CCBCAQ is the County Court Business Centre, and that is NOT your local court!

A quick Google suggests that the latter email address is the only relevant one that exists for Bournemouth County Court.

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/bournemouth-and-poole-county-court-and-family-court

Rosht

Jenni_D said:

It is most certainly NOT the former ... CCBCAQ is the County Court Business Centre, and that is NOT your local court!

A quick Google suggests that the latter email address is the only relevant one that exists for Bournemouth County Court.

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/bournemouth-and-poole-county-court-and-family-court

Thanks Jenni,

So was I wrong to send my Defense and questionaire to that email addresse ? They acknowledged receipt of my defense (back in June 2021) by letter, in this letter it states that a copy is being served on the Claimant. And this letter was from County Court Buisness Centre.

I have tried calling but was told the lines are busy and try again later. Is there much harm sending to both email addresses ?

Umkomaas

The role of the CCBC in your case has ended and the only court you deal with is the court to which your hearing has been allocated. 

Should I mention about being past the deadline in the email 

Absolutely not. You don't want to admit a shortcoming, especially as the email will also have to send it to the claimant's solicitors too. They will ponce on that straight off!

The Claimants Witness statement was sent by post so I don't have an email addressee CC'd.

Have you checked the FAQs on the QDR website?


You can also email us at info@qdrsolicitors.com.