Witness statement and court dates

Invertigo

Hi all,

So I've used pepipoo mostly for this but they've advised I pop over here and ask too, so here we go.

Expect the best thing to do is to paste in my already submitted defence and then my proposed witness statement that I'm trying to sort out now. Return for documents is end of this month and the hearing is scheduled for end of next month.

Defence

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
1. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

2. However, it is denied that the vehicle was - by any reasonable interpretation - unauthorised, or that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

Inadequate Signage to form a contract
3. The signage in place was under the name of “UK Parking Patrol Office”, a trading name of a sole trader and a British Parking Association accredited operator. The Notice to Driver, Notice to Keeper and further communication including this court action are from a company “UK Parking Patrol Office Limited”, a limited company and an IPC accredited operator. Therefore I would state that the company pursuing these claims has never had the opportunity to form any sort of contract with the driver, as they had no signage displaying their name or credentials in place. Thus, the claimant has no interest in this matter.

4. The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Primacy of Contract
5. The driver at the time of issue was a resident within the premises for which the car parking area was utilised as a residents car park. The resident had a tenancy agreement which has primacy of contract over any agreement between the landowner and the claimant. The tenancy agreement agreed to by the driver offers zero requirements for permits to be displayed. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park. In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

Penalty Charges & Delays in Bringing About Claim
6. The Claimant is attempting to recoup costs of £268.88 yet has offered no clarification to justify these costs. The breakdown provided states the costs to be split as follows:
£100 Principal Balance
£60 Recovery Costs
£33.88 interest charges (addressed below)
£50 Legal representatives costs
£25 court fees.
7. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, therefore this excessive claim should be considered a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification.

8. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will – (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

9. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.


10. The claim includes a principal debt of £100 and £60 ‘Recovery Costs’ which as confirmed in the Letter before Claim includes a sum of £60.00 as a ‘debt collection charge’, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing. DJ Grand stated: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. 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. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.”, this was echoed by DJ Taylor.

12. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

13. The claimant is attempting to claim for £33.88 in interest charges from 02/03/2016 to 20/10/2020. The excessive time period is a result of their own tardiness as bringing about a claim and thus cannot be reasonably justified as an unavoidable loss.

14. The delay in progressing this issue to a claim is also an example of Laches, whereby the defendant may well have less evidence to rely upon due to the intentional delay in issuing proceedings by the claimant. The Claimant has offered no justifiable reason for the delay in issuing proceedings.

No evidence of parking
15. The claimant has offered no evidence that the vehicle was parked for any period of time. As such, there is no evidence of the vehicle being ‘parked’. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

Failure to follow requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4; requirements for transfer of liability to the keeper
16. The claimant is likely pursuing myself as the ‘Registered Keeper’. To do so, the claimant is required to follow the requirements as set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. They have failed to meet the following requirements:

17. Paragraph 4, (2) (a) requires that “the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met”, yet this is not the case as follows:


18. Paragraph 5, (1) (a) “The creditor has the right to enforce against the driver”. The driver was at the time of issue a resident of the premises. The driver’s tenancy agreement offers absolutely no requirements for permits to be displayed to park in the spaces which they had been given unfettered access to.

19. Paragraph 6 refers to the requirements that Notice to Driver (Paragraph 7) and Notice to Keeper (Paragraph 8) must be satisfied. This is not achieved, due to the following failures to comply:

20. Paragraph 7, (2) (a) offers a requirement for the period of time to which the notice relates to be clearly noted on the notice to driver. This is not present. The only time included is the time of issue, which is a separate requirement to the period of parking.

21. 7, (2) © “inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);”
The claimant is attempting to reclaim costs higher than that which is contained within the notice to driver.
22. Paragraph 8 (2) (a) the Notice to Keeper again fails to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The only time included is the time of issue, which is a separate requirement to the period of parking.

23. Paragraph 8, (2) © “repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), © and (f);” The same failure to 7 (2) © above.

24. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 is an absolute requirement and failure to adhere to any of the points listed above prevents any liability being transferred to myself as the keeper.

25. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

26. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.


27. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover

Witness statement:

I am XXX of XXXXX, and I am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows.
Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked NR1 to which I will refer.
1.       The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.
 
2.       I confirm that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question in March 2016
 
3.       I confirm that the vehicle was left in the residential car park at xxxxx at the time of this parking charge being issued.
 
4.        The signage in place at the above time was under the name of “UK Parking Patrol Office”, a trading name of a sole trader and a British Parking Association accredited operator (Exhibit A). The Notice to Driver (Exhibit , Notice to Keeper (Exhibit C) and further communication including this court action are from a company “UK Parking Patrol Office Limited”, a limited company and an IPC accredited operator.
 
5.       The signage in the car park (Exhibit A) is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms.
 
6.       The driver was a resident of the premises at the time. Within the driver’s tenancy agreement (Exhibit E) there was absolutely no requirement for any permits or restrictions of use in relation to the communal parking areas. The tenants were issued with a key card that provided unrestricted access to the secure indoor vehicle parking area.
 
7.       The claimant has indicated that they intend to rely on judgement from ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to justify these penalty charges as enforceable. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis does not apply to residential parking, therefore this excessive claim should be considered a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification.
 
8.       The claimant has confirmed to me in writing (Exhibit D) that they are pursuing me as the registered keeper of the vehicle only.
 
a)       Considering this, the claimant may only pursue the defendant as keeper of the vehicle in strict adherence to the stipulations outlined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012)
 
b)      It is averred that the claimant has failed to do this on numerous points
 
9.       In reference to above, the claimant seeks to transfer liability to myself as the registered keeper and in doing so must follow the stipulations outlined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012) exactly. They have failed to do so in the following ways:
 
a)       Paragraph 5, (1) (a) “The creditor has the right to enforce against the driver”. The driver was at the time of issue a resident of the premises. The driver’s tenancy agreement offers absolutely no requirements for permits to be displayed to park in the spaces which they had been given unfettered access to.
 
b)      Paragraph 7, (2) (a) offers a requirement for the period of time to which the notice relates to be clearly noted on the notice to driver. This is not present. The only time included is the time of issue, which is a separate requirement to the period of parking.
 
c)       7, (2) (c) “inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);”
The claimant is attempting to reclaim costs higher than that which is contained within the notice to driver.
 
d)      Paragraph 8 (2) (a) the Notice to Keeper again fails to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The only time included is the time of issue, which is a separate requirement to the period of parking.
 
10.   The claimant is attempting to claim charges higher than the maximum advised on the Notice to Keeper (Exhibit C).
 
11.   The claimant is attempting to claim for £33.88 in interest charges from 02/03/2016 to 20/10/2020. This excessive time period is a result of their own tardiness as bringing about a claim.
 
12.   Finally, having outlined my witness statement with supporting evidence, I encourage the court to strike out the claims against the Defendant as there are no sound grounds of claim.
 
I believe that the facts within this statement are true
Defendant

Would greatly appreciate any steer on what else to include, what to chop out etc.

Invertigo

If it's useful info, the parking firm is UK Parking Patrol Office and the representative is BW Legal. 

Coupon-mad

Ok so the best example lately has been the one posted by @jrhys which shows what to attach and how it all looks. 

And REALLY IMPORTANT PLEASE: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78411172/#Comment_78411172

Please, please come back every week to check and make sure your voice - AND YOUR FRIENDS’ AND RELATIVES’ VOICES TOO -  is/are not missed from this final opportunity to take part in the Government Consultation, coming very soon!

Invertigo

Okay, so quite a few points in that statement that are relevant here too, so I've got to the following

Sequence of events and signage:

1.       I confirm that the vehicle was left in the secure enclosed residential car park at XXXXX at the time of this invoice being generated on XXXXX. I can also confirm I was the registered keeper of this vehicle at this time.

2.       The signage in place at the time when the invoice was issued above (Exhibit A) referred to the company “UK Parking Patrol Office”, a trading name of a sole trader by the name of Steve Cheetham and a British Parking Association accredited operator. The subsequently issued Notice to Driver (Exhibit and Notice to Keeper (Exhibit C), alongside all further communications including these court proceedings were issued by a company called “UK Parking Patrol Office Limited”, a limited company and an IPC accredited operator.

3.       The signage in the car park (Exhibit A) is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms.

Primacy of Contract – Tenancy Agreement

4.       The driver was a resident of the premises at the time. Within the driver’s tenancy agreement (Exhibit E) there was absolutely no requirement for any permits or restrictions of use in relation to the communal parking areas. The tenants were issued with a key card that provided unrestricted access to the secure indoor vehicle parking area, thus considered unfettered access.

The Beavis case is against this claim

5.       This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, where the Supreme Court found that whilst the £85 was not (and was not pleaded as) a sum in the nature of damages or loss, ParkingEye had a ‘legitimate interest’ in enforcing the charge where motorists overstay, in order to deter motorists from occupying spaces beyond the time paid for and thus ensure further income for the landowner, by allowing other motorists to occupy the space. The Court concluded that the £85.00 charge was not out of proportion to the legitimate interest (in that case, based upon the facts and clear signs) and therefore the clause was not a penalty clause.

6.       However, there is no such legitimate interest where the landowner is not disadvantaged by the motorists’ stay. As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis does not apply to residential parking.

7.       Even taken as an extreme close-up, with no proof as to its visibility from the parking area, the sign that the Claimant has presented as evidence has vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, so as for it not to allow the opportunity for anyone to become acquainted with its terms. As such, as specifically outlined in Example 10 of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the signage constitutes an unfair customer notice, and, pursuant to s62 of the same act, any terms would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law. Consequently, it is my position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty would have been seen, known or agreed.

Failure to follow POFA Schedule 4

8.       The claimant has confirmed to me in writing (Exhibit D) that they are pursuing me as the registered keeper of the vehicle only.

 

a)       Considering this, the claimant may only pursue the defendant as keeper of the vehicle in strict adherence to the stipulations outlined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012)

b)      It is averred that the claimant has failed to do this on numerous points.

 

9.       In reference to above, the claimant seeks to transfer liability to myself as the registered keeper and in doing so must follow the stipulations outlined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012) exactly. They have failed to do so in the following ways:

a)       Paragraph 5, (1) (a) “The creditor has the right to enforce against the driver”. The driver was at the time of issue a resident of the premises. The driver’s tenancy agreement offers absolutely no requirements for permits to be displayed to park in the spaces which they had been given unfettered access to.

b)      Paragraph 7, (2) (a) offers a requirement for the “period of time” to which the notice relates to be clearly noted on the notice to driver. This is not present. The only time included is the time of issue, which is a wholly separate requirement to the period of parking.

c)       7, (2) (c) “inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);”
The claimant is attempting to reclaim costs higher than that which is contained within the notice to driver.

d)      Paragraph 8 (2) (a) the Notice to Keeper again fails to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The only time included is the time of issue, which is a separate requirement to the period of parking.

 

Abuse of Process

10.   In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as ‘debt collection costs’, ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘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 as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit F). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with ‘an improper collateral purpose’. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.

11.   After hearing this ‘test case’, which followed numerous Judges repeatedly disallowing the £60 sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims, Judge Jackson at the Bradford County Court went into significant detail before concluding that parking operators (such as the Claimant in this case) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Others, like Judge Hickinbottom of the same court area, have since echoed Judge Jackson’s words and struck out dozens of cases. Judge Hickinbottom stated “I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown”.

12.   The claimant is attempting to claim for £33.88 in interest charges from 02/03/2016 to 20/10/2020. This excessive time period is a result of their own tardiness as bringing about a claim.

Landowner Contract

13.   Despite multiple requests, the claimant has thus far refused to share any details of any agreement between themselves and the landowners, citing them as “privileged information”, as such failing to provide any such evidence that the claimant is in fact contracted or working on behalf of the landowner.

Fixed witness costs – ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

14.   Upon confirmation that attendance at any hearing would result in a loss of leave, I will ask for my fixed witness costs as specified by CPR Practice Direction 27, 7.3(1), and due under CPR 27.14(2)(e).

CPR 44.11 – further costs

15.   As a litigant-in-person I have spent considerable time researching the law online, attempting to correctly interpret the legal terminology, preparing my defence and preparing my witness statement. On top of this, due to the threatening and harassing language of the Claimant’s automated letter chain (behaviour akin to that acknowledged by Lord Hunt of Wirral – “Highly undesirable practices in the private parking industry range from threatening letters sent to motorists, poor signage in car parks and aggressive debt collection practices”.) I have had to endure the emotional strain of regularly reassuring my partner of our safety and of the integrity of our credit records.

16.   Therefore, I am appending with this bundle a fully detailed costs assessment (exhibit G) which covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the courts powers in relation to misconduct (CPR 44.11). In support of that argument, I first draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Claimant was aware (exhibit A) that there was incorrect signage at the parking area. Such matters, forming a significant part of the Claimant’s business model, can be reasonably considered to be within the Claimant’s expertise, and the Claimant could have avoided this claim.

17.   Secondly, given the specificity of the conclusions of Judges Jackson and Hickinbottom, and their direct relevance to this Claim, the Claimant’s business model and that of the Claimant’s legal representation, pursuit of the inflated sum including double recovery in full knowledge of such conclusions is clearly vexatious.

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true. 

Coupon-mad

I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true. 

That's the out of date statement of truth, and not the one seen in @jrhys' example.

If you were the driver are you not going to say so? 

If you were not the driver, the same question applies. A witness statement is your opportunity to state your known facts and comes across as more honest if you clarify such fundamental issues known to you.  Otherwise, the Judge might just ask you directly 'were you the driver?' and pay less regard to your statement because you didn't elucidate in it to assist the court to narrow the issues.

The WS doesn't say why no permit was displayed...i.e. did it fall down that day or was the resident new and awaiting a permit but with an honest belief from their tenancy agreement and key fob entry that they were entitled to park there?  Or... what were those facts?

It is not true to say at #17 that other county court decisions have 'direct relevance' to this case.  Not 'direct'!  You can say they are on all fours with this case.  You should also check if the signage actually states that they can add £60 or whether it just says vaguely 'costs on the indemnity basis' which is disallowed by the CRA 2015 if the Judge is switched on to their duty to consider the fairness and transparency of the terms and the consumer notices (signs). 

The latter was not a test that applied in the Beavis case because they considered the old UTCCRs only, which didn't have a requirement for 'prominence' of terms nor a duty to consider the fairness of consumer notices, specifically, which are never exempt from the test of fairness.

I think you need to add a point telling the Judge about the court's duty to consider the fairness of the consumer notices and the terms (including the vague term to add false costs that were never paid out to any debt recovery firm/robo claim solicitor, which operate on a 'no win no fee' basis in this industry).

Invertigo

Coupon-mad said:

I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true. 

That's the out of date statement of truth, and not the one seen in @jrhys' example.

If you were the driver are you not going to say so? 

If you were not the driver, the same question applies. A witness statement is your opportunity to state your known facts and comes across as more honest if you clarify such fundamental issues known to you.  Otherwise, the Judge might just ask you directly 'were you the driver?' and pay less regard to your statement because you didn't elucidate in it to assist the court to narrow the issues.

The WS doesn't say why no permit was displayed...i.e. did it fall down that day or was the resident new and awaiting a permit but with an honest belief from their tenancy agreement and key fob entry that they were entitled to park there?  Or... what were those facts?

It is not true to say at #17 that other county court decisions have 'direct relevance' to this case.  Not 'direct'!  You can say they are on all fours with this case.  You should also check if the signage actually states that they can add £60 or whether it just says vaguely 'costs on the indemnity basis' which is disallowed by the CRA 2015 if the Judge is switched on to their duty to consider the fairness and transparency of the terms and the consumer notices (signs). 

The latter was not a test that applied in the Beavis case because they considered the old UTCCRs only, which didn't have a requirement for 'prominance' of terms nor a duty to consider the fairness of consumer notices, specifically, which are never exempt from the test of fairness.

I think you need to add a point telling the Judge about the court's duty to consider the fairness of the consumer notices and the terms (including the vague term to add false costs that were never paid out to any debt recovery firm/robo claim solicitor, which operate on a 'no win no fee' basis in this industry).

Missed the rest of the ending out of the copy, have done the same as the linked statement.

I assume the driver's identity has no relevance to the case now anyway as I have written communication stating they are issuing claims against me as the keeper? If so then I have no issues revealing their identity.

The signage merely states that a £100 charge will be issued for noncompliance and 'non payment may result in additional charges'

Will make the changes in the morning based on the feedback, many thanks

KeithP

I assume the driver's identity has no relevance to the case now anyway as I have written communication stating they are issuing claims against me as the keeper? If so then I have no issues revealing their identity.

I don't understand the logic here.

Coupon-mad

The signage merely states that a £100 charge will be issued for noncompliance and 'non payment may result in additional charges'

The word 'may' makes that purported term void for uncertainty as a matter of trite law,  but more than that, it specifically offends against the CRA 2015.  And no such costs were paid.

D_P_Dance

The word 'may' makes that purported term void for uncertainty as a matter of trite law,  but more than that, it specifically offends against the CRA 2015.  And no such costs were paid.

Indeed, read this and complain to your MP.

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''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Invertigo

So the witness statement needs to be served to all parties by 29/06, I have written confirmation from BW that email is acceptable to them and the court letter also provides an email address. I assume this means it just needs to be sent by that day? I'll probably send it over the evening before to BW anyway, and I suppose I can send the copy to the court now

Coupon-mad

I'd always email both at the same time, cc-ing the solicitor in, so that a PPC rep can't pretend the WS & evidence wasn't sent.  To be fair, that's a tactic we've mainly seen from Excel and VCS.