County claim VCS

KeithP

bitbibit said:

Hi again, I have received documents from court about hearing and I have been asked to provide the documentation to court and claimant by 29th Nov.

It must be annoying that the Court have only given you six days notice to compile a Witness Statement and gather evidence.

But you've known for several months that this was coming and are now very nearly ready for a hearing.

Coupon-mad

They send a page of their logs where my car registration is not recorded. In SAR they send me both documents where one of the registration number was partially resembles to mine but they have not included that number in the documents sent to court.

They've done it again?!  SERIOUS stuff. 

Search the forum for Excel v Ambler and you MUST MUST MUST put in evidence that entire court transcript plus the Appeal Judge's refusal to allow them to appeal.

Also look at the signs.  ALL OF THEM in the SAR and the court 'evidence'. Do any have Excel instead of VCS as that is a problem with that car park?  

bitbibit

Coupon-mad said:

They send a page of their logs where my car registration is not recorded. In SAR they send me both documents where one of the registration number was partially resembles to mine but they have not included that number in the documents sent to court.

They've done it again?!  SERIOUS stuff. 

Search the forum for Excel v Ambler and you MUST MUST MUST put in evidence that entire court transcript plus the Appeal Judge's refusal to allow them to appeal.

Also look at the signs.  ALL OF THEM in the SAR and the court 'evidence'. Do any have Excel instead of VCS as that is a problem with that car park?  

Thank you guys for your response, I am looking into Excel v Ambler thread. The signs in court Evidence are smaller and the writing which states the name of company is illegible. They have attached A4 page of one sign-board which is not photograph, instead it's seems actual design/drawing [with sharp corners while the one on ground has round corners] which states 'you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Service Ltd'. I suspect this design might have changed original sign board may not have VCS name that's why the photo they sent is half of A4 page to make the writing illegible. As this car park is no more present so it is not possible to get the actual sign-board images.
But they have attached Leaseholder statement (see attachment) which summarises that the Land is leased to Excel Parking Services Ltd (The Lawful Occupier). The Lawful occupier contracted Vehicle Control Service to undertake the parking management activities. This make me think it is not lawful agreement with VCS (as management company) and driver/keeper.
SAR didn't have any picture of sign, it only has photo of vehicle entrance and exit along with photos of PCN and NTK which I don't remember if they serve on time. It also have log of 121 obfuscated registration numbers, one of which has 3 out of 4 visible letters matching the vehicle registration. While the page attached in Evidence contains only 32 entries which doesn't contains partially matching entry. 

Coupon-mad

You will find the actual court transcripts for Excel b Ambler on this forum, both from the first hearing and the appeal Judge's refusal to allow appeal, where he agreed that it seemed Excel had altered the machine logs between appeal and court evidence.

You MUST have both transcripts in your evidence and explain the similarity.  Pretty sure they were both posted in a thread all about it by @Lamilad, who acted as lay representative.

bitbibit

Hi Guys,
I have prepared my Witness Statement, I removed names and changed the page numbers to publish it here. Please advise the areas of improvements, thanks.

In the county court at *****

 

Claim No. ******

 

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

(Claimant)

V

*********

(Defendant)

______________________________

Witness Statement of The Defendant

______________________________

 

I, ******, is the Defendant against whom this claim is being made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my knowledge.

1- The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers from Leaseholder’s Witness Statement, which states lease agreement between Excel Parking Services and Landowner not the Claimant) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location. Even the photographs of the signs in the Defendant’s Witness Statements at pages 123 and 234 don’t show it clearly that the agreement is between Excel Parking Services and page 567 is design or drawing of sign board with sharp 90-degree edges while the signs-boards in pictures had rounded edges. The Claimant may have purposely added irrelevant car park images and printing two images per page to obscure the smaller writings on signs. This parking is closed few years ago, so the Defendant is not able to verify the veracity of statement written on signs.

2.  The Defendant reinstate that Defendant denies parking the vehicle in question on the Albert Car Parking, a property leased to Excel Parking Service, without purchasing and displaying a valid ticket from ticketing machine on given date and breaching any contract with Claimant. The Defendant believe the Driver of vehicle in question at given time purchased a valid ticket from car park’s ticket-machine as per instructions displayed on machine and displayed the ticket on the dashboard of vehicle in question, clearly visible to everyone from windscreen. (Can I add this, when the witness is not available for hearing because of being abroad and I didn’t mentioned of witness as I was not aware of the car, but sharing the image provided in WS of Claimant I could confirm that ticket was purchased and displayed though there were issue with machine accepting coins and driver has to go to car to search for different coins to purchase the ticket [if I can I will re-phrase it ]). No charge notice complying to regulations was displayed on screen or served to Defendant for the alleged breach of the contract on Claimant property within time as per law.  The Defendant is unaware of the circumstances on an unremarkable date four years ago and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations, including that they complied with the relevant law that would be the only way to hold a registered keeper liable.

3- The Defendant believes the Witness Statement from Claimant’s representative is not accurate representation of alleged contravention as, ******, the Claimant’s representative has been employed by the company since October 2020 while the alleged contravention took place in April 2017, none of the statements provided in their witness statement can be of their own knowledge. He is not aware of the alleged offence, the location, the signage or the facts in this case. Under “Background” heading in paragraph 6 at page 8 of Claimant Witness Statement, it is stated that Claimant issued parking charge followed by many correspondences and Defendant declined which is incorrect, Defendant never acknowledged or declined because Defendant only came to know about Claimant upon reception of Letter Before Claim. 

4- In addition to that it appears the Witness Statement is tweaking of a set template and copy paste job. E.g. at page 013, paragraph 432 of Witness Statement, the it is stated that the predominant purpose of Parking Charge is to deter motorists from misusing the Car Park and that the occupier’s objective was to provide the parking spaces for customers and for purpose unconnected with the customers’ business. While this car park is not related to any business directly dealing with customers instead it’s general car park as business. This also leads the Defendant to assume that even the Claimant is not confident about the veracity of the Claim and not prepared to put effort to provide accurate Witness Statement, and this Claim is a mere tool of generating easy extra income.

5- The Defendant has solid ground to believe based upon the previous history of the Claimant, and the documents provided to Defendant as Witness Statement and response to Defendant’s Subject Access Request (SAR), that the Claimant is either hiding the truth, not telling the complete truth in this case, or tempering the evidence. In paragraph 124 at page 157 of Claimant Witness Statement, Claimant refer to the attached logs in MW2 for the non-payment. The Defendant believe The Claimant is misleading the honourable court here by not presenting the full log of all the machines. The attached log has only 32 entries while the log provided to the Defendant in response to SAR contains 121 entries. One of the entries down the list of logs provided in response to SAR contains 3 out of 4 visible letters of the vehicle under question. Which makes the Defendant think this entry is misrepresentation of registration of vehicle under question. The expiry time of all the entries in the logs are mid-night. The Claimant didn’t provide any proof that machines at the parking are guaranteed to be in full working conditions and no tempering is done with logs.

6- In addition to paragraph above, the Defendant would like to mention that at least one case has been awarded against the Excel Parking Services (The Lawful Occupier of Parking where the Claimant is contracted as parking management). I would request the honourable court to refer to order passed by Skipton court (photograph of judgement at page .. ) refusing the appeal in the case Excel Parking Service Limited Vs Sarah Elizabeth Ambler.

7- Furthermore, to the disputed Parking Charge for £100 the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described as 'debt 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 Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued. 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 recently stated ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''. 

8- As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence and this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs.

 

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

 Signed                                                                                                          Date ** ******

 

 ------------------------
I will add this image of order from Skipton court judge as reference to the end of page, https://www.dropbox.com/s/v1xdk8n8xdglddg/Ambler appeal Judgement p1.jpg?dl=0

What is the maximum I can ask per hour in costing schedule, can I ask for my real per hour rate which may be higher than average?

Coupon-mad

That is not the transcript of the actual Ambler hearing, you need both. Not just that page, the entire hearing where the altered machine issue was investigated by a very angry Judge.

6- In addition to paragraph above, the Defendant would like to mention that at least one case has been awarded against the Excel Parking Services (The Lawful Occupier of Parking where the Claimant is contracted as parking management). I would request the honourable court to refer to order passed by Skipton court (photograph of judgement at page .. ) refusing the appeal in the case Excel Parking Service Limited Vs Sarah Elizabeth Ambler.

No, you need the whole transcript and to tell the Judge how similar that case was - read it!

bitbibit

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I am working on it. Can you please also advise on bold text in paragraph 2 about witness. I didn't asked for another witness statement as I was not sure about the incident and the availability of witness even over the phone because of him being abroad.

2.  The Defendant reinstate that Defendant denies parking the vehicle in question on the Albert Car Parking, a property leased to Excel Parking Service, without purchasing and displaying a valid ticket from ticketing machine on given date and breaching any contract with Claimant. The Defendant believe the Driver of vehicle in question at given time purchased a valid ticket from car park’s ticket-machine as per instructions displayed on machine and displayed the ticket on the dashboard of vehicle in question, clearly visible to everyone from windscreen. (Can I add this, when the witness is not available for hearing because of being abroad and I didn’t mentioned of witness as I was not aware of the car, but sharing the image provided in WS of Claimant I could confirm that ticket was purchased and displayed though there were issue with machine accepting coins and driver has to go to car to search for different coins to purchase the ticket [if I can I will re-phrase it ]). No charge notice complying to regulations was displayed on screen or served to Defendant for the alleged breach of the contract on Claimant property within time as per law.  The Defendant is unaware of the circumstances on an unremarkable date four years ago and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations, including that they complied with the relevant law that would be the only way to hold a registered keeper liable.2.  The Defendant reinstate that Defendant denies parking the vehicle in question on the Albert Car Parking, a property leased to Excel Parking Service, without purchasing and displaying a valid ticket from ticketing machine on given date and breaching any contract with Claimant. The Defendant believe the Driver of vehicle in question at given time purchased a valid ticket from car park’s ticket-machine as per instructions displayed on machine and displayed the ticket on the dashboard of vehicle in question, clearly visible to everyone from windscreen. (Can I add this, when the witness is not available for hearing because of being abroad and I didn’t mentioned of witness as I was not aware of the car, but sharing the image provided in WS of Claimant I could confirm that ticket was purchased and displayed though there were issue with machine accepting coins and driver has to go to car to search for different coins to purchase the ticket [if I can I will re-phrase it ]). No charge notice complying to regulations was displayed on screen or served to Defendant for the alleged breach of the contract on Claimant property within time as per law.  The Defendant is unaware of the circumstances on an unremarkable date four years ago and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations, including that they complied with the relevant law that would be the only way to hold a registered keeper liable.

Le_Kirk

5- The Defendant has solid grounds to believe based upon the previous history of the Claimant, and the documents provided to Defendant as Witness Statement and response to Defendant’s Subject Access Request (SAR), that the Claimant is either hiding the truth, not telling the complete truth in this case, or tempering tampering with the evidence. In paragraph 124 at page 157 of Claimant Witness Statement, Claimant refer to the attached logs in MW2 for the non-payment. The Defendant believes that the Claimant is misleading the honourable court here by not presenting the full log of all the machines. The attached log has only 32 entries while the log provided to the Defendant in response to the SAR contains 121 entries. One of the entries down the list of logs provided in response to SAR contains 3 out of 4 visible letters of the vehicle under in question, . Which  which makes the Defendant think this entry is misrepresentation of registration of vehicle under in question. The expiry time of all the entries in the logs are midnight. The Claimant didn’t provide any proof that machines at the parking are guaranteed to be in full working conditions and no tempering tampering is done with logs.

Few suggestions above.

Coupon-mad

That is NOT the court transcript.

That is a forum hearsay post by the lay rep.  Later in his thread he provides both transcripts, one from the case hearing and one later on, from the circuit Judge refusing an appeal and confirming the Judge was right that the logs were altered. You don't provide a court with a forum thread, you need the court transcripts x 2 that lamilad posted in that thread about the case.  Read it all.

bitbibit

Thank you sir, I am afraid I couldn't find county court judgement in that thread. There are only three of the following links available in that post. 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/03gm42bniu0e4gz/img003.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xkg9laxjeyb06za/img004.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v1xdk8n8xdglddg/Ambler appeal Judgement p1.jpg?dl=0
These points to appeal refusal order only.