Parking Awareness Services pending county court

Fruitcake

Don't admit to anything, either on here or in your defence.

Do use the template in its entirety and only change paragraphs 2 and 3 to suit your case. Trust us, especially C-m. We know what we are doing, and she has beaten a barrister in court.

naiveparker

Fruitcake said:

Don't admit to anything, either on here or in your defence.

Do use the template in its entirety and only change paragraphs 2 and 3 to suit your case. Trust us, especially C-m. We know what we are doing, and she has beaten a barrister in court.

It is not that I don’t trust you , but unfortunately  in correspondence to the PPC  ,  I have admitted being the driver and also seeing the signage .
I am therefore concerned about using this in my defence as I don’t want to contradict myself .

Coupon-mad

Ah, if you have expressly admitted to driving in an appeal you are stuck with that position then, and can’t rely on the POFA, which is in the bin.

Le_Kirk

naiveparker said:

Fruitcake said:

Don't admit to anything, either on here or in your defence.

Do use the template in its entirety and only change paragraphs 2 and 3 to suit your case. Trust us, especially C-m. We know what we are doing, and she has beaten a barrister in court.

It is not that I don’t trust you , but unfortunately  in correspondence to the PPC  ,  I have admitted being the driver and also seeing the signage .
I am therefore concerned about using this in my defence as I don’t want to contradict myself .

Coupon-mad said:

Ah, if you have expressly admitted to driving in an appeal you are stuck with that position then, and can’t rely on the POFA, which is in the bin.

But you can still question the clarity and visibility of the signage. Upon reflection and with another research visit, you have concluded that if it had been better you would have understood it and either parked in accordance with the terms or moved to a proper car park!  

naiveparker

Thank you for all you help , I finally submitted my defence over the weekend and have had this acknowledged.
Due to the possibility that I may have mistyped my car registration number , I have requested a list of car registrations ( digits removed ) that were input in the 20 minute timeframe  , the company have declined this , stating data protection. Do they have to provide this information for court ?

Coupon-mad

They will have to if you put them to strict proof. 

Email back and tell them you are holding them to strict proof and are well aware that showing the machine payments and partial VRMs of those who put in their full VRM, and full evidence of any completely unmatched partial numberplates, is normal to disclose to the Defendant and court in order to narrow the issues where the Defendant knows they paid and thinks it could merely be a typo.

Tell them you will show their refusal to the Judge, and suggest they supply the evidence by return and stop wasting your time.  All machines, all possible payment method logs are needed.

naiveparker

Thank you , Iv emailed them tonight and await their response. 

naiveparker

I have been given a court date of the 9th of February I unfortunately only received the letter yesterday , despite being dated the 16th of December so my witness statement needs to be in tomorrow . I rang the court yesterday about this and they said they would put the matter in front of the judge today but i have had no response ,how rigid are the courts about the 28 day as I would like  a bit longer to tweak it . 

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated in view of the short timescale 

1.       I am ………and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below 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 is repeated and I will say as follows:

 

Sequence of events

 

 

3.      On the night of the 21.2.20 I arrived at The Crossing Public House in Burton Upon        Trent at approximately 19.00 hours.

I entered the carpark which was attached to the public house. I noticed a sign regarding carparking but as the carpark was dark and dimly lit I decided to enter the premises and clarify with a member of staff if it was appropriate to park there.   I was advised by the barmaid to input my car registration into the machine and this was between 19.00hours to 19.20 hours, I then   proceeded to enjoy a drink and meal with friends, which was paid for with my debit card, documentation from my bank is available to support this (see exhibit 1).

 

 

4.    I was shocked to receive a parking charge following this and placed an appeal with the company, which was rejected. (see exhibit 2)  I understand that these parking measures are put in place to deter people from using the car park if they are not a customer of the establishment. I have proof that I was a paying customer of the establishment at the time in question. I also have the support of the landowner of the establishment who wrote to the Claimant (Mathew  The Director of Parking Awareness)  to recommend that the parking charge be dropped ( see exhibit 3) The owner has also been kind enough to send me an email to explain why he ended his contract with the company Parking Awareness due to ongoing issues with sending parking charges to paying customers and persistent issues with their equipment used to record car registrations (exhibit 4) I am  shocked that the Claimant has continued with this action despite evidence that I followed the correct procedure and was a customer at the establishment.

5.    I believe I entered the details correctly, which suggest that the machine could be faulty or required calibrating, a similar experience appears on trip advisor for this establishment (see exhibit 5) and if the machine had offered a receipt this case would never have occurred. Even if I incorrectly entered my registration details, it was a genuine mistake. The IPC have made mention of using ‘typo-proof’ systems whereby it is impossible to enter the VRM of a vehicle that is not in the car park and the BPA state that failure to input a VRM at all counts as a major keying error that should only result in a £20 parking charge being issued. Could the parking company give evidence of regular maintenance of the machine at The Crossing ?

 

6.    I have attempted to correspond with the company several times but to no avail, as they state that my appeal was denied. I have requested a list of the registration numbers of vehicles entered into the device between 19.00 hour and 19.20 on the night in question but have been denied access to this the company stating GDPR even though I have said digits could be removed to protect this.  ( see exhibit 5)

7.      It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores

8.    Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

 

9.    The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

 Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable.  However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.  

10.  Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

11.   The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.

 

 

12.  Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach

13.  the Furthermore the extra charges are an abuse of process, I refer you to the case of G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson whereby it was ruled that given the costs of recovery are built into the parking charge as a cost of operating the scheme, this is a double recovery or an attempt by the claimant to try to add in an additional charge.

The fine listed on the PCN charge £100 and yet the claimant is attempting to recover £168.65 (plus £35 court fees and £50 legal representative's costs) a difference of £60. In the particular's of the claim the claimant describes these as 'contractual costs and interest' just as in the Excel v Wilkinson case. As a result, the claimant is not entitled to recover that sum.

As per the Excel v Wilkinson case, this is an abuse of process by the claimant, an attempt to recover sums they are not entitled to by seeking unliquidated damages as liquidated damages to avoid a hearing before a judge in relation to default judgement, or by seeking to recover unfair sums which would be recovered by a default judgement application despite the sums not being discoverable at law or by seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14. Once again the claimant is attempting to abuse the process of Court, this is a serious matter and simply disallowing the £60 claim is not sufficient, the defendant thereby claims that the case must be struck off. The claimant continues to claim £60 damages/costs to profit from undefended cases and court must show its' disapproval for this abuse of process

Redacted Landowner Contract

Claimant has appended a redacted ‘landowner contract’ which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. There is nothing to say what the landowner's approach (whoever they may be) is to penalising genuine patrons who pay, and even the signatories could be anyone (even a stranger to the land?). It is clear that two Directors have not signed this contract for either party, contrary to the Companies Act. 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

 

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

Coupon-mad

Looks like you have covered the bases.  See what others think.

Done a costs assessment?

Numbered all your pages and exhibits?

naiveparker

Thanks i have done . this is the bit I'm not sure on as I copied it from another witness statement and not sure its worded right for my case

Redacted Landowner Contract

Claimant has appended a redacted ‘landowner contract’ which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. There is nothing to say what the landowner's approach (whoever they may be) is to penalising genuine patrons who pay, and even the signatories could be anyone (even a stranger to the land?). It is clear that two Directors have not signed this contract for either party, contrary to the Companies Act. 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