Preparing a Defence for UK Park management

Daiapolon2021

hi All just wanted to update you that I received my n180 and will send it before 18 October deadline using indications found here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411 as per Newbies post. Just want to take this opportunity to thank you all again as well. 

Daiapolon2021

Hi all I received a Notice of allocation to small claims track dated 17 December 2021 but so far have not heard back. Claimant should pay trial fee by June 2022. Is there a chance claimants drop the case at this point? Thanks for all tips.

KeithP

Daiapolon2021 said:

Hi all I received a Notice of allocation to small claims track dated 17 December 2021 but so far have not heard back. Claimant should pay trial fee by June 2022. Is there a chance claimants drop the case at this point? Thanks for all tips.

Your Notice of Allocation should tell you when you have to file your Witness Statement and evidence.
Probably best you start thinking about that now.

And yes of course there is a chance that the Claimant may drop the case at any point, but you need to be prepared for them to pay the fee at the last moment. 

Daiapolon2021

Hi all, I am copying my Witness statement below. It’s my first draft so open to any comments. I tried to attach a file but it did not let me.

The hearing is on the 14th of July so I take it all the info needs to be sent on 30th of June.

This said, I still haven’t heard back so I am not even sure there will be a hearing. But Claimant might pay for the trial fee last minute so better safe than sorry.

Finally, I would like some advice on the costing I introduced. I want to ask what is fair and plausible but truth be told, I have spent many hours on this. 

All comments welcome and thanks in advance!       

 

 

Index [to be added]

 

 

 

 

 

In the County Court at XXX

 

Claim Number: XXX

 

 

 

(Claimant)

                     V

(Defendant)

 

 

	Error! Filename not specified.

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

	Error! Filename not specified.

FOR TELEPHONE HEARING ON xx/xx/xxxx

 

 

 

 

1.       I am Mr XXX of xxxxxxxxxxx [question: not sure what this means or if it’s necessary?], 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 and signage

 

3.       I have appended the actual signage, photographed myself on June 7th 2022, and will refer to them throughout.

 

4.       The approach to the car park is on a single-track road with double yellow lines (exhibit 01 and exhibit 02). This is a road where stopping is impossible due to the double yellow lines. The only safe way to stop to view the car park terms and conditions is by getting close to the parking space sign.

 

5.       Before and at the point of entry, the entrance terms and conditions sign is not visible or readable (exhibit 03 and exhibit 04). There is also no pay and display machine or other way to acquire a valid permit.

 

 

 

6.       After finding a suitable place to park, I endeavoured to fully understand the terms and conditions signage around the car park as I was highly aware of how purposely deceiving private parking terms can be (as seen in exhibits 03, 04, 05 and 06). In addition to this, the ANPR signage (exhibit 06) is nowhere near the parking space.

 

7.       I went to the sign but could not read all the terms and conditions as the font is too small to read from standing in front of it. Exhibit 07 is the sign, taken from eye level whilst standing. I then took a photo of this sign and zoomed in to read the terms from the top.

 

8.      I tried my best to read all the terms and conditions. The total number of words needed to be read to understand the full terms and conditions comes to more than 250. At the average reading speed of 200 words per minute, this takes a minimum of one (“1”) minute to just read the words.

 

9.       A few hours later, a PCN was left on the car asking for a payment of £100. The PCN stated the fee would have been reduced £60 if paid within 14 days from receival of the notice. Three months later a formal demand was sent asking to pay £100. A few months after that a Debt recovery company [Name] sent a letter asking for a payment of £160. The Debt recovery company then sent a total five (“5”) letters on a quasi-monthly basis. In the last letter the Debt recovery company stated that it was the last chance to make the payment. If the payment was not made the Debt recovery company informed that their client could decide to initiate a Court action.

 

10.    A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this

sign in exhibit 08 for comparison. In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in

relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.

 

The Beavis case is against this claim

 

11.    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.

 

12.    However, there is no such legitimate interest where the requisite fee has been paid in full for the time stayed. As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. This is just the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court had in mind when deciding what constitutes a (rare and unique case) 'justified' parking charge as opposed to an unconscionable one.

 

Abuse of process - the quantum

 

13.    The Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as 'damages/admin' or 'debt collection costs'. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process - see exhibit 11 - transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). That case was not appealed and the decision stands.

 

14.    Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.

 

15.    The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre- Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

 

16.    This stopped ParkingEye from using that business model again, particularly because HHJ Hegarty had found them to have committed the 'tort of deceit' by their debt demands. So, the Beavis case only considered an £85 parking charge but was clear at paras 98, 193 and 198 that the rationale of that inflated sum (well over any possible loss/damages) was precisely because it included (the Judges held, three times) 'all the costs of the operation'. It is an abuse of process to add sums that were not incurred. Costs must already be included in the parking charge rationale if a parking operator wishes to base their model on the ParkingEye v Beavis case and not a damages/loss model.  This Claimant can't have both.

 

17.    This Claimant knew or should have known, that by adding £60 in costs over and above the purpose of the 'parking charge' to the global sum claimed is unrecoverable, due to the POFA at 4(5), the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 (exhibit - 09), the earlier ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield High Court case and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA') Sch 2, paras 6, 10 and

14. All of those seem to be breached in my case and the claim is pleaded on an incorrect premise with a complete lack of any legitimate interest.

 

 

 

18.    This Claimant has failed to provide adequate notice of any terms, which is not 'prominent' in reality. It is noted that the Claimant is relying upon 'stock' images of signs which are not as they appear in situ, and a mock-up 'aerial view' where an unidentified person has dotted markings all over the image yet with no evidence that this is true. I took the evidence photographs appended to this statement myself (on June 7th).

 

19.    Not drawing onerous terms to the attention of a consumer breaches Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' and in addition the global sum on the particulars of claim is unfair under the

CRA. Consumer notices are never exempt from the test of fairness and the court has a duty under s71 of the CRA to consider the terms and the signs to identify the breaches of the CRA. Not only is the added vague sum not stated on the notices at all (despite the Claimant claiming it is in their Witness Statement in writing and by appending signage that does not exist at the car park), but the official CMA guidance to the CRA covers this and makes it clear that words like 'indemnity' are objectionable in themselves and any term trying to allow a trader to recover costs twice would (of course) be void, even if the added sum was on the signs.

 

CPR 44.11 - further costs

 

20.    I am appending with this bundle, a fully detailed costs assessment which also covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in relation to misconduct (CPR 44.11). In support of that argument, I remind the court that I appealed and engaged with the Claimant at every step. It is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery. This is compounded by the witness altering the Statement of Truth (an attempt to avoid a personal duty).

 

My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14 – Exhibit 10

 

21.    As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus

this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs. I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs. The court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave.

 

22.    The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD 27, 7.3(1) ''The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person.''

 

 

 

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.

 

 

SIGNATURE

 

…………………….. xxxxxxxxxxxxx DATE             xx/xx/xxxx

 

 

 

Exhibit - 01

 

The double, yellow-lined road to the car park entrance seen from a car

 

 

Error! Filename not specified.

 

Exhibit - 02

 

The double, yellow-lined road to the car park entrance seen from a car

 

 

Error! Filename not specified.

 

Exhibit - 03

 

 

The view before arriving to the car park

	Error! Filename not specified.

Note the inability to read the entrance signs coming in

Error! Filename not specified.

Exhibit – 04

 

The view entering the car park

Error! Filename not specified.

 

 

Exhibit - 05

 

The view of the entrance sign from where the car was parked on the day of the PCN

 

Error! Filename not specified.

 

Exhibit - 06 ANPR signage (far and not visible from the parking spot)

 

Error! Filename not specified.

 

24/11/2019

 

Exhibit - 07

The Parking conditions

Taken at standing eye level – I am 5’10” (1.80m) tall. Note the small font and difficulty in reading this in comparison to the Beavis case sign

 

 

 

Error! Filename not specified.

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit - 08

 

The Beavis case sign, for comparison

	Error! Filename not specified.

 

 

Exhibit – 09

 

ParkingEye Limited v Beavis – Paragraphs 98, 193, and 198

 

98. Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. This was to be achieved by deterring commuters or other long-stay motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods or engaging in other inconsiderate parking practices, thereby reducing the space available to other members of the public, in particular the customers of the retail outlets. The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services, without which those Page 43 services would not be available. These two objectives appear to us to be perfectly reasonable in themselves. Subject to the penalty rule and the Regulations, the imposition of a charge to deter overstayers is a reasonable mode of achieving them. Indeed, once it is resolved to allow up to two hours free parking, it is difficult to see how else those objectives could be achieved.

 

 

193. The penalty doctrine is therefore potentially applicable to the present scheme. It is necessary to identify the interests which it serves. They are in my view clear. Mr Beavis obtained an (admittedly revocable) permission to park and, importantly, agreement that if and so far as he took advantage of this it would be free of charge. ParkingEye was able to fulfil its role of providing a traffic management maximisation scheme for

Daiapolon2021

[continued]

BAPF. The scheme met, so far as appears, BAPF’s aim of providing its retail park lessees with spaces in which their customers could park. All three

conditions imposed were directed to this aim, and all were on their face reasonable. (The only comment that one might make, is that, although the signs made clear that it was a “Customer only car park”, the Parking Charge of £85 did not apply to this limitation, which might be important in central Chelmsford. The explanation is, no doubt, that, unlike a barrier operated scheme where exit can be made conditional upon showing or using a ticket or bill obtained from a local shop, a camera operated scheme allows no such control.) The scheme gave BAPF through ParkingEye’s weekly

payments some income to cover the costs of providing and maintaining the car park. Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.

 

 

198. The £85 charge for overstaying is certainly set at a level which no ordinary customer (as opposed to someone deliberately overstaying for days) would wish to incur. It has to have, and is intended to have, a deterrent element, as Judge Moloney QC recognised in his careful judgment (para 7.14). Otherwise, a significant number of customers could all too easily decide to overstay, limiting the shopping possibilities of other customers. Turnover of customers is obviously important for a retail park. A scheme which imposed a much smaller charge for short overstaying or operated with fine gradations according to the period of overstay would be likely to be unenforceable and ineffective. It would also not be worth taking customers to Page 88 court for a few pounds. But the scheme is transparent, and the risk which the customer accepts is clear. The fact that, human nature being what it is, some customers under-estimate or over- look the time required or taken for shopping, a break or whatever else they may do, does not make the scheme excessive or unconscionable. The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit. Unless BAPF was itself prepared to pay ParkingEye, which would have meant, in effect, that it was subsidising customers to park on its own site, this was inevitable. If BAPF had attempted itself to operate such a scheme, one may speculate that the charge might even have had to be set at a higher level to cover its costs without profit, since ParkingEye is evidently a specialist in the area.

 

Exhibit – 10

 

In the County Court at xxxxxx

 Claim Number: xxxxxxxxx

Hearing Date: xx/xx/xxxx

 

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

 

 

Ordinary Costs

 

 

Loss of earnings through attendance at court hearing DD/MM/YYYY: £90.00

 

 

Further costs for Claimant’s misconduct, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 44.11

 

 

Research, preparation and drafting documents (20 hours at lost earnings rate of £45 per hour):

£900.00

 

 

 

TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED £990.00

 

 

Signature

 

…………………….

 

 

 

Exhibit 11

Error! Filename not specified.

 

 

IN THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT                                                               No. F0DP806M F0DP201T

 

 

Courts of Justice London Road, Southampton

 

Monday, 11 November 2019

 

 

Before: DISTRICT JUDGE GRAND

 

 

 

B E T W E E N :

 

 

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD                                         Claimant

 

 

- and -

 

 

(1)

 

Defendants

(2) CHRIS CROSBY

 

 

 

 

MR H. MAINWARING (instructed by Messrs BW Law) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

 

The First Defendant appeared in person.

MRS REEVES appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant.

 

[Transcript produced from poor quality audio recording – one channel working out of two]

 

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T THE DISTRICT JUDGE:

 

 

1              I have two applications before me in two sets of proceedings although the applications are essentially the same. Both sets of proceedings were before District Judge Taylor in May of this year. They are both claims by Britannia Parking Group Ltd trading as Britannia Parking, one against Mr Chris Crosby and the other against Mr. Both relate to parking penalty charge notices issued against the respective defendants and both include in the claim a claim that is expressed in the claim form as a claim for £60 additional expenses pursuant to PCN terms and conditions.

 

2              In response to both matters a defence has been put in – the defences are not identical – and the matter came before District Judge Taylor in box work for consideration with directions questionnaires, the matters having been transferred out of the money claims centre. In both matters he struck out the claims as an abuse of process, the reasons given being that the claimant claims a substantial charge additional to the parking charge, which it is alleged the defendants failed to pay; and that the additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis ; and that it is an abuse of process for the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

 

3              Of course it also contained a notice pursuant to rule 3.3 that either party has the right to apply and that is exactly what the claimant has done in both cases. They have applied for District Judge Taylor’s order to be set aside and for directions to be given. In support of that, I have the statement of Colin Brown and a second statement from Colin Brown and I have had skeleton arguments today from Mr Mainwaring, counsel who appears on behalf of the claimant, and Mrs Reeves who is the lay representative for Mr Crosby.

 

4              I have heard submissions from Mr Mainwaring, Mrs Reeves, and also very briefly from Mr. who takes a very different position from Mr Crosby. I think it is probably fair to describe him today as almost a spectator in that he raised a defence under the Bills of Exchange Act but does not contest the parking charge and does not really resist the claimant’s application.

 

5              What I should also mention is that when the claimant submitted its application, it requested that it be placed in front of a circuit judge. His Honour Judge Hughes QC is the designated civil judge for this area. He directed that the matter be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes before a full time district judge which is what it has been, although it has overrun its time estimate. The skeleton arguments, with which I have been provided, can only be described as very full.

 

All these parking cases now operate under the shadow of the Supreme Court decision of Parking Eye v Beavis. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Parking Eye v Beavis there was litigation going on up and down the country around all sorts of issues which were raised by defendants but resisted by parking companies. The bringing of the case before the Supreme Court --- maybe I should not say it was intended to provide a definitive answer to the issues being raised, but certainly it was the hope that the decisions which were being made by the courts up and down the country would become very much simpler as a result of the matter going to the highest court in the land and that court giving a judgment. The charge in that case (Beavis) was £85. One may say it was disproportionate for such a case to go to the Supreme Court but the volume of cases and the amounts of money involved overall, led to that happening. Those challenging parking charges were to be disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court which essentially decided that the parking charges were not a penalty. They did that after careful consideration, and a lengthy case report of the judgments given was released.

 

1              So it is against that background that we have this case before us. What the Supreme Court decided was that the charge of £85 as a parking charge was reasonable and acceptable, lawful, legitimate and entirely defensible and appropriate within the scheme of the regime of parking charges.

 

2              The reason District Judge Taylor gave for striking out the claim in this case is that there is an additional substantial charge which the claimant in this case is seeking to make. He is criticised for giving very brief reasons for the strike out but in fact his reasons are substantially longer than the original particulars of claim which set out the additional parking charge of £60.

 

3              It seems to me that there are two issues here; first of all, whether it is appropriate for the additional charge to be struck out and then, secondly, whether the striking out should take with it the whole of the claim or whether the court should strike out the £60 charge and leave outstanding the £100 charge which is within the bounds of what the Supreme Court considered reasonable in Parking Eye v Beavis.

 

4              Mr Mainwaring on behalf of the claimant says that this is more a matter for evidence or substantial consideration at trial whereas Mrs Reeves on behalf of Mr Crosby cites a number of paragraphs from the Beavis judgment, suggesting that the Supreme Court decided that the charge of £85 for overstaying in a car park was reasonable but higher charges were not to be.

 

5              It is difficult to do justice to absolutely everything which has been put before me in the skeleton arguments and the submissions today but I will deal with them, I hope, as clearly and as briefly as I can.

 

6              Reference is made by the Claimant to the guidance provided by the British Parking Association (and the British Parking Association code of practice was referred to in the Supreme Court decision of Parking Eye v Beavis). That judgment also refers to the statutory instrument which sets out what local authorities may charge by way of parking charges. It does seem to me that the Supreme Court gives a somewhat uncritical consideration of the BPA Code of Practice, in that the BPA is an association of parking companies. The guidance is produced by parking companies for parking companies largely for their own benefit. They refer to the fact that there is only one such association. So when the claimant asks me to look at the BPA Code of Practice, which says that a £60 charge is a reasonable charge to make, I treat it with massive scepticism because it seems to me that it is entirely self-serving for the British Parking Association to give guidance to parking companies of what are appropriate additional charges. I have much greater respect as I should to the Supreme Court decision about what is reasonable.

 

7              I was taken by Mrs Reeves in her submissions to para.98 of Beavis where it is explained why the £85 charge is reasonable. It says that it has two main objectives; one is to manage the efficient use of parking spaces and this was to be achieved by deterring commuters or other long-stay motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods. The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable Parking Eye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services. The judgment goes on at para.193 to say that the scheme also covered Parking Eye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a health annual profit.  

 

8              And again at para.198:

 

“The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling Parking Eye to make a profit.

 

9              It seems to me absolutely clear from the Supreme Court judgment that what they were determining was what a reasonable charge was in the context of running these parking schemes. Some people will stay within the rules and will pay nothing or pay a small charge. Others will overstay and will pay much larger charges which the Supreme Court has found to be a proportionate and reasonable penalty. The Supreme Court considered a charge of

£85 and determined that that is not an unacceptable charge.

 

10           What we have here is essentially a charge of £160 for parking although the advertised figure for the charge on the signage is £100. The £60 is based on the vague additional sentence on the sign saying that there may be other charges. The particulars of claim then refer to this almost as an afterthought in that it comes as the last line after reference to the claim for interest. The claim form says it is £60 for contractual costs pursuant to the PCN and the terms and conditions. It seems to me that that the £60 charge is quite transparently an attempt to gild the lily, to garnish the margin of what is provided in the Supreme Court decision of Beavis as to what is a reasonable charge in the circumstances and, to use District Judge Taylor’s words, it is an inflated charge. 

Daiapolon2021

[continued]

11           It has been suggested to me by Mr Mainwaring that somehow it is an additional charge for additional expenses which are caused by people who do not pay. The Supreme Court was concerned with a case of somebody who did not pay. This was the whole nub of what the case was about and it does not seem to me that it is appropriate for the parking companies, having won in the case of Beavis decided by the Supreme Court for the reasons given then to try to add on an additional charge.

 

12           It seems to me that it is absolutely clear from the Supreme Court decision that the intention was not for parking schemes to make charges for overstayers that amount to £160 or for there be one charge and then another substantial charge. Therefore what the claimant is seeking to do in this case is to charge far more to somebody who does not comply with the parking terms than was approved by the Supreme Court in Beavis. It does seem to me that the additional sum charged is unlawful.

 

13           I should mention that Mrs Reeves has raised before me the Consumer Rights Act and the court’s responsibility under s71 to consider potentially unfair terms even if the issue is not raised by any of the parties. Mrs Reeves sought to take me to the Act and she has identified to me the three examples in schedule to the Act which she says makes this additional charge unfair. It is Schedule 2 to the Act which gives the examples of terms which may be regarded as unfair. Mrs Reeves refers to examples 6, 10 and 14. I have to say that it seems to me that Mrs Reeves is right to refer to them and even if I had not been with her on the question of the parking fine it does seem to me that these charges are unfair terms in that they fit the three examples of unfair terms.. The reference on the signs to charges seems to me simply to leave entirely to the discretion of the parking company what additional charges they may levy and is completely against the intention of the Consumer Rights Act legislation and the question of what terms are fair.

 

Example term 14 says:  “A term which has the object or effect of giving the trader the discretion to decide the price payable under the contract after the consumer has become bound by it, where no price or method of determining the price is agreed when the consumer becomes bound.”

 

14           That is bang on. It does not say that there will be an additional charge of £60. It just vaguely refers to further charges.

 

15           I further say that the charge of £60 on a parking charge of £100 is 60 per cent which is disproportionate. So, I find that the charge falls foul of the decision of Beavis, it falls foul of the unfair contract terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act and it is quite clearly not a lawful charge.

 

16           It follows from that that I must come to consider whether striking out the whole claim is appropriate. The inclusion of the additional £60 charge is an attempt to go beyond the decision in Parking Eye v Beavis about what is reasonable and so not a penalty. The whole claim is tainted by it. Even if one treats it as separate from the parking charge, the claimant should have well known that it is not a charge which is lawful. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances, it seems to me is an abuse of the process of the court. In saying that, I observe that with any claim which is put before the court, if a party does not put in a defence to the claim, then it is open to the claimant to enter a default judgment. I have no information about the numbers but I do not doubt that many default judgments are entered in cases containing these additional charges and the claimant then has the benefit of those judgments, including, as they do, additional charges which I have found to be unlawful. That reinforces why it is abusive to include unlawful additional charges in these claims.

17           So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside District Judge Taylor’s order

Jenni_D

I've not read it yet, but ... check closely all court paperwork that you've received; your WS + evidence may require to be filed/served well before 14 days before the hearing - don't assume that it's 14 days. (Apologies if this has already been clarified - I've not read back through the thread, except to note that @KeithP raised this very point in February yet you haven't replied to that).

PS - on a quick glance I see at least one Error! Filename not specified issue with your WS.

Daiapolon2021

Jenni_D said:

I've not read it yet, but ... check closely all court paperwork that you've received; your WS + evidence may require to be filed/served well before 14 days before the hearing - don't assume that it's 14 days. (Apologies if this has already been clarified - I've not read back through the thread, except to note that @KeithP raised this very point in February yet you haven't replied to that).

PS - on a quick glance I see at least one Error! Filename not specified issue with your WS.

agreed, notice says 'party must deliver...no later than fourteen days before the hearing' you cannot assume anything! 

Trainerman

On a quick read, para 9 of your WS, "quasi-monthly" . I don't understand what you are trying to say, but "quasi" means seemingly but untrue, pretend, etc.

1505grandad

"6.       After finding a suitable place to park, I endeavoured to fully....."

Your defence stated:-

"2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the lessee/hirer of the vehicle in question but liability is denied"

" iii.         The Claimant failed to abide by the strict requirements of Schedule 4 in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In particular, the Claimant did not send a Notice to Hirer that complied with the Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 paragraph 14.2 because it did not include copies of documents defined in para 13.2 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. These mandatory documents are:"

In other words you are/were defending as lessee/hirer only and not driver.