Dcbl letter before claim stage

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

No I just mean defence

You don't.  You've already written a defence.

as the sign states you can’t park there. 

It doesn't.

Here is an updated WS. I am unsure on what to add to this especially in the sequence of events section. 

In the County Court at Aldershot and farnham

Claim Number XXX

Between

                                              Uk parking  LIMITED (Claimant)

V

XXXX (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am XXXXXX, 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.

Sequence of events

2. As these parking charges are over five years old it is hard to remember the exact circumstances. I can not confirm if I was the driver at the time as I don’t not recall the events or any parking charge notices. 

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

3. I suggest that a penalty of £100 for these two parking charge notices ‘Consequences which are out of all proportion to any legitimate interests’ of the claimant, distinguished from the charge levied in the Beavis case. (Ex 4)

4. The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist, or to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations, or can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests.

POFA and Consumer Rights Act

5. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper.

6. Pursuant to Schedule 2 paragraph 6 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the sum claimed could be regarded as unfair by the court as it considers the test of fairness laid out in Section 71.

Signage

7. The claimant’s signage is excessively wordy and the print size excessively small (even the claimant’s beautifully presented photograph contains text that is almost completely illegible); therefore, I deny that it is capable of creating a legally binding contract. (Ex 5)  

8. The IPC’s CoP states that text size must be such that signs are ‘clearly readable’ by a motorist, I believe that the claimant’s signs do not adhere to this guidance. (Ex 6)

9. Furthermore, the sign states ‘Additional charges will be added’, an ambiguous statement that appears to contradict the precedent set by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis, that the main reason for the parking charge was to meet the costs of enforcing the parking rules. 

The Quantum and abuse of process

10. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] KSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that admin costs inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'. 

11. In addition to this, the ‘additional charge’ constitutes a double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson in which £60 had been added to a parking charge. (Ex 7)

12. This is now underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

13. Adding debt recovery costs, damages or fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued." 

14. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice.  The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'.  A clear steer for the Courts.

15. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.  Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'.  Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis; essentially Trade Body Board member colleagues passing motorists' data around electronically to share inflated sums of money.  

16. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.

17. The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event.

18. The new Act overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy).  Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further.  

19. Where this Claimant tries to rely upon those cases, the Defendant avers that significant errors were made.  Evidence was either overlooked (including inconspicuous signage in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the BPA Code of Practice, including rules for surveillance cameras and the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority) or the Judge inexplicably sought out and quoted from the wrong Code altogether (Percy).  In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver was unfairly aligned with the admitted contract in Beavis. The learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC, whose Code now clarifies all such matters.

Aggressive Debt Collection

20. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

21. With the court process well outside of my life experience, my defence was signed only after extensive research on appropriate fora and was supported by knowledge that I had gained during study of the relevant case law. I have attempted to represent myself to the best of my ability.

Conclusion:

22. It is submitted that, whilst a delay in payment occurred, the subsequent fine was disproportionate and the ‘additional charges’ are (and were at the time) unreasonable in the face of case law precedent and, subsequently an Act of Parliament. The Claimant’s signage contradicts published guidance and therefore is incapable of forming a legally binding contract, and their representative’s tactics are base and aggressive.

23. I therefore request that the court find the quantum claimed is false and constitutes an abuse of process.

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 trust without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature: 

XXXX

Date:

Coupon-mad

Uk parking  LIMITED (Claimant)

Who?  There is no such firm.  Read the claim form for the full name of the Claimant.

You must add more facts and sequence of events.

You must state that you've looked at evidence photos and notice how very minuscule small print the signage text is...you must talk about the lack of entrance signs at the place and that it appeared to be the car park for the local gym, where you and family members were patrons.  There are also other premises there where drivers may have had reason to attend. There is no evidence the driver(s) were not permitted.  Therefore there was no reason to think the car was 'unauthorised', however it is also impossible to know which driver was driving on each occasion.

You need to talk about how you are not liable under the POFA because there is no evidence that the POFA was fully met on each occasion, it being known that UKPC signs are tiny and not considered sufficient to give 'adequate notice' of the parking charge itself.  And it being known that UKPC also used defective Notice to Keepers in previous years, that misleadingly talked about a 42 day period that doesn't exist in the POFA Schedule 4.

There is also no evidence that the ticketer gave a suitable ten minute grace period before issuing the PCN.  Quote the right BPA Code of Practice from that year about grace periods before tickets can be issued (I'll leave you to look that up - easy to Google as the BPA host all the old Codes of Practice on their website).  Add that Code of Practice as an exhibit.  The driver(s) could have been reading the signs or fetching a permit from adjacent premises at the time, all of which requires a fair period of time before enforcement can start, so says the BPA.

Put a pic of the sign next to the yellow and black, far larger Beavis case sign, like everyone does (this is coached in detail in the NEWBIES thread).  Point out that in Beavis, the £85 was in the very largest text and in bold with a frame round it, so it was 'bound to be seen'. Compare that with this sign which is half the size and the only bit that can be read is 'no unauthorised parking'.

There is no evidence that the driver(s) on each occasion were 'unauthorised'.  Each PCN must be proven to meet the high bar of the Beavis case sign, as well as the POFA 2012 given UKPC are trying to hold you liable as keeper.

You have Exhibits starting at 'Ex5'. It looks like you have just copied wording without considering your own exhibits and how you will number them.  Normally you call them by your initials, then a number.  They will of course never start at number 5.

These start at number 1, which should be photos from Google Streetview showing (hopefully) little or no entrance signage that year.  This is what everyone does, all newbies do this when the PCN is from years ago.  GSV shows images from previous years if you use the little arrow in the top left box and drag the yellow man into the right place for the entrance. Screenshot and use as exhibits.

Near the end, add in the extra paragraph you will have seen in the thread by aphex007.  The one about the DLUHC Code currently being stalled but why the Judge should still have regard to the 'extortion' the DLUHC called out.

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Uk parking  LIMITED (Claimant)

Who?  There is no such firm.  Read the claim form for the full name of the Claimant.

You must add more facts and sequence of events.

You must state that you've looked at evidence photos and notice how very minuscule small print the signage text is...you must talk about the lack of entrance signs at the place and that it appeared to be the car park for the local gym, where you and family members were patrons.  There are also other premises there where drivers may have had reason to attend. There is no evidence the driver(s) were not permitted.  Therefore there was no reason to think the car was 'unauthorised', however it is also impossible to know which driver was driving on each occasion.

You need to talk about how you are not liable under the POFA because there is no evidence that the POFA was fully met on each occasion, it being known that UKPC signs are tiny and not considered sufficient to give 'adequate notice' of the parking charge itself.  And it being known that UKPC also used defective Notice to Keepers in previous years, that misleadingly talked about a 42 day period that doesn't exist in the POFA Schedule 4.

There is also no evidence that the ticketer gave a suitable ten minute grace period before issuing the PCN.  Quote the right BPA Code of Practice from that year about grace periods before tickets can be issued (I'll leave you to look that up - easy to Google as the BPA host all the old Codes of Practice on their website).  Add that Code of Practice as an exhibit.  The driver(s) could have been reading the signs or fetching a permit from adjacent premises at the time, all of which requires a fair period of time before enforcement can start, so says the BPA.

Put a pic of the sign next to the yellow and black, far larger Beavis case sign, like everyone does (this is coached in detail in the NEWBIES thread).  Point out that in Beavis, the £85 was in the very largest text and in bold with a frame round it, so it was 'bound to be seen'. Compare that with this sign which is half the size and the only bit that can be read is 'no unauthorised parking'.

There is no evidence that the driver(s) on each occasion were 'unauthorised'.  Each PCN must be proven to meet the high bar of the Beavis case sign, as well as the POFA 2012 given UKPC are trying to hold you liable as keeper.

You have Exhibits starting at 'Ex5'. It looks like you have just copied wording without considering your own exhibits and how you will number them.  Normally you call them by your initials, then a number.  They will of course never start at number 5.

These start at number 1, which should be photos from Google Streetview showing (hopefully) little or no entrance signage that year.  This is what everyone does, all newbies do this when the PCN is from years ago.  GSV shows images from previous years if you use the little arrow in the top left box and drag the yellow man into the right place for the entrance. Screenshot and use as exhibits.

Near the end, add in the extra paragraph you will have seen in the thread by aphex007.  The one about the DLUHC Code currently being stalled but why the Judge should still have regard to the 'extortion' the DLUHC called out.

Thank you so much. I will get onto this now. Just looking again at the two pcns one of them allowed only 7 seconds over the ten minute period and the other actually didn’t allow ten minutes, it was 17 seconds under! 

Cp100

Sequence of events

2. As these parking charges are over five years old it is hard to remember the exact circumstances. I can not confirm if I was the driver at the time as I don’t not recall the events or any parking charge notices. 

3. I have  looked at evidence photos and notice how very minuscule small print the signage text is, there is a clear lack of entrance signs at the place and that it appeared to be the car park for the local gym and shops, where myself and family members visited.  There are also other premises there where drivers may have had reason to attend. There is no evidence the driver(s) were not permitted.  Therefore there was no reason to think the car was 'unauthorised', however it is also impossible to know which driver was driving on each occasion.

4. I believe I am not liable under the POFA because there is no evidence that the POFA was fully met on each occasion, it being known that UKPC signs are tiny and not considered sufficient to give 'adequate notice' of the parking charge itself.  And it being known that UKPC also used defective Notice to Keepers in previous years, that misleadingly talked about a 42 day period that doesn't exist in the POFA Schedule 4.

5. There is also no evidence that the ticketer gave a suitable ten minute grace period before issuing the PCN. Changes were made to the BPA Approved Operator Scheme's Code of Practice in October 2015. This established a Grace Period at the end of the parking period of 10 minutes for BPA AOS members, if the location is one where parking is normally permitted. The driver(s) could have been reading the signs or fetching a permit from adjacent premises at the time, all of which requires a fair period of time before enforcement can start, so says the BPA. According to one of the parking charge notices not even ten minutes was given, and on the other only seven seconds over ten minutes were given. 

6. There is no evidence that the driver(s) on each occasion were 'unauthorised'.  Each PCN must be proven to meet the high bar of the Beavis case sign, as well as the POFA 2012 given UKPC are trying to hold me liable as keeper.

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

7. I suggest that a penalty of £100 for these two parking charge notices ‘Consequences which are out of all proportion to any legitimate interests’ of the claimant, distinguished from the charge levied in the Beavis case. (Ex 4)

8. The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist, or to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations, or can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests.

9. Please see below the difference in signs from the Beavis case sign to the ukpc sign. It is far more clear and less ‘wordy’ with small text. It also clearly states the parking charge amount so it was bound to be seen unlike the ukpc sign which the only part that can be read is ‘no unauthorised parking’

This is the new edited part up until the POFA and consumer rights act.

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Uk parking  LIMITED (Claimant)

Who?  There is no such firm.  Read the claim form for the full name of the Claimant.

You must add more facts and sequence of events.

You must state that you've looked at evidence photos and notice how very minuscule small print the signage text is...you must talk about the lack of entrance signs at the place and that it appeared to be the car park for the local gym, where you and family members were patrons.  There are also other premises there where drivers may have had reason to attend. There is no evidence the driver(s) were not permitted.  Therefore there was no reason to think the car was 'unauthorised', however it is also impossible to know which driver was driving on each occasion.

You need to talk about how you are not liable under the POFA because there is no evidence that the POFA was fully met on each occasion, it being known that UKPC signs are tiny and not considered sufficient to give 'adequate notice' of the parking charge itself.  And it being known that UKPC also used defective Notice to Keepers in previous years, that misleadingly talked about a 42 day period that doesn't exist in the POFA Schedule 4.

There is also no evidence that the ticketer gave a suitable ten minute grace period before issuing the PCN.  Quote the right BPA Code of Practice from that year about grace periods before tickets can be issued (I'll leave you to look that up - easy to Google as the BPA host all the old Codes of Practice on their website).  Add that Code of Practice as an exhibit.  The driver(s) could have been reading the signs or fetching a permit from adjacent premises at the time, all of which requires a fair period of time before enforcement can start, so says the BPA.

Put a pic of the sign next to the yellow and black, far larger Beavis case sign, like everyone does (this is coached in detail in the NEWBIES thread).  Point out that in Beavis, the £85 was in the very largest text and in bold with a frame round it, so it was 'bound to be seen'. Compare that with this sign which is half the size and the only bit that can be read is 'no unauthorised parking'.

There is no evidence that the driver(s) on each occasion were 'unauthorised'.  Each PCN must be proven to meet the high bar of the Beavis case sign, as well as the POFA 2012 given UKPC are trying to hold you liable as keeper.

You have Exhibits starting at 'Ex5'. It looks like you have just copied wording without considering your own exhibits and how you will number them.  Normally you call them by your initials, then a number.  They will of course never start at number 5.

These start at number 1, which should be photos from Google Streetview showing (hopefully) little or no entrance signage that year.  This is what everyone does, all newbies do this when the PCN is from years ago.  GSV shows images from previous years if you use the little arrow in the top left box and drag the yellow man into the right place for the entrance. Screenshot and use as exhibits.

Near the end, add in the extra paragraph you will have seen in the thread by aphex007.  The one about the DLUHC Code currently being stalled but why the Judge should still have regard to the 'extortion' the DLUHC called out.

In the County Court at Aldershot and Farnham

Claim Number XXX

Between

                                              UKPC (Claimant)

V

XXXX (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am XXXXXX, 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.

Sequence of events

2. As these parking charges are over five years old it is hard to remember the exact circumstances. I can not confirm if I was the driver at the time as I don’t not recall the events or any parking charge notices. 

3. I have  looked at evidence photos and notice how very minuscule small print the signage text is, there is a clear lack of entrance signs at the place and that it appeared to be the car park for the local gym and shops, where myself and family members visited.  There are also other premises there where drivers may have had reason to attend. There is no evidence the driver(s) were not permitted.  Therefore there was no reason to think the car was 'unauthorised', however it is also impossible to know which driver was driving on each occasion.

4. I believe I am not liable under the POFA because there is no evidence that the POFA was fully met on each occasion, it being known that UKPC signs are tiny and not considered sufficient to give 'adequate notice' of the parking charge itself.  And it being known that UKPC also used defective Notice to Keepers in previous years, that misleadingly talked about a 42 day period that doesn't exist in the POFA Schedule 4.

5. There is also no evidence that the ticketer gave a suitable ten minute grace period before issuing the PCN. Changes were made to the BPA Approved Operator Scheme's Code of Practice in October 2015. This established a Grace Period at the end of the parking period of 10 minutes for BPA AOS members, if the location is one where parking is normally permitted. The driver(s) could have been reading the signs or fetching a permit from adjacent premises at the time, all of which requires a fair period of time before enforcement can start, so says the BPA. According to one of the parking charge notices not even ten minutes was given, and on the other only seven seconds over ten minutes were given. 

6. There is no evidence that the driver(s) on each occasion were 'unauthorised'.  Each PCN must be proven to meet the high bar of the Beavis case sign, as well as the POFA 2012 given UKPC are trying to hold me liable as keeper.

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

7. I suggest that a penalty of £100 for these two parking charge notices ‘Consequences which are out of all proportion to any legitimate interests’ of the claimant, distinguished from the charge levied in the Beavis case. (Ex 4)

8. The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist, or to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations, or can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests.

9. Please see below the difference in signs from the Beavis case sign to the ukpc sign. It is far more clear and less ‘wordy’ with small text. It also clearly states the parking charge amount so it was bound to be seen unlike the ukpc sign which the only part that can be read is ‘no unauthorised parking’

POFA and Consumer Rights Act

10. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum to sum which may be recovered from the keeper.

11. Pursuant to Schedule 2 paragraph 6 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the sum claimed could be regarded as unfair by the court as it considers the test of fairness laid out in Section 71

Signage

12. The claimant’s signage is excessively wordy and the print size excessively small (even the claimant’s beautifully presented photograph contains text that is almost completely illegible); therefore, I deny that it is capable of creating a legally binding contract. (Ex 5)  

13. The IPC’s CoP states that text size must be such that signs are ‘clearly readable’ by a motorist, I believe that the claimant’s signs do not adhere to this guidance. 

14. Furthermore, the sign states ‘Additional charges will be added’, an ambiguous statement that appears to contradict the precedent set by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis, that the main reason for the parking charge was to meet the costs of enforcing the parking rules. 

The Quantum and abuse of process

15. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] KSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that admin costs inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'. 

16. In addition to this, the ‘additional charge’ constitutes a double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson in which £60 had been added to a parking charge. (Ex 7)

17. This is now underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

18. Adding debt recovery costs, damages or fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued." 

19. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice.  The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'.  A clear steer for the Courts.

20. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.  Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'.  Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis; essentially Trade Body Board member colleagues passing motorists' data around electronically to share inflated sums of money.  

21. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.

22. The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event.

23. The new Act overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy).  Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further.  

24. Where this Claimant tries to rely upon those cases, the Defendant avers that significant errors were made.  Evidence was either overlooked (including inconspicuous signage in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the BPA Code of Practice, including rules for surveillance cameras and the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority) or the Judge inexplicably sought out and quoted from the wrong Code altogether (Percy).  In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver was unfairly aligned with the admitted contract in Beavis. The learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC, whose Code now clarifies all such matters.

Aggressive Debt Collection

25. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

26. With the court process well outside of my life experience, my defence was signed only after extensive research on appropriate fora and was supported by knowledge that I had gained during study of the relevant case law. I have attempted to represent myself to the best of my ability.

Conclusion:

27. It is submitted that, whilst a delay in payment occurred, the subsequent fine was disproportionate and the ‘additional charges’ are (and were at the time) unreasonable in the face of case law precedent and, subsequently an Act of Parliament. The Claimant’s signage contradicts published guidance and therefore is incapable of forming a legally binding contract, and their representative’s tactics are base and aggressive.

28. I therefore request that the court find the quantum claimed is false and constitutes an abuse of process.

29. Whilst it is known that the rogue parking industry have just filed Judicial Reviews and have delayed the new Code of Practice, the Government is pressing ahead and has conceded to undertake a final Public Consultation and Impact Assessment, as the latter was missing from their rationale.  Going by the damning words of the Minister, and the fact that two consultations and an industry and consumer represented Steering Group have already informed the DLUHC's decision over the past two years, I believe there is no reason to think the Government's view will significantly change about adding unconscionable costs that were not incurred and which merely exist as a mechanism to enhance already-doubled parking charges, to fuel the roboclaim race to court and to side-step the £50 legal fees cap set in the Small Clams Track.

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 trust without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature: 

XXXX

Date:

Here is an updated version of my WS. As far as I can see I just need to include an image from google street view unless I’ve missed anything. If anything can be improved on or added then of course let me know. Thank you 

Also with the one pcn not actually showing ten minutes observation time (17 seconds under) is this enough grounds to get this one struck off automatically? 

KeithP

Please re-read the first few words of @Coupon-mad's post Today at 6:20PM on your thread.

Will farnham have a capital letter in you final version?

Cp100

KeithP said:

Please re-read the first few words of @Coupon-mad's post Today at 6:20PM on your thread.

Will farnham have a capital letter in you final version?

Thanks, I did see that and made the change but it didn’t save.

1505grandad

"9. Please see below the difference in signs from the Bravia case sign to the ukpc sign"

"13. The IPC’s CoP states that text size must be such that signs are ‘clearly readable’ by a motorist, I believe that the claimant’s signs do not adhere to this guidance. (Ex 6)"

KeithP

I repeat...

KeithP said:

Please re-read the first few words of @Coupon-mad's post Today at 6:20PM on your thread.

For clarity, here are the words I am talking about...

  Coupon-mad said:

Uk parking  LIMITED (Claimant)

Who?  There is no such firm.  Read the claim form for the full name of the Claimant.

Does it really say on your Claim Form that UKPC is the full name of the Claimant?


[just in case anyone is wondering - this post may be considered out of place now that the OP has deleted a post.]

Cp100

1505grandad said:

"9. Please see below the difference in signs from the Bravia case sign to the ukpc sign"

"13. The IPC’s CoP states that text size must be such that signs are ‘clearly readable’ by a motorist, I believe that the claimant’s signs do not adhere to this guidance. (Ex 6)"

Thanks, edited to Beavis instead of Bravia.

Not sure what The IcPs Cop is just got that info from the other WS, what do I need to change?