Witness statement, is this enough.

tuskt

Hi all, A big thank you to all contributors to this site, particularly the newbies section.

My court date is early December 2021. BW Legal have taken on the case.

As you can see from the draft witness statement below, I went just inside the car park road for gym members, attached a towrope to my mother’s broken-down car and towed it away. I was unaware of any parking restrictions until I got the pcn from the ANPR camera.

In response to my defence, BL legal places reliance on Parking eye v Beavis. One park solutions ltd v Norma Wilshaw. Vehicle control services v D Ward. A breach caused by unforeseen circumstances, certainly a breach that is not caused by the conduct of another, is no defence.

BW legal also criticised my defence as copy and pasted, nonsensical, irrelevant out of scope of my knowledge. Also, with the threat of highlighting this to the court with regards to costs.

BW claim £247.00 including £60 dept recovery cost, £12 interest, £25 court fee and £50 solicitor’s fee

I would appreciate any constructive criticism for the following draft witness statement.

 

 

 

Witness statement

Index

 

 

Content

 

SC01 View of road where the broken-down car stopped, photo.

SC02 View of road where the broken-down car stopped, photo

SC03 View approach and entrance to the car park, google

SC04. View showing main road photograph.

SC05 View of entrance to carpark with obscured sign. photo.

SC06 View of entrance to carpark with obscured sign, google

SC06 My parking charge notice including ANPR.

SC07 My mother’s Parking charge notice including ANPR.

SC08 My mother’s email appeal.

SC09 My email appeal.

SC10 Parking charge notice for £100

 

 

In the county court at *******

 

Claim number *******

 

Premier Park limited

V

******* ******

 

Witness statement of the defendant

 

1.      I am Mr ********of********** 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 the reference numbers where appropriate.

 

Sequence of events

 

3.      On 28 July 2019 I received a call because my mother’s car had broken down and had been pushed through the entrance onto the gym car park road. Her car was obstructing traffic on double yellow lines on a very busy evening. (Exhibit SC01, Exhibit SC02)

 

4.      The approach and entrance to the car park is off a busy three lane road, with double yellow lines (exhibit SC03).

 

5.      At the point of entry, the sign I passed was on the nearside and partly obscured by a bush. The terms and conditions were not visible or readable (Exhibit SC04 and SC05).

 

6.      With my son in my vehicle ********, I was a passenger. We pulled in front of her car, attached a towrope and towed her car away. I was being towed in my mother’s car when we exited the carpark. We only stopped on the road to attach the towrope. We did not go to the parking bays or the gym building and did not go near the signs attached to the buildings. Both the towing car and the towed car exited the carpark at exactly the same time ** June 2019, 19:48 pm. ANPR photograph also shows tow rope attached. (Exhibit SC06 and Exhibit SC07)

 

7.      I emailed Premierpark as soon as I received the parking charge notice. The was the first time I was aware of the alleged infringement. I explained we were there solely to tow away my mother’s car. (Exhibit SC08) My mother also appealed at the same time and her parking charge notice was cancelled (Exhibit 09)

 

8.      The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is my position that no such breach occurred, because there was no valid contract. Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

 

9.      The parking charge notice is for £100 (Exhibit SC10) however BW legal have added £60. The Claimant has added a sum described as '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. transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). That case was not appealed and the decision stands. Judgement below.

 

 

 

IN THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT                                                        No. F0DP806M F0DP201T

 
Summary of the case to be in the sent with index content photographs to the court

25       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.

26                Signed …………..                                               Date………..

Le_Kirk

Your narrative is confusing, first of all you are the driver going into the car park to attach a tow rope to your mother's car, then your son is in the vehicle and you are a passenger, then you are being towed by your mother's car!  You need to lay this out clearly for the judge and relate it to your defence as already filed so there is no confusion.

Coupon-mad

Don't use Crosby (Southampton case) as the hanger-on at that hearing, Mr Semark-Jullien, had the decision appealed against him.  We don't use it any more.

For recent good WS examples, see those posted by @jrhys and @Nosy

D_P_Dance

BW claim £247.00 including £60 dept recovery cost, £12 interest, £25 court fee and £50 solicitor’s fee

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

tuskt

Thank you Le_Kirk, Coupon-mad, and D_P_Dance for your comments. Any further advice would be appreciated on my amended witness statement below.

Witness statement

 

Index

 

 

 

SC01. View approach and entrance to the car park, google

SC02. View of road where the broken-down car stopped including partly obscured sign

SC03. View of road where the broken-down car stopped.

SC04. My parking charge notice including ANPR.

SC05. My mother’s Parking charge notice including ANPR.

SC06. Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V Transcript

In the county court at *****

 

Claim number *******

 

Premier Park limited

V

*************

 

Witness statement of the defendant

 

I am ****** ***** and I am 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 own knowledge.

 

In my statement I will refer to various exhibits, which are numbered and included within the evidence pack.

 

Sequence of events

 

 

1.      On ** **** 2019 I received a call from my elderly mother. Her car had broken down and been pushed by some people, from the dual carriage way onto the entrance road of the car park for Xercise4less (Exhibit SC01). This meant that it was now causing an obstruction on the car park road. (Exhibits SC02, and SC03)

 

2.      With my son we went to assist. I was the passenger; my son was driving my car ****** when we went through the entrance of the carpark. There was a parking sign on the nearside which was partly obscured by a bush. The terms and conditions were not visible or readable (Exhibit SC04).

 

3.      We pulled in front of my mother’s car, attached a towrope, and proceeded to tow her car away. My son drove my car ****** and I was in my mother’s car when we exited the carpark. We only stopped on the road for the time it took to attach the towrope. We did not go to the parking bays or the gym building and did not go near the signs attached to the buildings. Both the towing car and the towed car exited the carpark at exactly the same time 28 June 2019, 19:48 pm. ANPR photograph also shows tow rope attached. (Exhibit SC06 and Exhibit SC07)

 

4.      I emailed Premierpark as soon as I received the parking charge notice. The was the first time I was aware of the alleged infringement. I explained we were there solely to tow away my mother’s car. My mother also appealed at the same time and her parking charge notice was cancelled.

 

5.      The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is my position that no such breach occurred, because there was no valid contract. Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

 

6.      Abuse of process –In addition 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 transcript of which is exhibit SC07). 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''.

 

 

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………..

 

Redx

Add the Recorder Cohen judgment to 6 too

Le_Kirk

That makes a lot more sense now and I can follow the sequence and understand it.

Coupon-mad

Can't see anything challenging landowner authority?

You could say it cannot be the intention of the landowner/gym to penalise every driver who either drops people off or, as in this case, merely attends to tow a broken down car out.  The claimant is put to strict proof of the terms of their enforcement, which is surely for parking events only, nor every car captured crossing the threshold.

There appear to have been no human checks or interventions at all and every hapless driver unlucky enough to drive on and out still seems to be 'fair game' for this ex-clamper firm.  This is predatory ticketing without human checks, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice.

You don't seem to refer to the (clear black on yellow) Beavis case sign as a comparison image, nor do you have the BPA CoP from that year as an exhibit, about grace periods (para 13) and/or the size and clarity of mandatory entrance signs (there is a whole Annex about that).

You could also use Google Street view over the years, to show how the entrance sign has 'come and gone' and been blocked by bins (if this is the gym we've seen before I recall GSV is really useful if you change the date and look back at how obscured the so-called entrance sign has been over the years).

95Rollers

How about a picture comparison of the ParkingEye Beavis sign compared to one from the company you are fighting (Premier Park). Much like this example which someone here included in their successful battle with OPS.

D_P_Dance

But what about the PE sign in Reading, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

BTW the PE sign is ambiguous  Why cannot BB holders park elsewhere that in marked bays?  Marked by what?

95Rollers

It was more of a case about prominence- for examples when the PPC) & Legal rep is (mis)quoting Beavis when their signs are tiny/ unreadable etc.