PPL/DCBL Claim Court - Defence check - can you please assist

MGaj

I removed the first sentence completely and just left 2 &3 phrases as below:

2. It is admitted that Defendant was the keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. The Defendant was a one-off user of the car park at Digbeth Court, Deritend Service Station, High Street Birmingham B12 0LD, because she rented an apartment overnight on 7/8th March 2020 near the parking. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were not displayed at the entrance to the parking. The Defendant's vehicle details and payment details were saved on the Pay and Display database which included Vehicle Registration KP67JXY and the parking ticket was clearly displayed.

3. The Defendant had parked in the best possible way considering the other vehicle on the right side was parked very close to the bay line. On the left side - the Defendant's car didn't obstruct any way in/out the parking. The Defendant's car didn't block the way through to the parking in the front, and in the back - no extra parking space was taken by the Defendant's car.

Coupon-mad

Looks OK now.

D_P_Dance

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

Coupon-mad

Not a silver bullet though, thanks to HHJ Saffman undoing all the good work of HHJ Jackson and the DJs in Leeds and Bradford area, in VCS v Percy.

It will be used by PPCs and trumps Wilkinson.

Le_Kirk

MGaj said:

3. The Defendant had parked in the best possible way considering the other vehicle on the right side was parked very close to the bay line. On the left side - the Defendant's car didn't obstruct any way in/out the parking. The Defendant's car didn't block the way through to the parking in the front, and in the back - no extra parking space was taken by the Defendant's car.

When it comes to the witness statement you need to emphasise the fact that you parked in the manner that you did because the car park operator failed to ensure that YOUR bay was clear of other badly parked cars.  If they were truly a car park management company, they would have ensured that ALL bays were clear of ALL badly parked cars at ALL times and not just hand out speculative invoices in order to increase their profits.

MGaj

Le_Kirk said:

Great statement and at the same time it's very true! Thanks a lot!