Highview Defence Assistance Please - Witness Statement Help Please - First Result on First Claim

Coupon-mad

Don't mention another PCN in a WS.

If you have two PCNs where one is already at claim stage and you want to respond about the one that's at pre-action stage, search the forum for Henderson estoppel and find a thread also at LBC stage, where the specific retort wording about 'two claims' has been used.

Copy that as part of the reply, and amalgamate it with the words about seeking debt advice plus the recent LBC response example about the fake added costs, by @jabfish

Jinks_65

Hi - thank you.  Both claims are progressing - one I have to have witness statement in for 12 April, the other I have submitted my defence to the combined court.  They spelled my name differently on the second one, just slightly, but oddly as the SAR results have my name in the correct spelling for both incidents.
I have been contacted by DCB Legal to discuss prior to court - though their ref number can't be aligned to either case, so not sure about that - do I contact them, as if I don't do I just look awkward to the court?

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Email them only, pointing out their client's deliberate or negligent misspelling and the fact they filed two claims and are wasting costs and the court's time.

Do the search I suggested.

Jinks_65

Hi - I am attempting my Witness Statement - taking longer than thought - you are stars on here all the work you do!  It's got to be in on the 12th but my court don't take pdfs so can't scan - is it ok on word or is a wet signature needed anywhere?

These are my first few bits but I'm not sure if they're right or in the right order whatsoever, plus not sure what else to put in - it's highview so do I bang on about registered keeper v driver thing?  I've flagged the other claim as there are currently two proceeding through the long process.  I have had a mail to phone legal to discuss regarding this one but I mailed back and requested it's done through mail and asked why they have 2 ongoing and not had a response yet - do I put that in?

Anyway - a real draft version, so exhibit nos and actual nos may be out of whack:

Background

1.       I have lived locally to xxx Road Car Park, which is adjacent to a local and busy shopping centre, since March 2016.  I, and my family, use this car park regularly, and also two very close carparks within 2 minutes of xxx Car Park, at times within the same trip, and have not encountered parking difficulties excepting this claim from 2017 and a further near identical claim made by this company from 2016, submitted after this claim on 16 February 2022.

2.       As raised in point 1 Highview Parking have made a further claim, claim number J2KF478G, to which I have submitted a defence on 21 March 2022, within which I referenced cause of action estoppel and requested that that claim is either struck out or dealt with alongside this claim.  On claim number J2KF478G it is noted my first name has a slightly incorrect spelling, whilst all other details and cause of action are essentially the same, and as such is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

3.       The long-established case law in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, (Exhibit …) establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case.  In Arnold  v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 31 (Exhibit …) the court noted that cause of action estoppel, “… applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

4.       The court is invited to consolidate these two claims to be determined together at one hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims.

5.       At the date of the claim I was supporting the care of my grandson and every Saturday would collect him, with his mother, from Chesterfield for the day.  I have four daughters, and had two parents, and they too would often visit my home to enjoy family time together, and equally may have used my car to go to the shops.  My father and three of my daughters held driving licences and my car has always been insured to cover their usage. I cannot recall the events of a specific Saturday, nearly 5 years ago, when each one was spent in a similar manner between 2016 and 2018.

Sequence of events and signage:

6.       . I have not received the claimant’s witness statement and do not know the information upon which the claimant seeks to rely. The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case.  However, a Subject Access Request has revealed the original PCN stating the car entered the car park at 11:05 and exited at 12:56 stating that the duration was 1:50, although the duration correctly calculated would be 1:51, which leads me to question the accuracy of the car parking recordings of events and request confirmation that the ANPR was correctly utilised and calibrated.

7.       As this carpark is one of a number of local carparks that I, and my family, have utilised within short periods of time, I am also requesting confirmation that the car was parked continuously for the times shown.

8.       It is noted that this car park is on a busy road, with cars entering and leaving as can be seen on Exhibit ?, it was also a Saturday dinnertime and will have been particularly busy with shoppers.  It is also a particularly difficult parking area with room for only one car to enter, or leave a row of parking spaces, as can be seen on Exhibit ?  Therefore, the alleged overstay of 20 minutes would have been time spent in moving traffic, arriving, finding a parking space and then manoeuvring to park, plus possibly safely helping children from their car seats, and the same in reverse. At the end of our visit a reasonable period of grace to leave is expected. This is not a ‘period of parking’ (under the POFA definition) that was in anyway exceeded. Any contravention of allowed parking time is denied.

9.       In any event, even if the Claimant can demonstrate that the car was indeed ‘on site’ and in the car park for a proven and synchronised 20 minutes above the 90 minutes of free parking, this would have been entirely within the grace periods of 10 minutes prior to entering a contract to and 10 minutes at the end of a parking event, set out in paragraph 13 of the BPA Code of Practice (BPA CoP) relevant version 2018. (Exhibit ?)

10.   The car park has only one point of entry/exit. Exhibit ? shows how a car would enter, from a specific right turn lane, if driving from my home address as at April 2017, and from that perspective signage is not visible at all at the entrance being placed on the other side and to the rear of the turning driver (Exhibit?).   The only way to view the signage is to enter and park in the carpark.

11.   Further the signs (close up Exhibit ?) refer to further signage within the carpark of full terms and conditions.  However, as Exhibit, there are no clear signs at all.  The 2 that are visible and accessible from within the car park simply relate the 90 minutes parking and  and refer to other signage, which I still cannot find today.

12.   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'. Bradfield Carpark does not clear and ‘bound to be seen’ signage when entering, nor clear signage of terms and conditions within the CarPark. Therefore the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by The British Parking Association (BPA).  The BPA Code of Practice says “Signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand” It also states that “ Signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract” with drivers.

Coupon-mad

You need to use the WS by @jrhys for a heads up about what the first para should state. And for the headings (and to see what the whole WS 'bundle' - cover sheet/exhibit list/costs assessment - looks like) and then go to the one by @ricky_balboa for the end half (about the fact that the Govt has banned the fake debt recovery fee scam).

If your local court don't take PDFs (at all?!) you'll have to print and hand deliver or post your bundle because a word doc is alterable and thus, I'd suggest, not suitable for a witness statement.

asked why they have 2 ongoing and not had a response yet - do I put that in?

No need.  I think you've covered it in the estoppel/Henderson point.

What you are missing is a few paragraphs stating that Highview (Group Nexus) have chosen - for over a decade since the right to 'keeper liability' became open to parking firms - never to try to use the wording in para 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

You'd be saying that, whilst a non-POFA PCN is not unlawful, it restricts an operator to only being able to pursue a known driver (with evidence).  See exhibit X - POFA schedule 4 (ref: the 'right to keeper liability' in paragraph 4 and also see para 9 for the missing wording, including the omission of the mandatory 9(2)f warning of keeper liability).

See also Exhibit X - POPLA Annual Report 2015, where erstwhile POPLA and PATAS Lead Adjudicator and parking expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, explains keeper liability and the circumstances where it 'does not pass', including the fact there is no presumption that a keeper was the driver.

This has been tested at Appeal in Excel Parking v Smith, where an error by a District Judge was corrected because it cannot be assumed a keeper was driving and the law of agency does not apply between families.  Unlike with a Police NIP,  on private land a keeper is not liable unless the POFA is used or the driver actually identified with evidence for a single parking event.  None of that exists here.

There is no evidence of who was driving and this event (and the other, in the duplicate claim) is most likely to be a case of two quick visits anyway, given how frequently the family popped to that local shop and had no reason to stay for over an hour.

So, not only is there no legal presumption or right to hold the registered keeper liable but there is not even any evidence to discount a 'double visit' taken as if it was one longer stay, which is a known inherent flaw of ANPR.  These camera systems always automatically default to 'first in, last out' images in a 2 hour period and operators are required by their Trade Body rules, to carry out manual checks to avoid issuing PCNs in error for 'double dips'.  The Claimant has not done so - see EXHIBIT X - BPA news article* about this known ANPR technology error. 

See also the Government's newly-published incoming statutory Code of Practice (found using the URL below, or by searching online for: 'Parking Code of Practice DLUHC') which specifically references the need for manual checks to avoid what they have established is an inherent flaw of 'double dip' ANPR camera errors:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

The Government also confirms in this Code (which is intended to rid the private parking industry of rogue practice) that parking firms must not assume or imply that a registered keeper can be simply presumed in law, to be the driver.


(Then copy much of the WS by ricky_balboa).


Exhibits:

* https://www.britishparking.co.uk/ANPR

I'll let you find the Popla Annual Report 2015 pages about keeper liability (also print page one for context) and EXCEL V SMITH which is a court transcript linked in the Parking Prankster's 'case law' pages.

All good research.  Read them too, understand why they help you.

Jinks_65

Hi - thank you so much - I am about to get on with this.  

Ref the court not accepting word docs - I had an auto response when I sent in the N159 which included 'If you are attaching a copy of an order from a hearing for the Court to process, please ensure that you are submitting it in Word format only' - I am not sure if a witness statement falls under this or not?  Maybe not as the WS is not for alteration?  However, when I asked previously on my erroneous other thread it was suggested I post the N159 in to be safe - so I'm not sure now!

Asking these questions before I redraft ws as it makes a difference to having to post it on Saturday latest, or e-mail it Mon/Tues? And a difference to going to the shop for more ink and paper probably!

Also if I do have to post then would I have to post to DCB legal or would a pdf mail do for them?  

The other query is for the case refs - do the judgments get printed in full as exhibits, or just relevant pages/summations?

I will be back with a full draft WS - I really appreciate support on here - when it's done is there anything we do to support back? like a coffee fund or something else?

Coupon-mad

Ahhh, no that's fine!  Not what it means.

You are not providing a draft Order.  So you can email a merged PDF bundle then, like you see in the bundle example posted last year by @jrhys

Judgment transcripts must be provided in full.  Things like the POPLA annual report 2015 (read it to make sure it's the right one as there were two that year) can be provided as a URL link plus a shorter few-page Exhibit of the front page and foreword, then the pages about Keeper liability.  No need to exhibit the full POPLA report but do link it as well, for the Judge to click on to check its provenance if needed.

Once you have gathered the whole bundle, page number it then sign & date the WS and merge the PDFs in the right order, using a free PDF editor merge tool.  You can also compact the size to make sure it will email OK.

Jinks_65

Hi - thank you - gives me a breathing space to organise my statement - when it's ok!  The draft is below, but I haven't linked most things yet or sorted exhibit numbering - I have got the bundling format down though and can follow that ok - cheers.  Not sure if I've missed Beavis or it doesn't need to be in?

Do I need to exhibit the letters I received (I refer to them in the WS below)? 

Another query is that my WS has to be in on the 12 April - however, I can respond to the other party's WS no later than the 6 April - not that I have one, but honestly how can that work?  I thought there would be time for response but clearly not unless that is a typo?

Further, I notice a lot of folks' WS are just before the hearing, but whilst my initial date was for a papers one it was set for 8 September - 5 months away?  I have submitted the no paper form but not heard back with a date for the telephone/skype hearing as yet.

Do I need to ask for costs? I'm not that bothered and can take flexi leave for the pleasure of a phone hearing - I recognise the time and stress that this has caused me at a difficult period but can't be assed really - though if it's good to put in as a 'thing' to help stop the parking fine thugs then I'll keep it in?



Anyway - War and Peace:

            I am xxx of xxx, and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts 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 lived locally to xxx Car Park, which is adjacent to a local and busy shopping centre, since March 2016.  I, and my family, use this car park regularly, and also two very close carparks within 2 minutes drive of xxx Car Park, at times revisiting one or other of these carparks within the same trip.  I have not encountered parking difficulties excepting this claim from 2017 and a further identical claim made by this company from 2016, submitted after this claim on 16 February 2022. 

4.       I cannot recall receiving a PCN for this claim, though recall receiving the PCN for the other claim as sent to my old address and against which I submitted an appeal and never heard anything else, so reasonably assumed it had been accepted.  The SAR has subsequently evidenced that the reply to the appeal and subsequent notices were continually sent to the old address, despite the appeal being made from my correct, and still current address. 

5.       Therefore, the first I knew of any claim was a threatening debt recovery letter sent at the start of the COVID lockdown, dated 19 March 2020, with a follow up similarly threatening debt recovery letter on 9 April 2020.  As this claim presented no clear Particulars of Claim (POC), and all I knew in 2020 was that was some years previous I had received a PCN for that car park I naturally assumed it related to the one against which I had previously appealed.  At this time I was commencing remote working alongside the ongoing high level care for my parents that they required, and with hearing nothing else after the 9 April 2020 letter I reasonably believed the matter was cleared up and put it out of my mind.

6.       It was over 14 months later I received a set of further letters dated 30 June 2021, 8 July 2021, and 6 August 2021.  The letters are all similar in threatening tone though the DCB Legal reference numbers vary with a total of 4 differing ones.  The result of this was firstly that I was still left unaware that there were two separate claims being pursued, and secondly it confirmed my belief that there were some ongoing administrative issues occurring that DCB Legal would address prior to any further pursual against me. 

7.       On 12 October 2021 this claim was issued and I have responded and continue to respond with information gained through my own research.  On 16 February 2022 the second similar action was issued and I have subsequently obtained a Subject Access Request (SAR) which enlightened me as to the threatening letters through 2021 relating to two different claims. 

8.       As raised in points 1-5 Highview Parking have made a further claim against me as well as this one; claim number J2KF478G, to which I have submitted a defence on 21 March 2022, within which I referenced cause of action estoppel and requested that that claim is either struck out or dealt with alongside this claim.  On claim number J2KF478G it is noted my first name has a slightly incorrect spelling, whilst all other details and cause of action are essentially the same, and as such is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

9.       The long-established case law in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, (Exhibit …) establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case.  In Arnold  v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 31 (Exhibit …) the court noted that cause of action estoppel, “… applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

10.   The court is invited to consolidate these two claims to be determined together at this hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims.

11.   I will now continue in this statement to only refer to the current claim, as that is the one before the Court today.

12.   At the date of the claim I was supporting the care of my grandson and every Saturday would collect him, with his mother, from Chesterfield for the day.  I have four daughters, and had two parents, and they too would often visit my home to enjoy family time together, and equally may have used my car to go to the shops.  My father and three of my daughters held driving licences and my car has always been insured to cover their usage. I cannot recall the events of a specific Saturday, nearly 5 years ago, when each one was spent in a similar manner between 2016 and 2018.

13.   I believe that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4.

14.   Following on from [13] where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the PoFA, the Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their PoC  which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'.  This can never be the case with a Highview Parking Limited claim because this parking firm, as with any Group Nexus company, have never used the PoFA 2012 wording, of their own volition, choosing to omit the mandatory wording of PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, 9(2)f warning of keeper liability.

15.   Therefore, whilst a non-POFA PCN is not unlawful, it restricts an operator to only being able to pursue the evidenced and known driver, as the driver is the only liable party with a non-POFA PCN like this one.  The claimant has not evidenced a driver and cannot lawfully pursue a claim against myself as keeper.

16.   This was clarified by The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) lead adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, who stated, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (Exhibit - ? POPLA report 2015).

17.   This has also been tested at Appeal, Excel Parking Services v Smith (appeal) Stockport, 08/06/2017 C0DP9C4E and C1DP0C8E. Appeal M17X062 , where the initial judgement by the DDJ to allow transfer of liability from driver to registered keeper was corrected because it cannot be assumed a keeper was driving.

18.   I have not received the claimant’s witness statement and do not know the information upon which the claimant seeks to rely. The PoC set out an incoherent statement of case.  However, the SAR has revealed the original PCN stating the car entered the car park at 11:05 and exited at 12:56 stating that the duration was 1:50, although the duration correctly calculated would be 1:51, which leads me to question the accuracy of the car parking recordings of events and request confirmation that the ANPR was correctly utilised and calibrated.

19.   This carpark is one of a number of local carparks that I, and my family, have utilised within short periods of time, and there is no evidence to discount a 'double visit', which is a known inherent flaw of ANPR.  As per Exhibit ?  in a BPA news article it is confirmed that the camera systems in operation at the carpark automatically default to 'first in, last out' images in a two hour period. The recently published Private Parking Code of Practice by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice also references the requirement for manual checking to avoid ‘double dipping’ in section 7.3(d)1.  The Claimant has not provided evidence that the car was there continuously for the claimed duration of 1:50.  

20.   It is noted that this car park is on a busy road, with cars entering and leaving as can be seen on Exhibit ?, it was also a Saturday dinnertime and will have been particularly busy with shoppers.  It is also a difficult parking area with room for only one car to enter, or leave a row of parking spaces, as can be seen on Exhibit ?  Therefore, the alleged overstay of 20 minutes would have been time spent in moving traffic, arriving, finding a parking space and then manoeuvring to park, plus possibly safely helping children from their car seats, and the same in reverse. At the end of our visit a reasonable period of grace to leave is expected. This is not a ‘period of parking’ (under the POFA definition) that was in anyway exceeded. Any contravention of allowed parking time is denied.

21.   In any event, even if the Claimant can demonstrate that the car was indeed ‘on site’ and in the car park for a proven and synchronised 20 minutes above the 90 minutes of free parking, this would have been entirely within the grace periods of 10 minutes prior to entering a contract to and 10 minutes at the end of a parking event, set out in paragraph 13 of the BPA Code of Practice (BPA CoP) relevant version 2018. (Exhibit ?), and reiterated in the recently published Private Parking Code of Practice by the DLHC, Annex B.

22.   The car park has only one point of entry/exit. Exhibit ? shows how a car would enter, from a specific right turn lane, if driving from my home address as at July 2017, and from that perspective signage is not visible at all to the driver with the only sign at the entrance being placed on the other side and to the rear of the turning driver (Exhibit?).   The only way to view the signage is to enter and park in the carpark.

23.   Further the signs (close up Exhibit ?) refer to further signage within the carpark for full terms and conditions.  However, as Exhibit ?, there are no clear signs at all.  The two that are visible and accessible from within the car park only relate to the 90 minutes parking and refer to other signage for full terms and conditions, which I still cannot find today.

24.   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'. xxx Carpark does not have clear and ‘bound to be seen’ signage when entering, nor clear signage of terms and conditions within the Car Park. Therefore the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by The British Parking Association (BPA).  The BPA Code of Practice says “Signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand” It also states that “Signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract” with drivers.  Again this is upheld in in the recently published Private Parking Code of Practice by the DLHC, 3.1(2) and Annex A, with Annex A.2.2. specifically stating that, ‘The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead’.

Jinks_65

Abuse of process - the quantum

25.    The quantum and interest has been enhanced.  It is denied that the sum sought is recoverable and a significant chunk of this claim represents a penalty, per the authority from two well-known ParkingEye cases.  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the same modern penalty law rationale was applied, yet here, the learned Judge also considered added 'costs'.  The parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then 'admin costs' inflated it to £135.  At paras 419-428, HHJ Hegarty sitting at the High Court (decision ratified by the CoA) found that adding £60 to enhance the sum sought to £135 'would appear to be penal', i.e. unrecoverable.

26.   The Defendant's stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by the recently published Code of Practice for Private Parking (DLUCH) section 9 states "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued." 

27.    This particular Claimant's legal team routinely continues to pursue a sum on top of each PCN, despite indisputably knowing that these are banned costs.  The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and unincurred 'damages' enhancement of £60 upon which the Claimant has also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking.  Clearly an abuse of the court process.

28.    The DLUHC considered evidence and took over two years to consult a wide mix of stakeholders before deciding this contentious issue.  According to the DLUHC, almost a fifth of all respondents in 2021 'called for the proposal to be scrapped and debt collection to be banned altogether'.  This despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and exposed as fact, in its published Response to the Technical Consultation (also on 7/2/22) 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 and are effectively Trade Body Board member colleagues passing motorists' data around electronically and inflating parking charges.  This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the full parking charge itself more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called a 'letter chain' business model that generates a healthy profit.

29.    The Ministerial Foreword to the new Code 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." 

30.    These are now banned costs, which the Claimant has neither paid nor incurred, and were not quantified in prominent lettering on signage. Introducing the purported 'costs' add-on in later debt demands is a moneymaking exercise to extract a high fixed sum and came far too late. I did not agree to it.

31.    Whilst the new Private Parking Code of Practice is not retrospective, it was brought in due to the failure of the previous two competing (self-serving) BPA & IPC codes of practice and the Ministerial Foreword is indisputably talking about existing cases when declaring the add-on to be 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts from now on.

32.    This overrides the mistakes and presumptions in the appeal cases that the parking industry had been relying 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 or assisting with clarifying the law, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in niche private parking law and where the litigant-in-person consumers had no financial wherewithal to appeal further.

33.    In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those old cases, significant errors were made.  Evidence - including unclear signage and Codes of Practice -was either ignored, even when in evidence at both hearings (Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to regulatory DVLA KADOE rules requiring landowner authority) or the judgment referred to the wrong rules, with one Judge seeking out the inapplicable BPA Code after the hearing and using it erroneously (Percy).  In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver, was inexplicably aligned with Beavis. The learned Judges were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC.

 CPR 44.11 - further costs

34.    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 and they knew all along that the tariff has been paid.  Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action but 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) and attaching stock images of signs instead of actual images and a redacted 'landowner authority' document that could be from anyone.

35.    My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

36.   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, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave.

37.    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.''

38.    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.

 

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

You don't have to ask for costs if you have none, but I'd suggest using flexi-time is certainly 'loss of leave' for which you can claim £95 for a full day (half that for half a day off).

I would exhibit all the threatening letters' merged together as ONE exhibit.  I think it helps to paint the picture of unreasonableness.

I can't see you've mentioned an Exhibit number for Excel v Smith.  It needs to be a numbered exhibit.

Another query is that my WS has to be in on the 12 April - however, I can respond to the other party's WS no later than the 6 April - not that I have one, but honestly how can that work?  I thought there would be time for response but clearly not unless that is a typo?

Are they late in serving it then?

Does the Order give the Claimant an earlier date for WS and evidence than the Defendant, are you sure?