Claim Form CCBC

moby_a

Please may I have some help with constructing a witness statement; the following is a first (& likely jumbled) statement draft - I would be much appreciative for any guidance & to see if I'm on the right track. 

I am still working on the costs section at the end. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Signage 

3. In the first instance, it must be clarified that the claimant has appended to their witness statement signage that is incorrect for this car park. The signage they have put forward is clearly a generic bundle, and is outdated and for a different location (‘***’) rather than ***. Furthermore, their photographs of the area are also oudated & do not reflect the current signage and setting.  

4.  I have thus appended the correct signage present, with photographs taken by myself in December 2021, which I will refer to throughout.  

5. The approach and entrance to the car park is unmarked and ends in a general cul-de-sac area (see exhibit ***-01) 

6. At the point of entry, there is no signage present  - any signage with terms and conditions is neither visible nor readable from this location (exhibit ***-01). Any visible signage is placed at a height of around 7 foot, mounted on various walls. Each sign is of a different nature, with the one closest to the area I parked in shown in exhibits ***-02,03,04. A zoomed-in version is evident in ***-05 

7. as can be seen, this sign merely states that Parking conditions apply. There is no further direction to alternate signage, nor the implication of any contract formed as a result of parking in this location. There is also a distinct lack of anything relating to a risk of a fine as a result of parking here.  

Sequence of Events 

8. Regarding the circumstances at the time of the incident, there was the assumption that, as a result of the unprecedented circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic & the first lockdown, most parking locations had lifted any restrictions. In addition to this, the defendant was working within a specially set up acute dental clinic to handle the needs of patients in severe pain during the first lockdown, and was parking in order to collect some prescription medications from a nearby pharmacy which was around a one-minute walk away from this parking location. This location was merely chosen for ease of access & proximity to the pharmacy, allowing the defendant to collect the required items & return to the car as soon as possible.  

9. Having found a seemingly suitable place to park for a short duration, I attempted to get to terms with the terms and conditions signage around the car park as I was highly aware of how purposely deceiving private parking terms can be. Having looked at the sign (***-05) closest to me (please see ***-06, showing myself, of 6 foot in height, and the sign mounted above me), there was no information here other than that parking conditions apply & parking is for permit holders only, with no further direction. Having said this, in the midst of the first lockdown, it was assumed that these restriction surely did not apply at this current time.  

10. Due to the lack of clarity on this particular sign, I then left the car & sought out any further signage (***-07). This sign was again wall-mounted at a height of around 7 feet. (See again ***-08 for reference to height of this sign) This meant that, even with contact lenses in & as close to twenty-twenty vision as possible, I was unable to clearly read the smaller print of this sign. Only having returned and taken photographs, and then zooming in, is one able to decipher the small print. At the time, I did what I could to read these terms, having not been guided to them at all. With about 380 words present, this would take at least a few minutes time to filter through at an average reading rate, possibly even more so at such a small unreadable size. 

11. Having noted there being ample parking spaces empty, and the fact that there was a country-wide lockdown as a result of the pandemic, a decision was made to leave the car for a short duration. Having returned after collection from the pharmacy, I then departed. 

12. I then received a PCN notice. I appealed this on three main grounds (***-09); (1) there was insufficient & unclear signage, (2) mitigating circumstances – regarding the aforementioned circumstances of being a key worker during the first lockdown of the pandemic & that the vehicle was parked for a valid reason, causing no clear obstruction or inconvenience to any other users and (3) the charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable. This appeal was rejected by the claimant.  

Inappropriate & Inadequate Signage 

13. For the Claimant to be compliant with the BPA Code of Practice (Exhibit ***-10), their sign, according to section 19.3 ‘must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.’  Furthermore, section 19.2 relays that ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of’. Taking these factors into account, it is clear that neither parameter was in accordance with BPA guidance. I include the Beavis case sign (***-11) as a comparison with the inadequate and unclear signage present in this event.  

14. Further to this, the initial sign whereby it is stated ‘parking conditions apply’ does not align with Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that ‘You must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where to find more details about them’. (see Exhibit ***-12) 

15. 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 (Exhibit ***-11) 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 ParkingEye v. Beavis case is distinguished 

16. This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 (Exhibit ***-13), 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.  

17. However, there is no such legitimate interest in this scenario whereby at the time, during the lockdown, there was no precedent to deter drivers from occupying car parking spaces, nor is there a charge for the usage of the car park, let alone during a time when the general public were prevented from being out of their households.  

18. Resultantly, the Defendant proffers that the charge in this case amounts to a penalty and as such is unenforceable. This can be said to amount to 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. 

19. The Beavis ruling mentioned a 'unique' set of facts including the legitimate interest, site location and prominent, clear signs with the parking charge in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuading Judges that these charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts (and in particular, the brief and conspicuous yellow/black warning signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach. 

20. Without the Beavis case to support this claim and with no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  To paraphrase from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  

21.     The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. 

 

Abuse of Process – the quantum 

22. The Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as 'debt recovery costs'. This added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process. Thus 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. 

23.     The Defendant's stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published on 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking operators must comply with, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice 

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

25.     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. Numerous letters were received regarding debt collection – three agencies were used, with varying sums of payment being demanded, from £150, to £160 & £170 (see Exhibits MBA-14,15,16,17,18). The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and un-incurred enhancement of £60 upon which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking; a clear abuse of the court process. 

Coupon-mad

I would remove 9, 10 and 11 entirely.

You didn't look at the signs and assume it would be OK or that you'd take a chance (that's how it reads!).  You simply used what looked like an unmarked bay.  Don't talk about reading the signs because I can't believe for a minute that you saw them. People don't deliberately flout rules they could see.

Your stance should be that, unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, these terms were not 'bound to be seen' with the parking charge in large bold lettering.  Mr Beavis didn't deny seeing the signs and instead took the point that the charge was a penalty and that argument didn't fly.  Your case is fully distinguished because you knew nothing about any 'contract'.

Your case also hinges on their misleading hotch-potch of old/wrong signs in their evidence, so can I check your signage evidence has the date embedded in the images, from the metadata?

At the start I would be explaining that you knew nothing of the Claimants letters until (DATE) and didn't ignore the charge.  Due to COVID and family issues you were not living at the address in 2020 so had no chance to learn about the notices or to appeal. Not that parking firms consider late appeals; they are going to be forced to, from 2023 by the new Government statutory Code of Practice when they discover a person did not receive the letters but that comes too late for you and hence you are now in the absurd position of being dragged to court for collecting urgent medication from a pharmacy.

1505grandad

Para 15  -  " 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 ...."?

moby_a

Coupon-mad said:

I would remove 9, 10 and 11 entirely.

You didn't look at the signs and assume it would be OK or that you'd take a chance (that's how it reads!).  You simply used what looked like an unmarked bay.  Don't talk about reading the signs because I can't believe for a minute that you saw them. People don't deliberately flout rules they could see.

Your stance should be that, unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, these terms were not 'bound to be seen' with the parking charge in large bold lettering.  Mr Beavis didn't deny seeing the signs and instead took the point that the charge was a penalty and that argument didn't fly.  Your case is fully distinguished because you knew nothing about any 'contract'.

Your case also hinges on their misleading hotch-potch of old/wrong signs in their evidence, so can I check your signage evidence has the date embedded in the images, from the metadata?

At the start I would be explaining that you knew nothing of the Claimants letters until (DATE) and didn't ignore the charge.  Due to COVID and family issues you were not living at the address in 2020 so had no chance to learn about the notices or to appeal. Not that parking firms consider late appeals; they are going to be forced to, from 2023 by the new Government statutory Code of Practice when they discover a person did not receive the letters but that comes too late for you and hence you are now in the absurd position of being dragged to court for collecting urgent medication from a pharmacy.

Thank you so much, I will make these changes ASAP.  I am away at the moment but needing to find time to get this sent by Friday 4pm..

Regards to the signage evidence - do I need a date/ timestamp on the photos that I add to the court bundle? Is this what you mean?

Coupon-mad

Yes indeed. Your photos must be dated to make them true evidence - and to trump their evidence.

moby_a

Coupon-mad said:

Yes indeed. Your photos must be dated to make them true evidence - and to trump their evidence.

I have now dated & timestamped the photos, thank you for the heads up!

I think I'm nearly there with the WS, having made the changes you suggested, please do let me know if theres anything you think I'm missing? Also regarding costs, I havent been given a date for the hearing and will lose out on much more than the usual £95 as will have to take the whole day off due to the nature of my work - is there anything to be done re. costs in case I win (though I know my case hinges mostly on signage)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I am XXX of XXX 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: 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Signage 

3. In the first instance, it must be clarified that the claimant has appended to their witness statement signage that is incorrect for this car park. The signage they have put forward is clearly a generic bundle, and is outdated and for a different location (‘xxxxx’) rather than xxxxxx. Furthermore, their photographs of the area are also oudated & do not reflect the current signage and setting.  

4.  I have thus appended the correct signage present, with photographs taken by myself in December 2021, which I will refer to throughout.  

5. The approach and entrance to the car park is unmarked and ends in a general cul-de-sac area (see exhibit x-01) 

6. At the point of entry, there is no signage present  - any signage with terms and conditions is neither visible nor readable from this location (exhibit x-01). Any visible signage is placed at a height of around 7 foot, mounted on various walls. Each sign is of a different nature, with the one closest to the area I parked in shown in exhibits x-02,03,04. A zoomed-in version is evident in x-05 

7. as can be seen, this sign merely states that Parking conditions apply. There is no further direction to alternate signage, nor the implication of any contract formed as a result of parking in this location. There is also a distinct lack of anything relating to a risk of a fine as a result of parking here.  

Sequence of Events 

8. Regarding the circumstances at the time of the incident, there was the assumption that, as a result of the unprecedented circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic & the first lockdown, most parking locations had lifted any restrictions. In addition to this, I was working within a specially set up acute emergency clinic to handle the needs of patients in pain during the first lockdown, and In this case was parking in order to collect some prescription medications from a nearby pharmacy (Boots, High Street) which was around a one-minute walk away from this parking location. This location was merely chosen for ease of access & proximity to the pharmacy, allowing me to collect the required items & return to the car as soon as possible.  

9. As a result of working in a high-risk environment during the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as further family issues in this time, I was not present at the address where the letters were delivered, and thus had no knowledge of the penalty notice/s nor the opportunity to appeal. I had no intention of ignoring this notice, had I been aware of it. Once I had received the notice, I submitted an appeal.  

10. This appeal covered three main grounds (x-09); (1) there was insufficient & unclear signage, (2) mitigating circumstances – regarding the aforementioned circumstances of being a key worker during the first lockdown of the pandemic & that the vehicle was parked for a valid reason, causing no clear obstruction or inconvenience to any other users and (3) the charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable. This appeal was rejected by the claimant.  

Inappropriate & Inadequate Signage 

11. For the Claimant to be compliant with the BPA Code of Practice (Exhibit x-10), their sign, according to section 19.3 ‘must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.’  Furthermore, section 19.2 relays that ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of’. Taking these factors into account, it is clear that neither parameter was in accordance with BPA guidance. I include the Beavis case sign (Exhibit x-11) as a comparison with the inadequate and unclear signage present in this event.  

12. Further to this, the initial sign whereby it is stated ‘parking conditions apply’ does not align with Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that ‘You must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where to find more details about them’. (see Exhibit x-12) 

15. 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 (Exhibit x-11) 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. As aforementioned, there was no obvious and clear signage present here. 

The ParkingEye v. Beavis case is distinguished 

 15. This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 (Exhibit x-13), 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.  

16. However, there is no such legitimate interest in this scenario whereby at the time, during the lockdown, there was no precedent to deter drivers from occupying car parking spaces, nor is there a charge for the usage of the car park, let alone during a time when the general public were prevented from being out of their households.  

17. Resultantly, the Defendant proffers that the charge in this case amounts to a penalty and as such is unenforceable. This can be said to amount to 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. 

18. The Beavis ruling mentioned a 'unique' set of facts including the legitimate interest, site location and prominent, clear signs with the parking charge in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuading Judges that these charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts (and in particular, the brief and conspicuous yellow/black warning signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach. This case is further distinguished in that there were no clear ‘terms’ that were ‘bound to be seen’ present on any signage as set out in the Beavis case, and as such, I was not at any point aware of the formation of a ‘contract’.  

19. Without the Beavis case to support this claim and with no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  To paraphrase from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  

20.     The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. 

Abuse of Process – the quantum 

19. The Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as 'debt recovery costs'. This added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process. Thus 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. 

20.     The Defendant's stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published on 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking operators must comply with, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice 

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

 21.     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. Numerous letters were received regarding debt collection – three agencies were used, with varying sums of payment being demanded, from £150, to £160 & £170 (see Exhibits x-14,15,16,17,18). The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and un-incurred enhancement of £60 upon which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking; a clear abuse of the court process. 

22. The Claimant has referenced the Defendants defence to be ‘irrelevant’ and ‘nonsensical’, stating that the Defence has been ‘copied & pasted, largely irrelevant to the claim, liable to be stuck (sic) out and arguably amounting to a false statement. The Defendant would like to clarify that the defence, as well as this Witness Statement, have come from the Defendant’s own knowledge and honest belief. The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after a great deal of research, after adding facts and reading the defence through several times, as the court process is outside of their life experience and this claim was an unexpected shock. The claims of the defence being nonsensical or irrelevant are all the more preposterous when the exhibits within the trial bundle, supposedly of the site and signage, are incorrect – a wholly different site is evident within one image, as well as incorrect stock signs being used as evidence.  

My Fixed Witness Costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14  

22. As a litigant-in-person, I have had to research the relevant law, as well as then formulating and compiling a defence, witness statement and evidence. I thus ask for 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.    

23. 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.  

Coupon-mad

 will lose out on much more than the usual £95 as will have to take the whole day off due to the nature of my work - is there anything to be done re. costs ?

Attach a costs assessment and proof of how much a day off will cost you, with a line or two in the costs assessment explaining why you have to take a full day off and that you intend to show that the Claimant has acted wholly unreasonably and should pay your wasted costs in full.

1505grandad

I posted:-

"Para 15  -  " 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 ...."?"

Why are you still posting the above in your WS?

You have the correct CoP (BPA) in paras 11 and 12  -  where are nos. 13 or 14?  -  but two para 15, one of 

which includes the wrong CoP.

Also two para 19 and 20

moby_a

1505grandad said:

I posted:-

"Para 15  -  " 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 ...."?"

Why are you still posting the above in your WS?

You have the correct CoP (BPA) in paras 11 and 12  -  where are nos. 13 or 14?  -  but two para 15, one of 

which includes the wrong CoP.

Also two para 19 and 20

Sorry, thank you for this - I missed it initially. I have corrected it accordingly - the company in this case is a member of both BPA & the IPC, under a different trading name, which will be reflected in the latest WS. I am also aware of the numbering issue, thank you 

KeithP

moby_a said:

1505grandad said:

I posted:-

"Para 15  -  " 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 ...."?"

Why are you still posting the above in your WS?

You have the correct CoP (BPA) in paras 11 and 12  -  where are nos. 13 or 14?  -  but two para 15, one of 

which includes the wrong CoP.

Also two para 19 and 20

 - the company in this case is a member of both BPA & the IPC, under a different trading name

But they won't be a member of both the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme and the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme.
It will be one or the other.