CST Law case - Judgement made

lurpdog101

Quick question - are the signs supposed to be visible from all angles of the car park, or READABLE - as there are signs but they are such small print, that you have to be stood inches in front to read, which is difficult for someone with accessability issues, especially when car park spaces so narrow making it difficult to get out easily...as no disabled bays

Johnersh

Ok. So the sign is a contract. You can only be deemed to have agreed to its terms if (a) you read it or (b) could have read it if you wanted to.

If the signage is non existent, contradictory, illegible, does not reflect the actual parking scheme/terms, then those are all relevant.

One issue that parking companies have is to demonstrate that the additional £70 is charged. If it's not within the terms of the sign, is not a cost that they have incurred, then on what basis are they charging it?

Fruitcake

lurpdog101 said:

example of one of their date stamped signs

That is not a date stamped image of a sign. It is a stock image held on a computer, with a possible date when the computer image was generated or accessed. It is irrelevant.

What is relevant are photos of signs, timed and date stamped at the material time of the alleged event, and photos of the vehicle in question at the material location to show where the signs were at the material time in relation to the location of the vehicle.

Has the claimant provided you with any of those?

Castle

LDast said:

Ocean Parking is a trading name of Anchor Security Services Ltd, so not really a viable challenge on that point.

You mentioned in your earlier panicky post that you'd lose your job if you lost this case. Why do you presume that? This is not a criminal matter. It is a civil matter over a contractual dispute. The county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service and even if you did not sin, there is no "record" of anything criminal. In the worst case scenario, as long as you paid the CCJ within 28 days of judgment, there is not even any record on your credit file. It is completely expunged from the record.

But that detail wasn't disclosed at the time of the contract, so the sign(s) fails to disclose a legal entity. (Companies are subject to prosecution if they fail to disclose their company details). 

LDast

I stand corrected and further research indicates when a limited liability company in England uses a trading name to establish a contractual relationship, it must comply with the Companies Act 2006 and associated regulations to ensure that its registered name and details are properly disclosed. Failure to do so means that you can challenge the enforceability of any contract formed and there is also the breaches of consumer protection laws.

Companies Act 2006

Section 82 of the Companies Act 2006 requires that a company must display its registered name at its registered office and any other location where it conducts business. This includes where contracts are formed, such as through signage.

Section 83 requires companies to disclose their registered name on business letters, order forms, websites, and any other form of business correspondence. While it doesn't explicitly mention signage, the principle of transparency would suggest that a company should clearly identify itself if attempting to form a contract through such means.

Section 84 mandates that companies using a trading name must also disclose their registered name in any business correspondence or documentation to avoid misleading the public.

Business Names (Companies) Regulations 2007

These regulations, made under the Companies Act 2006, specifically govern the use of business names by companies. They require that if a company uses a trading name that is different from its registered name, the registered name must be disclosed along with:

• The company’s registration number.
• The place of registration (e.g., "Registered in England and Wales").
• The company’s registered address.

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs)

Regulation 5 (Misleading Actions) and Regulation 6 (Misleading Omissions): These parts of the CPRs protect consumers from unfair trading practices. If a company does not clearly identify itself, this could be considered a misleading omission or action. For example, if a driver is misled into thinking they are contracting with one entity when it is actually a different company operating under a trading name, this could breach these regulations.

The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008

These regulations require companies to clearly display their registered name at all locations where business is carried out and to include it on all forms of communication which would include any signs that form a contract. This ensures transparency and enables anyone dealing with the company to know its true legal identity.

lurpdog101

Fruitcake said:

lurpdog101 said:

example of one of their date stamped signs

That is not a date stamped image of a sign. It is a stock image held on a computer, with a possible date when the computer image was generated or accessed. It is irrelevant.

What is relevant are photos of signs, timed and date stamped at the material time of the alleged event, and photos of the vehicle in question at the material location to show where the signs were at the material time in relation to the location of the vehicle.

Has the claimant provided you with any of those?

up, I know. The actual photos they have taken of the signs are not date stamped. They are just photos taken, at any particular time over the last few years. The only photos of the car are entering/leaving the car park. Non to show it's location to the signs. So I could argue that point, that the photos themselves were taken after the event. I will add this to my witness statement / counter

lurpdog101

LDast said:

I stand corrected and further research indicates when a limited liability company in England uses a trading name to establish a contractual relationship, it must comply with the Companies Act 2006 and associated regulations to ensure that its registered name and details are properly disclosed. Failure to do so means that you can challenge the enforceability of any contract formed and there is also the breaches of consumer protection laws.

Companies Act 2006

Section 82 of the Companies Act 2006 requires that a company must display its registered name at its registered office and any other location where it conducts business. This includes where contracts are formed, such as through signage.

Section 83 requires companies to disclose their registered name on business letters, order forms, websites, and any other form of business correspondence. While it doesn't explicitly mention signage, the principle of transparency would suggest that a company should clearly identify itself if attempting to form a contract through such means.

Section 84 mandates that companies using a trading name must also disclose their registered name in any business correspondence or documentation to avoid misleading the public.

Business Names (Companies) Regulations 2007

These regulations, made under the Companies Act 2006, specifically govern the use of business names by companies. They require that if a company uses a trading name that is different from its registered name, the registered name must be disclosed along with:

• The company’s registration number.
• The place of registration (e.g., "Registered in England and Wales").
• The company’s registered address.

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs)

Regulation 5 (Misleading Actions) and Regulation 6 (Misleading Omissions): These parts of the CPRs protect consumers from unfair trading practices. If a company does not clearly identify itself, this could be considered a misleading omission or action. For example, if a driver is misled into thinking they are contracting with one entity when it is actually a different company operating under a trading name, this could breach these regulations.

The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008

These regulations require companies to clearly display their registered name at all locations where business is carried out and to include it on all forms of communication which would include any signs that form a contract. This ensures transparency and enables anyone dealing with the company to know its true legal identity.

Thank you!!! This is perfect. I will use this in my defence to have it dismissed. They have breached consumer protection!!

lurpdog101

Would appreciate feedback on my WS:

______________________________________________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXX
___________________________________________________________


I, XXX, declare as follows:

1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle registered under number XXX.

2. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless I state otherwise. I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source is identified. Facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

3. Summary of Events

In September 2021, I received 3 PCNS through the post on the same day for the following alleged offenses:

Ref: OP XXX
Date: 11.08.21 - Arrival 17:25, Exit 17:44. Duration 19 minutes.

Ref: OP XXX
Date: 12.08.21 - Arrival 11:32, Exit 11:45. Duration: 12 minutes.

Ref: OP XXX
Date: 15.08.21 - Arrival 09:26, Exit 09:44. Duration: 18 minutes.


4. I immediately wrote an appeal (for which I also cannot find) and sent it to Ocean Parking, receiving acknowledgements (copies enclosed) on the 2nd September.

5  Details of correspondence:

7th October, I received a denial of my appeal.
- Within this time period, I had received 7 letters from Ocean Parking, all demanding £100
- Between October and the end of January 2022 I received 25 letters from Debt Recovery Plus demanding £160 each. At the same time I was receiving Ocean Parking letters demanding £100.
- I received 21 further demands from Debt Recovery Plus over the next 12 months
 -Between March 2022 and June 2022 I also received 4 letters from CST Law, demanding £480, and £800. The letter in June was a Letter Before Claim
- October 2022 I received a letter from CST Law responding to my comments, saying blue badge holders still needed to adhere. demanding £800

6. Nothing was heard until October 2023, when I received a further Letter before Claim demanding £1280, threatening a rise to £1440 if CCJ issued, which escalated into this claim.

7. I was not the driver of the alleged instances and have cited this several times and in my Defence to the Court.

8. The Claimant has provided a copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner. In this contract, it states throughout, that the contract is between the landowner and Anchor Security Services, T/A Care Parking. On this basis, I cite the following from the Companies Act 2006.

9. The Claimant included copies of signage, none of which actually correspond to the contractual name. Therefore, they are in breach of the Companies Act 2006, where, in Section 83, it states that a company is required to disclose their registered name on all things, including signage. Therefore I challenge the enforceability of the Claimant’s claim and state a breach of the Customer Protection Laws due to misleading information on who actually manages the contract.

10. Companies Act 2006
Section 82 of the Companies Act 2006 requires that a company must display its registered name at its registered office and any other location where it conducts business. This includes where contracts are formed, such as through signage.
Section 83 requires companies to disclose their registered name on business letters, order forms, websites, and any other form of business correspondence. While it doesn't explicitly mention signage, the principle of transparency would suggest that a company should clearly identify itself if attempting to form a contract through such means.
Section 84 mandates that companies using a trading name must also disclose their registered name in any business correspondence or documentation to avoid misleading the public.

11.  Business Names (Companies) Regulations 2007
These regulations, made under the Companies Act 2006, specifically govern the use of business names by companies. They require that if a company uses a trading name that is different from its registered name, the registered name must be disclosed along with:
The company’s registration number.
The place of registration (e.g., "Registered in England and Wales").
The company’s registered address.

12. Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs)

Regulation 5 (Misleading Actions) and Regulation 6 (Misleading Omissions): These parts of the CPRs protect consumers from unfair trading practices. If a company does not clearly identify itself, this could be considered a misleading omission or action. For example, if a driver is misled into thinking they are contracting with one entity when it is actually a different company operating under a trading name, this could breach these regulations.

13.  The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008
These regulations require companies to clearly display their registered name at all locations where business is carried out and to include it on all forms of communication which would include any signs that form a contract. This ensures transparency and enables anyone dealing with the company to know its true legal identity.

At the time of the alleged contract between myself and the Claimant, it was never made clear that it could go to court and end in a CCJ. Therefore the signage fails to disclose a legal entity.

The photos that the claimant has provided are stock computer images and non of the photos themselves are time date stamped, nor do they show the vehicle in situ. Therefore they can be deemed irrelevant.

There is no mention of an extra £70 charge being added during their process of reclamation on any of the signage, or in any correspondence leading to the DRA.

14. Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 is clear in stating that there is a limit to the amount that can be claimed:
Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
(5) the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).
Therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to claim any of the following sums:
i. Damages cannot be claimed as the law puts a limit on how much can be claimed from the keeper.
ii. Debt recovery costs are not recoverable and have no legal basis.
iii. Operational costs are not recoverable from the Defendant.
iv. Interest payments under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 are not recoverable because the Claimant is not entitled to claim Debt or Damages.

15. The Department for Leveling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking operators are required to comply with.

The Government has clarified that adding 'debt recovery' fees on top of a parking charge is unreasonable and as such, is banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new Code says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."  The Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal and robust, saying this about 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."

16. In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum that their notorious industry variously describes as damages for debt recovery.  These are banned costs which they have neither paid nor incurred.

17. I aver that by continuing to pursue claims including this objectionable sum - when this serial litigator Claimant is indisputably aware due to their 'approved operator' membership of an Accredited Parking Association - that these exaggerated 'costs' are banned by the Government, appears to meet the high bar of wholly unreasonable conduct.

18. I believe that knowingly inflated claims such as this case should not be allowed to continue.  I further observe that this conduct by parking firms operating under their previous Codes of Practice (described by several District Judges as 'self-serving') has caused inflated default judgments and consumer harm on a grand scale in recent years.  The Court is invited to strike out the false 'damages/debt recovery' element at the very least and to consider whether the appropriate sanction may be to strike out the entire claim, in order to signal that the Court shares the Government's view regarding one of the most vexatious, greedy and intimidating elements of some members of the private parking industry's conduct in litigation.

19. The Beavis case is against this claim (The Claimant uses this case to prove their point)

20. This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, 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.

21. However, there is no such legitimate interest where the requisite fee has been paid in full for the time stayed. As such, I take the view that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. This is 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.

22. In addition, the Beavis case considered an £85 parking charge but was clear at paras 98, 193 and 198 that the rationale of that inflated sum (well over any possible loss/damages) was precisely because it included (the Judges held, three times) 'all the costs of the operation'. It is an abuse of process to add sums that were not incurred. Costs must already be included in the parking charge rationale if a parking operator wishes to base their model on the ParkingEye v Beavis case and not a damages/loss model. This Claimant can't have both.

23. If the claim is not struck out, I therefore seek:

i. Standard witness costs of attendance at court, pursuant to CPR 27.14; and
ii. 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.”
iii. That any hearing is not vacated but continues as a cost hearing.

24. 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.

1505grandad

No comments as yet regarding WS contents but suggest you alter the SoT to reflect correct doc.

Nellymoser

Good to read you're back on track. 🙂
Debt recovery fees are not yet banned by gov as stated in Para 15, 16, 17