Help with witness statement against UKCPM/Gladstones please!

ANTIUKCPM

Hello everyone, I am new here and recently seen how incredible and determined everyone is to fight these scammers. 

I know my situation may be like many others, but I am concerned that I could lose in court and end up paying the £285 that Gladstones have saId I will be liable to pay if I lose in court. 

I have 2 LBCs:
1) For stopping on a double yellow line to read the signage and ask in Sainsbury's if it was ok to stop for a few minutes, by which time the CCTV or postal ticket was issued. 
2) For stopping outside my friends flat to offload and the car was probably left for 5-10 minutes in total - again a postal ticket. (no DYL)

There are two more fines which haven't gone to LBC yet: 
1) One again for stopping outside the flat (no DYL) with the engine on for 5 minutes with hazards on waiting for my friend to come out. 
2) Lastly the most sneaky one, where my friend had forgotten his permit and so we asked the UKCPM wardens what to do, he said we can use our visitor permit in place of the regular permit in our bay, and then proceeded to fine us. 

My questions are: 
1) Do I realistically have any legs to stand on or should I just pay the £170 x2 and the other £100 x2?
2) If I submit for the SAR and deny the debt, and they still give me a court date, is there still chance to pay the £170 and not risk losing in court/getting CCJ? I feel the time it takes to prepare the defence/go to court is not worth the loss of income for me as I am self employed. 

I have attached photos from the two LBC notices. 
Any advice is much appreciated!

Fruitcake

Yes you have a chance to win in court.

Send the standard, I deny the debt but am seeking debt advice so put the claim on hold for 30 days instruction to the PPC and their legals.

Send an SAR to the DPO of the PPC, and include proof of non-photo ID.

Tell us what happened when you complained to the manager and/or CEO of Sainsbugs, and what happened when you complained to the residential landowner, and managing agent if there is one.

The resident should complain as well and should produce a copy of their lease/AST to see what it says about parking, permits, PPCs, PCNs, paying PCNs/PPC, and court. What it doesn't say is just as important.

Please follow the guide to court written by bargepole you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES, and use the defence template written by Coupon-mad when a claim form arrives.

Get pics of the site and signage as well.

Court claims for similar/identical events should be combined. Look up cause of action estoppel. Even if you lose, the fake add ons are prohibited by the government, so they should at least be knocked off if properly defended.

Look up the case of Jopson vs Homeguard, judgement available online, where the judge stated that loading and unloading is not parking.

In addition, double yellow lines mean no parking. They do not mean no stopping unless there are kerb blips.

Coupon-mad

You also need to tell whichever roboclaim thug who has sent the LBCs, to revert to their client, to consolidate all PCNs into a single claim (search the forum for Henderson v Henderson).

And that they can't add £60 or £70 a pop, per PCN, because it's been branded 'extortion' and banned by Govt (yadda, yadda, as seen on every LBC thread for the past month).

D_P_Dance

 I am concerned that I could lose in court and end up paying the £285 

Very unlikely, read this and complain to your MP

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and 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 Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

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

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘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 XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions, which are nvariabky disallowed by the judge, yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

ANTIUKCPM

I have now received a claim form for both of these PCNs. 
Please can someone help me with the defences? 


The date of issue is 14/06/22 for both PCNS, the same PPC, same solicitor, same car and site.
Date of claim 1 is 15/08/2019 
Date of claim 2 is 26/07/2019

CLAIM 1 DEFENCE

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3.1. The defendant does not accept fault with regards to the claim as they are legally permitted to load and offload in the location where the penalty was issued with consent from the legal owner of the residence. The vehicle was engaged in continuous loading and was not parked. As it was not parked, no contract was entered into, and the claimants access to the DVLA keeper database was unlawful and in breach of DPA 2018. It is important to draw the distinction between "parking" and "loading/unloading", as this would not constitute a breach of contract. 

In Jopson Vs. Homeguard, case no: B9GF0A9E, which had seen this appeal allowed, his honour Judge Harris QC mentions that loading/unloading is not parking:

"19. The purported prohibition was upon "parking", and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time"

and

"20. Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it."

and 

"21. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice."

3.2. The defendant suffers with significant autoimmune disorders which they feel the claimant should take into consideration as part of the clients accessibility policy for the less abled.

3.3. The car was not left parked for a significant period of time and was simply stopped for the purpose of offloading into the residence. The signage is poorly placed and not easily legible for a common layperson to comply with.  Further to this, the defendant is aware that there is a legally binding grace period (BPA Approved Operator Scheme's Code of Practice) before the issuing of a penalty and feels they were not granted this period. 

CLAIM 2

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3.1. The defendant does not accept fault with regards to the claim as the vehicle was engaged in loading and was not parked. As it was not parked, no contract was entered into, and the claimants access to the DVLA keeper database was unlawful and in breach of DPA 2018. It is important to draw the distinction between "parking" and "loading/unloading", as this would not constitute a breach of contract. 

In Jopson Vs. Homeguard, case no: B9GF0A9E, which had seen this appeal allowed, his honour Judge Harris QC mentions that loading/unloading is not parking:

"19. The purported prohibition was upon "parking", and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time”

and

"20. Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it."

and

"21. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice."

3.2. The defendant suffers with significant autoimmune disorders which they feel the claimant should take into consideration as part of the clients accessibility policy for the less abled.

3.3. The signage is poorly placed and not easily legible for a common layperson to comply with.  Further to this, the defendant is aware that there is a legally binding grace period (BPA Approved Operator Scheme's Code of Practice) before the issuing of a penalty and feels they were not granted this period. 

3.4. The defendant is aware that double yellow lines mean no parking. They do not mean no stopping unless there are kerb blips. 

ANY help is most appreciated. 

Kind regards

Trainerman

Are you saying that these are identical claims, with different dates? If so, you do not need to do "defence 1" "defence 2". You simply write one defence.

Also, a lot of this will go into the Witness Statement, not the defence. There is a template defence you can use, and only change (usually) para 2 and 3. It is the third post down on the stickies. labelled "Template Defence to adopt for all ......etc"

Defence should have no "I", "me" etc . It is "The Defendant" or "The Driver" etc etc  ( which I think you have done already)

Umkomaas

The date of issue is 14/06/22 for both PCNS

Just checking (as you've not said) if you acknowledged receipt of the claim, and if so, on what date?

ANTIUKCPM

Trainerman said:

Are you saying that these are identical claims, with different dates? If so, you do not need to do "defence 1" "defence 2". You simply write one defence.

Also, a lot of this will go into the Witness Statement, not the defence. There is a template defence you can use, and only change (usually) para 2 and 3. It is the third post down on the stickies. labelled "Template Defence to adopt for all ......etc"

Defence should have no "I", "me" etc . It is "The Defendant" or "The Driver" etc etc  ( which I think you have done already)

No they are two different claims with separate dates. 

The date of issue is 14/06/22 for both PCNS, the same PPC, same solicitor, same car and site.
Date of claim 1 is 15/08/2019 
Date of claim 2 is 26/07/2019

They just happened to have sent me the N1 claim forms on the same day for the two different PCNS. 


Would you be able to advise me what to keep and what to omit in my defence that I've drafted? Im so sorry this process is so difficult for me. Many thanks!

ANTIUKCPM

Umkomaas said:

The date of issue is 14/06/22 for both PCNS

Just checking (as you've not said) if you acknowledged receipt of the claim, and if so, on what date?

Hi Ukomaas, I acknowledged both claims on the 21st June 2022. 

Coupon-mad

You need to add in the usual wording about Henderson v Henderson (search the forum and find a defence already with that paragraph). 

Remove the word 'penalty'. It's not a fine!

And this is wrong, DYL do NOT mean no parking:
The defendant is aware that double yellow lines mean no parking. 

Trainerman

No they are two different claims with separate dates. 

The date of issue is 14/06/22 for both PCNS, the same PPC, same solicitor, same car and site.
Date of claim 1 is 15/08/2019 
Date of claim 2 is 26/07/2019

Yes but are they the same alleged contravention? For example, are they both 'overstaying'?