'Overstay' in gym car park

KMBayes

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you can.  It's not a precedent though.

In my thread about it, did I give the Judge's name, court, claim number and date?  You can quote what I said the Judge said but be aware it is all hearsay because there's no transcript.

OK, I'll take that on board. I underestimated the effort required. This is taking hours.

Gr1pr

That aspect will hammer home the point that those in the know or those who look for signs and comply with them , plus ask promptly if unsure, never parking without double checking that they have permission to park, paid for or otherwise, don't tend to receive private PCNs 

I am not pointing the finger here, but generally it is my experience over the years that Joe public seem to switch off as soon as they leave public roads and rarely see or read signs, or ask staff in retail outlets or hospitals or hotels etc.  if they did then there wouldn't be approximately 12 million private parking PCNs issued by around 180 companies per annum 

Yes they trap People and have onerous terms and conditions, change maximum times, use loopholes etc, but vigilance tends to ward off the evil spirits, it also means less time spent fighting parking charges and civil court claims 

These gym threads pop up every week, like airports, train stations, and retail parks 

They employed a legal firm to do it all for them, like buying a house, but you haven't, meaning that you are a Litigant in person, an LiP.  Probate isn't much different, lots of hurdles, paperwork, civil court, Land Registry, all sorts 

But

However much time it takes, its not as much time as the thousands of hours that Coupon mad has put in over the last 14 or more years, helping thousands of people who have received PCNs, plus time shaping the new future regulations 

You would be much worse off if she hadn't done so, no newbies sticky thread, no defence template thread 

KMBayes

Gr1pr said:

That aspect will hammer home the point that those in the know or those who look for signs and comply with them , plus ask promptly if unsure, never parking without double checking that they have permission to park, paid for or otherwise, don't tend to receive private PCNs 

I am not pointing the finger here, but generally it is my experience over the years that Joe public seem to switch off as soon as they leave public roads and rarely see or read signs, or ask staff in retail outlets or hospitals or hotels etc.  if they did then there wouldn't be approximately 12 million private parking PCNs issued by around 180 companies per annum 

Yes they trap People and have onerous terms and conditions, change maximum times, use loopholes etc, but vigilance tends to ward off the evil spirits, it also means less time spent fighting parking charges and civil court claims 

These gym threads pop up every week, like airports, train stations, and retail parks 

They employed a legal firm to do it all for them, like buying a house, but you haven't, meaning that you are a Litigant in person, an LiP.  Probate isn't much different, lots of hurdles, paperwork, civil court, Land Registry, all sorts 

But

However much time it takes, its not as much time as the thousands of hours that Coupon mad has put in over the last 14 or more years, helping thousands of people who have received PCNs, plus time shaping the new future regulations 

You would be much worse off if she hadn't done so, no newbies sticky thread, no defence template thread 

I massively appreciate the help of the experts and I should add that Coupon Mad has a an immerse reputation that extends way beyond the MSE forum. I've just about finished the document. It needs a good proof read now before I paste in the points for scrutiny.

KMBayes

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD

Claim No.:  xxxx

Between

MET Parking Services LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxxx

 (Defendant)

_________________

Witness Statement of Defendant

 

1.     I am xxxxx of xxxxxx 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:

 

Preliminary matter 1: The claim should be struck out

3.     The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

 

4.     A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (See Exhibit 01).

 

5.     Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 02).

 

6.     Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit 03).

 

7.     Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 04).

 

8.     The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

Preliminary matter 2: The Claimants failure to comply with the PAP

9.     Following receipt of correspondence from MET parking and CST law, The Defendant contacted CST law via email on 11th June 2022, disputing the debt. The defendant asked for evidence of the signage on site on around the date of the alleged breach of contract (see Exhibit 05).

 

10.  A short reply from CST law with two blank files included as attachments was received on 9th August (see Exhibit 06).

 

11.  Section 5.2 of the PAP states that the creditor must (a) provide the document or information or (b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request.

 

12.  The Defendant received a letter from CST Law on 27th February 2024 following submission of her defense. The attachments included 20 pictures of signage at Virgin active, with a 2017 timestamp on the images. These images were clearly available on file and could have been provided back in 2022 when requested.

 

13.  The Claimant has clearly failed to comply with the PAP in both timeliness and the substance of the response and has willfully withheld information that could have been provided to The Defendant within the 30-day response period. The Court should take this failure to comply with the PAP into account in forward case management.

Facts and Sequence of events relating to incident 1

14.  On October 3rd 2021, The Defendant entered the carpark of Virgin Active at Broadfield Park, Sheffield, S8 OXQ driving a white Citroen, registration xxxxx, at approximately 8:20 and left at approximately 14:00. The Defendant parked within a marked bay and stayed on site throughout this period. The defendant did not pass any barriers, any machines for accepting payment nor any prominent signs indicating parking restrictions were in place on the site.

 

15.  The Defendant first became a member of Virgin Active at Broadfield Park, Sheffield in November 2005, and following a break in membership rejoined prior to 2013 and has been a member of the gym at this site for over 10 years. This period spans the date prior to - and after MET parking services were contracted to provide parking enforcement services to the Virgin Active Site in January 2013. The Defendant has entered the site hundreds of times within this period and remained unaware that the site was managed due to inadequate signage and poor parking management.

 

16.  Throughout the period since MET parking services have provided parking enforcement services to the Virgin Active Site, The Defendant has never observed a representative of the company nor observed PCNs attached to car windscreens. The Claimant appears to be entirely reliant on a remote system and PCNs delivered by post. The three most visible transgressions of site terms and conditions cannot be enforced using this approach.

 

17.  Throughout the period since MET parking services have provided parking enforcement services to the Virgin Active site they have failed to adequately control parking. At busy periods on weekday evenings, parking outside of designated bays is an endemic problem. Exhibit 07 taken at 19:15 on 01/07/2024 shows five cars parked near the Virgin Active building outside of designated bays and is representative of weekday evenings. Parking control is outsourced to reception staff who regularly put out announcements using the Tannoy system urging members to move their cars. The failure by MET parking services to effectively enforce parking management measures leads to a reasonable perception that the site is unmanaged.

 

18.  The entry to the Virgin Active site is direct from an estate road, with cars entering onto the site at speeds of approximately 20-25 mph. The end of the access road is shown in shown in Exhibit 08. The prominent sign in this image is a site speed limit of 5 mph. The Claimants site entrance sign is much less prominent relative to the speed limit and in a bland colour palette. Due to lower prominence relative to the speed limit this sign is simply not noticed. There are no further forward-facing signs either informing of parking restrictions, nor presenting terms and conditions. There is no reason for a Virgin Active member to seek out signs informing of terms and conditions upon exiting their car. No signs are visible from within a vehicle at any part of the site.

 

19.  Terms and conditions are displayed at various points in the car park. Most signs displaying terms and conditions within the site are displayed perpendicular to the orientation of the gym building and will not be observed when walking between a parked car and the gym. Examples of this signage are shown in Exhibit 09, Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 11. These signs share the same bland colour palette as the site entrance sign.

 

20.  The elevation of the signs displaying terms and conditions, in excess of 4m above ground places these above the eye line and therefore unlikely to be picked up in peripheral vision.

 

21.  In order to attempt to read the terms and conditions a Virgin Active member either has to stand within an empty parking bay directly in front of the sign or on the site road itself. Due to the font size and the elevation of the signs the small print detailing the full terms and conditions is eligible.

 

22.  The latest BPA Code of Practice (version 9 – February 2024) Section 19, Paragraph 19.1 states that ‘…..the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.’

 

23.  Section 19, Paragraph 19.3 of BPA Code of Practice states ‘You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.’ None of the signs displaying terms and conditions fulfil these minimal standards.

 

24.  Section 19, Paragraph 19.9 of BPA Code of Practice states ‘So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally, this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists’. No sign on the site fulfils fulfil these minimal standards. There are no signs at all in close proximity to disabled bays near the entrance to the building.

 

25.  In the absence of contractual signs located proximate to the bay, clearly visible and easily readable from within the vehicle or immediately upon exiting, the lack of parking infrastructure such as ticket machines and barriers, and the failure of MET parking services to effectively manage the car park, the reasonable person would conclude that no parking restrictions were in place..

 

26.  No Contract, No Breach: Without a 'relevant obligation' stipulated by prominent signage,, there can be no breach.

 

 

Facts and Sequence of events relating to incident 2

25.  On 19th February 2022 The Defendant entered the carpark of Virgin Active at Broadfield Park, Sheffield, S8 OXQ driving a white Citroen, registration xxxxx at approximately 8:00 and attended a gym class and used the facilities of the gym.

 

26.  The Defendants husband and two young children drove onto the Virgin Active site at Broadfield Park, Sheffield, S8 OXQ in a Grey Hyundai, registration xxxx at approximately 9:00.

 

27.  The Defendant stayed on site for approx. 3.5 hours, leaving at approx. 11:30 with her children. The Defendant left driving the Grey Hyundai, registration xxxx along with her two children.

 

28.  The defendants husband left the site driving a white Citroen, registration xxxx at approximately 12:30, a stay of approximately 3.5 hours.

 

29.  Both vehicles were parked within marked bays throughout this visit to Virgin Active and both members remained onsite throughout their visit.

 

30.The Defendant infers from a latter received from CST Law on 27th February 2024 that the Claimant alleges a breach of contract related to overstay – a visit extending in excess of four hours. The exact text of this parking condition reads ‘This car park is for the use of Virgin Active members whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay 4 is hours.’ The text clearly refers to the member as opposed to their vehicle. The claimant cannot rely on a ticket machine or any other parking infrastructure that could challenge this interpretation. No breach of this nor any other site terms and conditions occurred on 19th February 2022.

KMBayes

Lack of standing or landowner authority

1.     DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

 

2.     Notices that have been placed at the entry to the gym building by Virgin Active (Exhibit 12) reiterate the member parking limit of four hours. The specific text ‘Need some help? Please come and find one of our team at reception’ identifies the company as the Principal.

 

3.     A further notice is placed on the counter at reception reiterating the text of the posters on the door. An iPad adjacent to this notice automatically extends any parking session to 22:59 on the day of the visit following the entry of a members number plate (Exhibit 13) further demonstrating that Virgin Active is The Principal.

 

4.     The 1870 case of Fairlie v. Fenton (Exhibit 14) established key principles regarding when a third-party agent or broker lacks standing to sue on a contract they merely facilitated between other parties. In that case, the court held that a broker describing themselves using language like "I have this day sold you on account of..." was not themselves a contracting party, but simply an agent for the true parties to the contract. As such, the broker lacked standing to bring suit for any alleged breach.

 

5.     Just as the broker in Fairlie v. Fenton could not sue for breach when their involvement was limited to merely facilitating a contract between other parties, this parking company may lack standing to claim any breach and recover punitive charges if they did not establish themselves as a real contracting party through properly conspicuous and unambiguous notice and terms.

 

 

6.     Following the submission of my Defence on 27th February 2024, the Claimant sent a letter including a heavily redacted ‘landowner contract’ as an exhibit, which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. It is clear that two Directors have not signed this contract for either party, contrary to the Companies Act. The network of contracts are key in these cases since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

7.     In the recent Court of Appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907 the Court of Appeal are now clear that most redactions are improper where the Court are being asked to interpret the contract. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/907.html Ref. paras 74 & 75 ''...The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole. Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision...'

 

Exaggerated Claims and ‘market failure’ currently examined by the Government

8.     The Claimant has not provided any evidence of the additional charges. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £340 to £491.82. The Claimant has inexplicitly added ‘costs or damages’ bolted onto the alleged PCNs, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such ‘admin’ charged to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

 

9.     The heavily quoted case of ParkingEye v Beavis (Ref: UKSC67) confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

 

10.  The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 per charge (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

 

11.  I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

(i) the alleged breach, and

(ii) a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

 

12.  This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

 

13.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice 

"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."

14.  Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

 

15.  Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

 

16.  With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

17.  The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

18.  In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] (Ref: UKSC67) case I have mentioned above. Also, ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal’.

 

19.  This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of the discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of the pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

 

20.  Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2024 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

 

21.  In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

CRA Breaches  

22.  Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance  (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new  requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking  context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other  communications intended to be read by the consumer.

 

23.  Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not  limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the  attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

 

24.  The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith). 

 

25.  Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that the template 'debt chaser' stage  costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson. (See Exhibit 16)  

 

The Beavis case is against this claim

26.  The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit 17) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

 

27.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See Exhibit 15) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

 

Conclusion

 

28.  The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.

 

29.  The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC.  It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the defendant's parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violations.  In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

 

30.  There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

 

31.  With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

Coupon-mad

Para 31:

Remove the first phrase "With the DLUHC's ban on the false costs" because there is no ban.  This project is still hanging, now delayed by the GE.

Use the multiple judgments single first exhibit instead of exhibits 1, 2, 3, etc.

Not_A_Hope

Couple of comments.
Para 30 states latter instead of letter.
After para 30 the numbering starts at 1 again
Second para 9 doesn’t make sense to me - 

9.     The heavily quoted case of ParkingEye v Beavis (Ref: UKSC67) confirmed that a parking firm not in possession ….

Not in possession of ……Is something missing ?

KMBayes

Not_A_Hope said:

Couple of comments.
Para 30 states latter instead of letter.
After para 30 the numbering starts at 1 again
Second para 9 doesn’t make sense to me - 

9.     The heavily quoted case of ParkingEye v Beavis (Ref: UKSC67) confirmed that a parking firm not in possession ….

Not in possession of ……Is something missing ?

Thanks. The numbering resetting seems to be a quirk of my pasting and will be sorted in the submission. Thanks for the corrections though - they will be addressed.

Perhaps this is a bit of a tangent at this point but I was wondering if anyone had looked at the GDPR issues? The parking operator has taken our car staying in the carpark as implying consent for our data being processed. When the text on the signs that deals with GDPR is on a sign that is elevated to 4m high and in text so small as to be eligible, it seems to be quite the assumption. Not really a point for this case, but once the witness statement is filed it might be something that I choose to take up. Maybe it's a different set of lawyers on MSE I need to bug!

LDast

You have many references to "the Defendant" in your WS. Your WS is written in the first person so instead of (for example) "3. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court..." should be rewritten as "3. I would like to draw to the attention of the court..." and so on.

KMBayes

Thanks to everyone for help, comments etc. I submitted witness statements this morning and it's now a waiting game to see if they choose to stump up the £60 that would be due on Friday to proceed. I have the option for a written response to their evidence and a further two weeks to prepare this. I feel I may as well do so at this point, especially since I have a judgement from the district judge assigned to our case that I could use to demolish the evidence they intend to rely on for breach of contract. This phase of evidence isn't covered in the Newbies thread - are there any examples/templates to look at?