County Court Claim - UKPC / St Marys View

Coupon-mad

Not the Britannia case. We don't use that. It was appealed.  Well out of date.  DO NOT USE THE ROBERT COX WS IN THE NEWBIES THREAD.

Also remove your para 7 which makes no sense. This isn't a Council PCN so no-one should be looking up stuff on the Council's website about private car park/land PCNs.

Has Woody's final WS been deleted? Are you sure you weren't just looking at his penultimate draft?  He only posted it yesterday.

No need to guess where to email. You know to send your WS bundle to the C's solicitor (not the C themselves unless they aren't using a solicitor) too, because I said that in my detailed reply above.

You also know what to put in the covering email because I gave you that too.

And you must phone the local court anyway (like I told you above) after emailing it - which will be tomorrow morning now.  

So in that call, you can check they got it and ask for the hearing details to be emailed to you immediately and for the court to flipping well erase your old address and stop being lazy by using the old address wrongly given on the Claim form that the court should have seen from the DQ is NOT AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE.

Not_A_Hope

No-one can complain that is a cut and paste document. It gives an honest account of the scam for a judge to read. You might wish to read through a few times to make sure your WS states clearly what you want it to say.

Here are a few things I picked up you may wish to address:-

Para 5 - You need to explain better what you mean by ‘it is the only and safe way to consider any parking rules in place’.
Para 6 - typo directley / directly
Para 8 and 10 - you have used the word Defendant which is normally used in Defence Statements. This is you WS - use I instead.
Para 11 - I would rewrite and allege the signage does not meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. UKPC signs deliberately never do as that doesn’t earn them money.
Para 26 - typo Jason / Jopson.
Para 40 - This looks like a cut and paste of another WS and much will not apply to your specific case. Review and update.

Exhibit 05 - I don’t think you can see exactly where you were parked in this view of the street entrance and a wall sign. Make it clear for the judge.
Exhibit 06 - You might make the small x of exactly where you parked on Ex-06 clearer as well as any relationship to signs which were or were not there as well as double yellow lines. 

Best of luck. Bet they discontinue.

1505grandad

"20/12/2020 : Parking Charge Notice"

In para 38 you state:-

"I am local and took the evidence photographs appended to this statement myself (on

November 24th 2019)."

Is this a typo?

estevenin

Thanks a million for the quick feedback. By the way just found out that I did send UKPC my new address, in a mail from the 24/05/2022, when I asked them for the SAR, and also on the 25/05/2022 directly to QDR, the soliccitors, specifically asking them to update the address. So they DID have it ! I will add that email to my evidence pack

Coupon-mad said:

Not the Britannia case. We don't use that. It was appealed.  Well out of date.  DO NOT USE THE ROBERT COX WS IN THE NEWBIES THREAD.

Also remove your para 7 which makes no sense. This isn't a Council PCN so no-one should be looking up stuff on the Council's website about private car park/land PCNs.

Has Woody's final WS been deleted? Are you sure you weren't just looking at his penultimate draft?  He only posted it yesterday.

No need to guess where to email. You know to send your WS bundle to the C's solicitor (not the C themselves unless they aren't using a solicitor) too, because I said that in my detailed reply above.

You also know what to put in the covering email because I gave you that too.

And you must phone the local court anyway (like I told you above) after emailing it - which will be tomorrow morning now.  

So in that call, you can check they got it and ask for the hearing details to be emailed to you immediately and for the court to flipping well erase your old address and stop being lazy by using the old address wrongly given on the Claim form that the court should have seen from the DQ is NOT AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE.

- Ok, won't add Britannia
- I have indeed used the WS from robertcox999, what is the issue with it ? To be fair I barely kept anything from it, only the layout, 2 Paragraphs about Beavis and the Beavis evidence, the "Abuse of process" part and the costs. Does that mean I need to delete the Abuse of process part ? (Para 32 to 38)
- Removed para 7. Just wanted to point out as to why, at the time, the windscreen ticket was ignored, as I had no idea that private companies were immitating council's ticket.
- Yes the Woody's final WS is deleted, that's the link : https://www.dropbox.com/s/ahof7qa846xcpn9/Draft WS redacted.pdf?dl=0.

Not_A_Hope said:

No-one can complain that is a cut and paste document. It gives an honest account of the scam for a judge to read. You might wish to read through a few times to make sure your WS states clearly what you want it to say.

Here are a few things I picked up you may wish to address:-

Para 5 - You need to explain better what you mean by ‘it is the only and safe way to consider any parking rules in place’.
Para 6 - typo directley / directly
Para 8 and 10 - you have used the word Defendant which is normally used in Defence Statements. This is you WS - use I instead.
Para 11 - I would rewrite and allege the signage does not meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. UKPC signs deliberately never do as that doesn’t earn them money.
Para 26 - typo Jason / Jopson.
Para 40 - This looks like a cut and paste of another WS and much will not apply to your specific case. Review and update.

Exhibit 05 - I don’t think you can see exactly where you were parked in this view of the street entrance and a wall sign. Make it clear for the judge.
Exhibit 06 - You might make the small x of exactly where you parked on Ex-06 clearer as well as any relationship to signs which were or were not there as well as double yellow lines. 

Best of luck. Bet they discontinue.

Yes I will be reviewing that case many times. What I might struggle to explain is Beavis and Salisbury, but I'll do my best to pinpoint the correct quotes.

Para 5 : Replaced by "it is also the only safe way to stop in order to get familiar with any current restriction in place."
Para 6 : Sorted thank you
Para 8 and 10 (and all the rest of the document) : Sorted, replaced the defendant by I
Para 11 : Added a new Para :

The signs present at the time, were no compliant with the BPA CoP1: 

19.2 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.

19.3 Signs must be conspicuous and legible

It will be discussed in 16. that the only sign that could be considered as an “entrance” car park, wasn’t there in December 2020. In place it looks like there only was a small sign, with very small letter, non-compliant with the requirements for signs to be “conspicuous and legible” from the BPA CoP.

Para 26 : Sorted
Para 40 : You are right I overlooked it. Replaced by :

I am appending with this bundle, a fully detailed costs assessment which also covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in relation to misconduct (CPR 44.11). In support of that argument, I remind the court that the Claimant has made no effort into trying to update their records with my new address, for years, that even after sending my new address to the Claimant in my SAR request on 24/05/2022, even after filling up the N180 form with the correct details, they still haven’t updated their records.

Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery, and has made me lose a considerable amount of time in preparing my Defence and Witness Statement, as I had to chase every document after the County Court Claim.

Exhibit 5 : Fair enough, I have replaced the third line, I will detailed the exact location better in Exhibit 6 : 

- There are no other visible sign at all at that location, my car was stopped where the blue car is seen, which is fully detailed and mapped in exhibit -xx-06.

Exhibit 6 : Replaced by :

The red circle is McDonalds, the Green cross is the position of the car, the yellow lines are the double yellow lines on the road, and the blue point is the only small sign (not the sign shown by the Claimant) that could be visible to a car entering the site, that has been shown to merely look like an ad or a business name.

1505grandad said:

"20/12/2020 : Parking Charge Notice"

In para 38 you state:-

"I am local and took the evidence photographs appended to this statement myself (on

November 24th 2019)."

Is this a typo?

Indeed it is, the whole section is a copy from another WS. I have updated the paragraph. But from Coupon-mad's latest feedback, I might have to delete the whole section since it appeared britannia was appealed.

Thank you again for the comments, just waiting to see if I need to delete the Abuse Of Process section, then I will PDF it, send it to that address that I found online, and call tomorrow morning following Coupon-mad's instructions.

Coupon-mad

The issue with the RobertCox one is the Britannia case it relies on was OVERTURNED and it is horribly, badly out of date.  

Really not to be used, it was even pre-the 2024 incoming (soon to be resuscitated after temporary stalling) statutory Code of Practice, where the Government has declared the added £70 false fee 'extortion' (in 2022).

Do you want to miss out all the latest stuff we use?

Delete the Robert Cox outdated rantings about 'abuse of process' and instead use the one by @aphex007, or one from this year that includes good wording about Jopson  and also Excel v Wilkinson.

estevenin

Ok got it. No I don't want to miss out on anything.

I have now replaced the abuse of process, I found the one from aphex007 and added the Pofa and Abuse of process from there (see below)

I have added the Excel v Wilkinson transcript in exhibits, which is mentionned in the abuse of process.

I think we have the latest wording about Jopson, I just added that sentence : I will rely upon the persuasive appeal case heard by HHJ Charles Harris QC at Oxford: Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E - which is on all fours with the extant case.

I scrawled the forum and didn't find any better wording than the one we had worked together so I think it looks good. If nothing else, I'll publish one last PDF here and then if all good ready to go first hour in the morning.

==============

POFA and CRA breaches

1.       Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation').

2.       Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA'). The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

3.       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. In the case of a 'PCN', this must have been served to the driver whilst the vehicle was stationary or, at sites remotely monitored by ANPR/CCTV, served to the keeper so that the motorist learns about it quickly. Signs must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. If the Claimant alleges signage was present, I aver that 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 dealing and good faith.

Abuse of process - the quantum 

1.       This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well- known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. 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 (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal', i.e. unrecoverable. 

2.       My stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

3.       Whilst it is known that the rogue parking industry have just filed Judicial Reviews and have delayed the new Code of Practice (as per paragraph 27), the Government is pressing ahead and has conceded to undertake a final Public Consultation and Impact Assessment, as the latter was missing from their rationale. Going by the damning words of the Minister, and the fact that two consultations and an industry and consumer represented Steering Group have already informed the DLUHC's decision over the past two years, I believe there is no reason to think the Government's view will significantly change about adding unconscionable costs that were not incurred and which merely exist as a mechanism to enhance already-doubled parking charges, to fuel the roboclaim race to court and to side-step the £50 legal fees cap set in the Small Clams Track.

4.       Adding debt recovery/costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

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

6.       The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present

claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

7.       The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response (also in February 2022), they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, and are effectively Trade Body Board member colleagues passing motorists' data around electronically and seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced.

8.       This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the full parking charge itself more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called a 'letter chain' business model that generates a healthy profit.

9.       The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on alleged signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event.

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

11.    Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts.

12.    This overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy). Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further.

13.    It is pertinent to note that the Britannia v Semark-Jullien appeal judgment by HHJ Parkes criticised the District Judges at Southampton, for apparently not having enough evidence to conclude that Britannia 'knew' that their added costs were abusive (unincurred, unpaid and unjustified). Unbeknown to HHJ Parkes, of course all District Judges deal with template, generic evidence and arguments from parking operators every week, and BPA member firms including Britannia, certainly had been told this by Judges up and down the Country for many years. And the decision and words used by the DLUHC show that DJ Grand and DJ Taylor were right all along. As was HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson (not appealed - see Exhibit xx-16) where she went into great detail about this abuse.

14.    The Semark-Jullien case is now unreliable going forward and is fully distinguished now that the Government has at last stepped in and exposed and published the truth. This Claimant indisputably has knowledge (and always had knowledge) that they have not paid a penny in debt recovery costs, nor incurred any additional costs that the £100 parking charge is not designed to more than cover. The abuse is now clearly established and a new judgment re-stating this position, in the light of the damning words in the Foreword and the Explanatory Document published alongside the Code of Practice and stating (for the avoidance of doubt) the knowledge that District Judges have from years of experience of seeing these template enhanced claims and telling this Claimant to stop bringing exaggerated parking claims to court, would be welcomed to bring much- needed clarity for consumers and Judges across England and Wales.

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

Not_A_Hope

Just to be pedantic no green cross can be seen in the picture of exhibit 6

Coupon-mad

You say that you have added Jopson's transcript?

I gave you some extra words to add, in my first reply about their WS.  Didn't you use my words and find the bit I signposted you to find and quote, that the Judge in Jopson said about his findings also applying to drivers like postmen and milkmen?

Your Judge won't seek it out. The law is what you provide to the hearing.

You have to spell it out and call the C's witness out, as I said 24 hours ago but I didn't see this in your draft, unless I missed it:

You must point that out, quote from HHJ Harris and put a bomb under what young Josh has said.

Also, sense-check it for errors.  I don't expect your para 27 is the same as aphex's yet this bit you've copied says:

"Whilst it is known that the rogue parking industry have just filed Judicial Reviews and have delayed the new Code of Practice (as per paragraph 27),"

?

Also change the places where it says 'these are now banned costs'.  They are not.  The correct wording is easy enough to edit to say 'likely to be banned' but if you want to copy & paste it, the correct words are in the Template Defence sticky thread.



 

estevenin

Not_A_Hope said:

Just to be pedantic no green cross can be seen in the picture of exhibit 6

On point. Sorted

Final version of the draft, updated after all the comments I have received today : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L8m9g88Y6tgb-TI5xGvjdyHPq5ld7Rbl/view?usp=sharing

Thank you again for such a great help.

If nothing further to add / remove, it's ready to go and I will send it ASAP in the morning and phone the court.

Coupon-mad

Your cover sheet doesn't mention the Jopson v Homeguard transcript? You must append it as a numbered exhibit.  Like Excel v Wilkinson.

Your PDF exhibits and signed WS PDF will probably need merging and compressing (using a free online PDF merger) as well, otherwise they'll probably be too big for an email attachment.

Lastly - quick fix - paragraphs 39 and 45 both wrongly say the added fake costs are 'now banned' which is not (yet) true because the new statutory Code of Practice is temporarily stalled.

Replace your paras 39 to 45 with the equivalent correct words which can be copied & pasted from the Template Defence, which reflects the true position at the moment whilst the new Code is in limbo.