County Court Claim Issue Date 13th May '22

KeithP

Well, in itself it isn't proof that signs are installed in the positions shown.
Just that UKPC has permission to install signs in those positions.

I haven't read their Witness Statement, but are they trying to use that document to show that there were plenty of signs to be seen?
It certainly doesn't do that.

Billy_Bamford

Assessing the aerial view of the car park and the ground level photos, I'd argue that the the highlighted post signs are not in situ.

KeithP

Having now read their Witness Statement in full, I refer to paragraph 21.



Their words "As exhibited [on] page 13, the site plan clearly shows sign locations and relevant signage present on the site..." are simply not true.

All that 'site plan clearly shows' is that the Claimant has permission to erect signs in those locations. It does not show that the signs are actually there or have ever been there.

Billy_Bamford

Thanks for spotting that, KeithP. 👍

Fruitcake

The ZZPS letter clearly shows that the total amount they were after was £170 yet the signs and the WS both say the fake add on costs being claimed are £60.
You have redacted the actual amount of the Admin costs on that letter. Was it £60 or £70?

Gary Ozner, the (former?) head of ZZPS stated that he had made up the fake add on charges to boost profit. ZZPS and DRP are the same company, and offer a no-win, no-fee service. If they fail to collect the alleged debt, they do not charge their client. The claimant is put to strict proof that they actually incurred the alleged administration fee.

The Fake Litigation Trace Fee of £12 is not mentioned on the signs. A soft trace actually only costs a few pence.

The Ts and Cs on images of signs taken at the site in 2018 are unreadable. Neither the £100 charge or the fake additional £60 charge are readable.

The "Proof" versions of signs are stock images from a computer file. There is nothing to prove they relate to the site in question, nor are they date stamped to show they were in existence at the time of the alleged event.

The Ts and Cs on the "close-up" image of the sign on a brick wall are unreadable and is not date stamped. There is no proof it was present at the time of the alleged event, nor is there any proof it was anywhere near where the defendant parked.
There is therefore no proof that the Ts and Cs were adequately brought to the attention of the motorist.

There are no images of the vehicle parked at the site, therefore there is no proof that the motorist passed or was parked anywhere near any sign.

There is no site plan in the contract, merely an aerial satellite photo'. The site boundary is not identified on the aerial image, nor are the locations and types of signs shown, nor the location of the ANPR camera(s), nor the precise location of the entrance.
The claimant has provided no images of the vehicle parked, therefore there is no proof it was parked within the site boundary, nor that the ANPR system captured images of the Vehicle within the site boundary as opposed to approaching the site entrance.

Coupon-mad

You should remark at the hearing, firstly, that the person who signed the WS is not a witness at all.  The Court ordered for witness statements from the Claimant and Defendant, not a third party.

The signatory has also not appeared at the hearing.  Thus she cannot be cross examined (unlike the Defendant, a true witness whose evidence holds more weight accordingly).

This places the Defendant at a disadvantage because there are issues with the evidence regarding signage and there is no-one who can answer those issues.

The signatory has never been to the car park. Her hearsay evidence is muddled, insofar as:

- paras 19 and 20 aver that the driver was not 'registered' - irrelevant because the passenger (driver's son) WAS at all times an authorised service user.  There is nothing on the signs that provides for any mechanism to become 'registered' and nor does the sign require (specifically) the driver to be a registered user.  It can on any reasonable interpretation mean that the passenger can certainly be the 'registered user' of the facility.  And he was. 

- those paras also aver that in order to be registered the driver would have had to 'display a permit'. This is not the case. Permits are not mentioned on the signs and nor is there any term which requires the driver to use any keypad.  Thus, there is no breach of any displayed term and the supposed 'witness' has written things about imaginary obligations to 'display a permit' which are simply not true or relevant.

- in an unmanned ANPR car park (as the witness states it is, at para 9) there cannot be any obligation to 'display a permit' because a paper permit is not going to be seen by the system.  The WS makes no sense and supports no breach of contract allegation.

- even if the allegation relies on some sort of VRM keypad input - as is typically used in ANPR car parks, the Defendant has since discovered - why is this not stated as a term or obligation on the signs?  Why is there no evidence or image of this keypad (nor even a picture of what a 'permit' looks like, for that matter, nor a close up of the dashboard not displaying same).  

- why doesn't the supposed landowner contract mention a keypad or permits?  Why is it silent on the point that drivers should be penalised for not ...doing what exactly?  What are the terms and obligations that stand to be breached by authorised service users like this family?

- further, paras 17, 24 and 28 attempt to amend the claim amount, without paying the appropriate fee or filing an application, or asking the court for relief from sanctions.  This is a legally represented Claimant who should know better than this.

- there is no evidence that either £60 or £70 was receipted/incurred by the Claimant and no defined sum was prominently stated on the signs in large lettering that could be read by a driver in the dark.

- It is highly UNLIKELY that sending a template chaser letter (one crappy auto-printed ZZPS  letter is in evidence) costs anything like £60. At best, such a letter might amount to a tenth of that but the Beavis case already found that one reason why a 'parking charge' on private land is far higher than any loss is precisely because it is designed to cover 'all costs of the operation' including - in cases that go as far as court - what the Supreme court identified is an automated letter chain.

- para 23 makes the bare assertion that 'the Claimant incurred administrative costs'.  This is untrue; they absolutely did not.  It would be absurd and beyond the realms of credibility, if a parking firm incurred and paid up front (or at all) £60 or £70 to the likes of ZZPS for every single £100 PCN case they chase.  This is a service that ZZPS offer free and in any event, ZZPS failed to collect. 

- Soft traces are always offered free by the likes of ZZPS (and only cost from 28 pence when done in bulk with Equifax).  Para 23 is therefore untrue and the added £60 - plus the 'icing on the cake' £12 - are both a figment of this witnesses' imagination.  This is designed to more than double the CPR-capped £50 legal fee retained upon success (and in every CCJ case) achieved by the witness' employer, QDR.  HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson nailed all this, unlike other Circuit Judges who have simply presumed that such costs 'must' exist.

- It is a fact that no monies passed between this Claimant and ZZPS, who (as do all parking 'debt collectors') act on a no-win-no-fee basis and rely on either picking off the more vulnerable motorists who pay an inflated sum to avoid court, or sweeping up thousands more by obtaining artificially inflated CCJs.  This is precisely why the Government has expressed an intention to ban these 'fees' which the Minister described in the Foreword to February's Code of Practice as 'extorting money from motorists'. 

- then talk about your signage concerns and the fact the signs are not lit, some signs are not even there.  But regardless, there is no term that was breached.

- and in any event, collecting a child is boarding/alighting, not parking.  This is recognised 'exempt activity' on-street (you don't get a Council PCN for setting down or collecting a passenger, not even on double yellow lines).

- On private land, not all motorist visitors to a site are parking and the Government has recognised the difference, which is why the new incoming statutory Code categorically states in paragraph 2 that a 'parking period' does not include a car stopped for the time needed to set down or pick up passengers.

Billy_Bamford

Wow! You all go above and beyond with your help, advice and guidance with challenging these cowboy parking companies and their inept legal representatives. I can't thank you enough. You have well 'n' truly rip apart their "Witness" Statement, I now feel very confident of the claim being struck out based on all the points raised by yourselves and will go into the hearing in a positive state of mind. Once again, I thank you all. 

Fruitcake

Make out a crib sheet from the advice you have just been given so you can rip apart their rep and their WS. Make sure you add their para numbers to your sheet so you can quickly guide the judge to the relevant parts.

They will get to go first so make notes as they go, again jotting down relevant para numbers. You can then say, their rep said this, but at para N it says that, or you can say, but that isn't correct because ...

Fruitcake

Something else to note, no company called Superbowl UK (from the "Site Map") is registered at Companies House.

Superbowl UK Limited is registered at Companies House, but as a dormant company.

Superbowl UK Limited and Superbowl UK Macclesfield Limited are different companies according to Companies House.

Daniel Myatt has never been an officer nor a person with significant control of either Superbowl UK Limited nor Superbowl UK Macclesfield Limited, and therefore does not have the authority to form contracts with another party. Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006 apply.

Billy_Bamford

👍 And that's another nail in UKPC's coffin with this case! 🙂