Double yellows PCN with County Court Claim

Not_A_Hope

1505Grandad has simply pointed out that those example witness statements refer in a few places to the BPA Code of Practice. Parking Control Management (UK) don’t belong to the BPA. Therefore any reference to the Code of Practice they should adhere to should be amended to the IPC COP.

The examples simply show the format  you should follow exchanging any specific details for your case. Jopson v Homeguard is case law that courts will take notice of. In this case it demonstrates loading / unloading is not parking. You can refer to it in your WS and provide a transcript of the case in your exhibits.
 
The claimants often ‘bash’ defences in order to unnerve defendants in the hope they will pay up. The new legislation and new Code of Practice will replace those of the IPC and BPA soon. It is useful that judges are made aware that government ministers are about to address the rogue nature of the private parking industry.

Although it is daunting at first if you make a start on your WS the regulars are usually good at commenting to improve it. With a half decent WS submitted many PPCs will give up and discontinue rather than spending more money on a paralegal to represent their case and get spanked in court. 

Johnersh

Most leases include a right to pass and re-pass. Arguably this interferes with lawful enjoyment of the property (see also jopson)

I'd also argue it as a trap for the unwary since double yellows permit loading. They'd want to paint double reds if they'd intended there to be no stopping at any time (highway code refers). 

Rafiki13

Hello this is where I am at please feel free to correct and advise. Thanks
I am aware there are paragraphs wrongly numbered and some spelling mistakes that I will correct later.

Claim number xxxx                                     Mr xxxxx (Defendant)                    Hearing date: xx/xx/xxxx

 

In the County Court at xxxxx

                                                                                                                                   Claim Number: xxxxxx

 

                                                       Parking Control Management (Claimant)

                                                                                            V

                                                                            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

 

                                                              WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

                                                                    FOR HEARING ON xx/xx/xxxx

 

 

1. I am Mr xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx, 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:

 

Sequence of events and signage

 

4. On the 6 of January 2022 at 14:41 in the afternoon the Defendant purchased a rug for is home as can be seen in exhibit (xxx). This is an oversized and heavy item its dimensions and weight are (dimensions 10.5 feet x 7.5 feet).

 

5. The Defendant arrived at the front of his residential building and stopped the car with hazard lights on and there were no road markings prohibit the act of loading or unloading at any given time. Exibhit/9 xxx)

 

5. The street were the Defendant stopped the car is a dead-end street and only residents use it so the defendants car was not causing any abnormal obstruction to traffic or to pedestrians.

Claim number xxxx                               Mr xxxxx (Defendant)                              Hearing date: xx/xx/xxxx

 

6. The Defendants wife stayed inside the car so she could explain why the car was stopped there to anyone that would feel that the Defendants car was an obstruction in any way.  

 

6. The Defendant proceeded to unload the item to his building and was away from the car for no more than 2 minutes.

 

 7. As per seen in evidence (xxxxx) two pictures were taken of the defendants car. First picture with time stamp of 15:09.00 and the second 15:10.17. These were taken with 1 minute and 17 seconds apart allegedly this was the time that the claimant would come to claim that no loading or unloading was occurring and the stopped car would merit a parking violation and subsequent fine.

 

8. The pictures were taken at odd angles and the markings on the road the claimant alleges are there are not visible at the exact  location of the car in any of them.

 

9. There is a third picture of the claimants car  that was produced by the claimant as evidence but the Defendant would require the court to analyse the validity of said picture because it does not capture the whole car and misses the driver door were the defendant most likely was present. This would constitute proof that the defendant was entering the car at that moment and it is the Defendants believe that that is why that picture does not frame the whole car.

 

10. No signage that the claimant alleges is visible on the street mentions and therefore prohibits the act of loading and unloading.

 

11. Markings on the road that prohibit loading/unloading are not present in any of the evidence provided by the claimant.

 

12. The claimants evidence only demonstrates that the agent allegedly did not observe any loading or unloading for 1:17 seconds which is an unreasonable small amount of time by any measure of the highway code, the Transport for London rules regulations of roads and vehicles, the London Councils authority and the Newham council. All these regulators and bodies of governance have Laws and codes of practices regarding loading and unloading none of which declares or implicits that a car stopped is deemed parked after observing no act of loading/unloading occur in 1:17 seconds.

 

13. I would ask the court to consider Jopson v Homeguard due to the fact that the Defendants case shares some key factors with this case. In paragraph 14 of Honorable Judge Harris QC. We can read:

Claim number xxxx                               Mr xxxxx (Defendant)                                 Hearing date: xx/xx/xxxx

 

 The appellant’s argument is that this is not a simple case of parking without permission on somebody else’s property having seen a notice imposing financial conditions for doing so (as in the recent decision of the Supreme Court ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] 3 WLR 1373.

 

 The Defendant would like to make the same argument.

 

 

13. I would beg the court to observe the ruling of Jopson v Homeguard  where honourable judge Harris QC  in the 15 paragraph of his judgment mentions:

The position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in that case was:

 

“To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles…for the purposes of obtaining access to the building…known as the auction mart.”

Upjohn J said at 332:

“I am quite satisfied that on its true construction the plaintiff is entitled to bring on this yard…vehicles and to transport from those vehicles…furniture or other chattels…into the auction mart.” He continued, having dealt with some geographical questions: 7 © Crown Copyright “Is he entitled to halt on the yard while the vans…are unloading, an operation which takes a half-hour to an hour? If the right which the plaintiff has under the deed of covenant does not include that right, then the right-of-way is virtually useless to him… The whole object of the reservation is for the purpose of…obtaining access… The plaintiff can…bring goods in vehicles to his auction room. If he is entitled to do that, then he must of necessity be entitled to unload them… The right…may be described as ancillary to the easement, because without the right he cannot substantially enjoy that which has been reserved to him.” 

Le_Kirk

In your paragraph 9 you mention a picture of the "claimant's" car, did you mean "my car". If that is a witness statement,  you write it in first person, therefore "I", "my" etc not "the defendant".

Coupon-mad

And the rest of it? As per the example by @aphex007

You don't seem to have Jopson v Homeguard (the court transcript) as an exhibit?

You don't seem to have your permit as an Exhibit, nor your tenancy agreement to prove you were an authorised resident?

Remove this (all are irrelevant Council-only rules) and replace it with a quote about considameration oeriods from the IPC CoP, which you can easily Google:

the Transport for London rules regulations of roads and vehicles, the London Councils authority and the Newham council. All these regulators and bodies of governance have Laws and codes of practices regarding loading and unloading none of which declares or implicits that a car stopped is deemed parked after observing no act of loading/unloading occur in 1:17 seconds.

B789

The first part reads like a defence, in the third person. For a WS, you need to write it in the first person. Eg. 

4. On the 6 of January 2022 at 14:41 in the afternoon  I purchased a ?rug for is home? as can be seen in exhibit (xxx). This is an oversized and heavy item and its dimensions and weight are (dimensions 10.5 feet x 7.5 feet).
 
5. The Defendant I arrived at the front of his my residential building and stopped the car with hazard lights on and there were no road markings prohibiting the act of loading or unloading at any given time. Exibhit/9 xxx) 
 
5. The street were where the Defendant I stopped the car is a dead-end street and only residents use it so the defendants my car was not causing any abnormal obstruction to traffic or to pedestrians.

...and so on.

Not_A_Hope

@Rafiki13. That is a good start on your WS. You should also reference the Highway Code and the meaning of double yellow lines as advised by @Jonnersh who is a solicitor. Do you need to consider taking any of your own photos of the area or signs to support your WS?

Your defence should have listed a whole raft of other legal arguments. If the judge doesn’t find in your favour on the loading / unloading is not parking argument they may find in your favour on one of the other arguments. You have to only win on one legal point. They have to win them all. e.g. poor signage, primacy of contract, no landowners authority etc. Including the defence for abuse of process will make it far more likely that the Court will not allow the claimant to add on false costs to inflate the claim.

When your WS is close to completion you need include to a cross reference to each numbered exhibit you are going to include. 

Rafiki13

At this point I don't know what else to say besides quoting. so please advise.

I don't know if this is also the correct way to expose the Judgement of JOPSON v HOMEGUARD but I think nothing I can say will be more clear to the judge than a ruling by a judge relating to the same circumstances.

14. Honorable Judge Harris QC continues on paragraph 19 :

The appellant’s case could also be put in another way. 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,

 

Claim number xxxx                               Mr xxxxx (Defendant)                                 Hearing date: xx/xx/xxxx

 

and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time.

 

16. On the same Judgement Honourable Judge Harris noted the following on paragraph 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.

 

17.  In the same judgement Honorable Judge Harris affirmed the following on paragraph 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.

 

18. The Honorable jugdge Harris QC concluded in paragraph 28:

In the circumstances, it is not necessary to deal with arguments about the Unfair Contract Terms, and the factual circumstances are quite different from those in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] supra. Inter alia, in that case the agreed motorist was not exercising a right ancillary to a right of way, and clearly was parking.

 

 

19. The Defendant lacks the knowledge of the law but bases his case in the similarities with the JOPSON V HOMEGUARD ruling and begs the court to consider this ruling as applicable to the Defendants case.

Coupon-mad

No.  That is not exhibiting if.

You simply attach the court transcript as an exhibit.  Google it.  That case transcript is everywhere, including on this very forum.

And you do know what the second half of a WS looks like - and the other usual WS exhibits to append - because we told you to copy (entirely...except, of course, for the individual facts/story near the start) the one by @aphex007

And you've been advised to append as an exhibit, the relevant page you'll find in the Highway Code to clarify the usual meaning of double yellows (unloading IS ALLOWED).

Rafiki13

I did all these points that I rely on your expertise to let me know if they can be included or not.

20. The claimant states in paragraph 3 of his Witness statement that the Defendant was photographed this statement is untrue and in no evidence provided by the claimant Is the Defendant observed.

 

21. The claimant in paragraph 3 claims “the location” to be on E16 2PL this statement is also untrue the exact post code is E16 2XX this is the Defendants address and the correct location.

 

22. The claimant repeatedly refers to the Code of practice being withdrawn for revision as if this fact infers that no rules or regulations apply to the claimants practice. This is a demonstration of the mentality with which this claimant performs their actions.

 

23. The claimant fails to demonstrate that the defendants car was parked and not stopped.

 

24. The claimant fails to demonstrate that the car was stopped in a no stopping area.

 Original paragraph 3 of Defense submited

 3. The Defendant stopped the car for 3 minutes in front of his residence to unload. The yellow lines are present but the kerb markings that would prohibit the Defendant to stop to load/unload are absent. The Defendant relies upon rulings as such in Jopson v Homeguard and other similar authorities which support a resident's right to stop a vehicle adjacent to their property for necessary activity that requires the vehicle to stop there, such as loading, unloading or safely boarding/alighting passengers. None of which is 'parking' and persuasive authorities as well as the Government's view in the new Code of Practice published in 2022 confirm this position. The Defendants rental contract makes no mention of restrictions to load/unload, and this Private Parking Company are a stranger to the Defendants rental contract. The Defendant concludes that the Annex B to the Code of Practice on consideration periods, was disregarded by the CEO and the ticketing by a lurking person within three minutes flat was predatory, failed to grant any reasonable time for the hasty ticketer to observe whether this was merely unloading rather than parking, and breached the Code of Practice. 

25. The claimant in paragraph 24 of his witness statement admits that no markings visible or not would impede the Defendant from loading/unloading. The claimant continuously relies on the signage that makes no mention of rules to load and unload vehicles.

Original paragraph 24 of claiment witness statement.  24. The Defendant’s notion that there was no contractual agreement between the parties is strongly refuted. It is further refuted that the PCN and the Claim were a ‘shock’ to the Defendant. The terms and conditions applying to the place of the contravention were not determined by any kerb marking or lines, or lack thereof, but rather by the signage situated at various points throughout the location. A diagram outlining the various signs displayed at the location and the places where they are situated, is attached at pages 34 – 41 of Exhibit HS1

26. The claimant in paragraph 26 of their witness statement refers to an admission by the Defendant that the car was parked which is untrue and can be seen as an intent to mislead the court.

 original paragraph 26 of claimant WS 26. By displaying such signs extensively and in this manner, the Claimant extended an offer to the Defendant. In return, by parking his Vehicle at the location, which is duly admitted by the Defendant in paragraph 3 of his Defence, the Defendant accepted this offer.

27. The claimant alleges in paragraph 30 of his witness statement that the Defendant had an opportunity to unload the car from a parking bay but no parking bay was available to the Defendant and the claimant fails to provide evidence that any parking bay was available for the purpose of unloading/loading by the Defendant. Once again this statement can be seen as misleading to the court.

original paragraph 30 of C WS30. Had the Defendant wished to ‘unload’ his Vehicle whilst stationing his Vehicle at the location, and had he wished to do so whilst avoiding breaching the parking terms, the Defendant should have either parked in an unnumbered bay and registered for a valid parking session; parked in a numbered bay whilst fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen; or refrained from parking his Vehicle at the location.