Court Claim form did not receive and not able to Acknowledge receipt of claim online please HELP

zeljko

Hi all - my hearing is at the 24th of this month and I need to submit my WS.  I have written a draft using the exemplar WS detailed on the newbies thread. I have few question which I will post under my WS:

Content	Page number
Witness Statement	2-9
XX-01 Parking space opposite The Chequers Pub with no visible signage on the side of Headley Road (photo)	10-11
XX-02 Barely visible marking on the road and the boundary of the venue (photo)	12
XX-03 Signage on site plan displayed inadequately (photo)	13
XX-04 Excel v Wilkinson Case Transcript	14-23
XX-05 The Beavis case sign for comparison	24
XX-06 ParkingEye Limited v Beavis – Paragraphs 98, 193, and 198	25-26

In the County Court at XXXXX
 
Claim Number: XXXX
 
 
Britannia Parking Group Limited t/a Britannia Parking
(Claimant)
 
-AND-
 
MR XXXXX
(Defendant)
 
 
WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT   FOR HEARING ON 24/11/2020
 

1.       I am Mr XXXX of XXXXX  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.       I am the Registered Keeper and driver of the vehicle in question in December 2020
 
3.       In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 1-6) 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:

Facts and Sequence of events

4.       I drove to car park opposite The Chequers Pub on 7th December 2020 at 09:00 hours and 14th December 2020 at 08:50 hours.

5.       I parked in a parking space opposite The Chequers Pub in which I truly believed was not for use by The Chequers Pub. There was lack of adequate signage on the side of Headley Road where vehicle was parked (See Exhibit xx-01).

6.       The car park had barely visible marking on the road and the boundary of the venue. As a result, it is impossible for anyone to conclude controlled area is entered (See Exhibit xx-02).

7.       I have appended the actual location of incident, photographed myself on December 14th of 2020. Photographed were take on day time.

8.       At the point of entry before parking, I did not see any visible entrance terms and conditions sign (See Exhibit xx-02).

9.       After around 20min I was leaving the car park and noticed on exit the entrance terms and conditions sign installed on the wall of The Chequers Pub which was not easy to see. It was impossible to read and understand signage from distance between entry point and where signage was installed.

10.       I wanted to enter The Chequers Pub and registrar vehicle at the bar and obtain free parking but England was already in Second National lockdown which started 5th of November 2020.

11.       The terms on the Claimant's signage could not be seen from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Photographed myself on December 14th of 2020 (See Exhibit xx-03).

12.       I refer to British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AoS) - Code of Practice Version 8 – January 2020 section 19. This specifically states that signs with specific parking terms must be placed throughout the site, including specifically at any entrances, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle.

13.   It is therefore denied that I entered a legally binding contract, as no clear signs existed in the vicinity of the parking space where I was parked and it was not possible to registrar vehicle on the terminal inside the Pub.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

14.       The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (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.

15.       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.

16.       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.

17.       The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7thFebruary 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."

18.       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

19.       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.

20.       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.

21.       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. 

22.       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 ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case') Exhibit xx-06). 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.

23.   This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of 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 pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges. 

24.   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 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

25.   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).

zeljko

CRA Breaches

26.       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.

27.       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.

28.       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).

 29.       Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson. (See Exhibit xx-04).

The Beavis case is against this claim

 30.       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 xx-05) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

31.       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 xx-06) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

32.       In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There are two main issues that render this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

The signage in this case required customers to enter their vehicle registration number inside The Chequers Pub. Unfortunately, this Bar was inaccessible and close as we have been in Second national lockdown which comes into force in England 5th of Nov 2020, rendering compliance impossible. 

(ii). Hidden Terms:

The £100 penalty clause is positively buried in small print, as seen on the signs in evidence.  The purported added (false) 'costs' are even more hidden and are also unspecified as a sum.  Their (unlawful, due to the CRA Schedule 2 grey list of unfair terms) suggestion is that they can hide a vague sentence within a wordy sign, in the smallest possible print, then add whatever their trade body lets them, until the DLUHC bans it in 2024. And the driver has no idea about any risk nor even how much they might layer on top.  None of this was agreed by me, let alone known or even seen as I stood at the machine, which their evidence shows doesn't warn me about a possible £100 charge. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

(i)         Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

(ii)        Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii)       Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space".

Defence

33.       I had parked on parking space opposite The Chequers Pub on side of Headley Road without any signage (See Exhibit xx-01). England was in Second National lockdown which was not possible to register vehicle as state in Terms and Conditions of the Car park.  It was not clear that parking restrictions continued during Covid lockdown. The entrance to the parking was not marked and the small and illegible writing on the signage were unreadable between entry point and where signage was installed

34.       One of the signs states “Users of this Car park must register their vehicle registration at the Bar” Exhibit xx-03.  This clause would be impossible to comply with. Terminal for vehicle registration was inaccessible as it was inside the The Chequers Pub, which was closed as part of government national lockdown.

35.   Therefore, I maintain that no contractual agreement existed between myself and Britannia Parking Group Limited, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished).  In addition to the fact that the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated, additionally the interest is inflated as interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if £160 or £170 was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

36.   BW Legal indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.  I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit.

Conclusion

37.   The claim is entirely without merit. 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.

38.   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.

39.   In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:

a)       The previously reserved costs of £315, and

b)      at the very least, standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14,   and

c)       for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5

40.   Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature

zeljko

I was not sure should I include Point 10 under sequence of events. 

Any comments would be appreciated

Coupon-mad

Just a quick reply as I only skim-read this. 

You need to look at the WS bundle by @_blueberry_ for the extra stuff you need re the struck out cases, especially CEL v Chan.

Also please show us the Particulars of Claim.

zeljko

Hi,
I got two letters from BWLegal.
1st Client respond to my defence

Our Client: Britannia Parking Group Limited t/a Britannia Parking

Contravention Type: Parked Without Registering Vehicle At The Bar Or Reception Car Park: Reading - The Chequers Pub

Vehicle Registration: XXX

 PCN Number: XXX

We write with reference to the above matter. The court has sent us a copy of your defence in response to our Client's claim. We have reviewed your reasons for disputing the claim. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a complete factual background about your account and also our Client's response to your defence.

Background

On 7 December 2020 and 14 December 2020 (Contravention Dates), we are instructed that you were registered keeper of a vehicle bearing the registration mark XXXX, (Vehicle) which was parked on private land (i.e. Reading - The Chequers Pub) (Car Park).

The Car Park is private land, operated and managed by our Client. Any motorist's use of the Car Park is on the basis of the terms and conditions displayed on the signage (Terms and Conditions), with the motorist legally obliged to make themselves aware of the Terms and Conditions at the time of parking.

The Breach

On the Contravention Dates, you breached the Terms and Conditions which resulted in you receiving the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs).

The enclosed photographs taken by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras shows your Vehicle entering and exiting the Car Park. Our Client has reconciled the images taken from the ANPR cameras, and the vehicle registration numbers of vehicles that entered and exited the Car Park on the Contravention Dates, and then compared it against the data extracted from the Car Park transaction logs to determine whether or nota ticket matching the registration number of the Vehicle was purchased. The logs shows that you breached the Terms and Conditions as you parked without registering your Vehicle on the ontraventionDates.

Asa result of the breach, Our Client is well within their contractual rights to issue the PCNs and take all necessary steps (including bringing legal proceedings) to recover the outstanding charge.

Response to your Defenc

Paragraph 3 of the defence - Non- compliant signage

At the entrance of our Client's Car Park, there a 2 large and clear entrance signs present which notify and make all driver aware of the Car Park and erms and Conditions. Furthermore, there is sufficient signage placed throughout the Car Park displaying the Terms and Conditions for all users to read and comply with.

At the time of the contraventions, our Client was a member of the British Parking Association ('BPA'). The BPA is a professional association that represents the entire parking sector across the UK, representing hundreds of member organisations. As our Client was an established member of the BPA at the time of the contravention, it had to adhere to the BPA 's Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Park . Thi Code gives reconunendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the Car Park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code.

Paragraphs 4 of the defence - Right to issue PCNs

We are instructed that Britannia Parking Services limited is a subsidiary company of our Client.

Our Client is engaged by the landowner of the Car Park, and therefore authorised to manage and enforce the term and conditions displayed in the signage, issue PCNs and enforce them. Furthermore, our Client relies on its contract with the driver as the basis of its claim (where the driver breached our Client's tenns and conditions). Our Client's agreement with the landowner is therefore not relevant, and you have no legal standing to query it, as a third party. As the agreement is a commercially sensitive document it will not be provided unless the matter progresses to a formal hearing.

Paragraph 5 of the defence - Abuse ofprocess and strike out

Please note that the other claim you have referred to has been issued by our Client in relation to 3 separate parking charge notices which are not related to this matter.

This matter is in relation to the 2 PCNs; l 0537887 and I 055 I 655 for the Contravention Dates and therefore the particulars of claim for this matter is not identical to the other claim you refer to. Therefore it is not the same cause of action and no abuse of process.

For any claim to be considered an abuse of process, the Court needs to properly consider the evidence in support of the claim. This suggestion is therefore rejected entirely.

There is substantial case law on this, which confirms that judges should not strike out laims before fully hearing all evidence. If the court requires us to make legal submissions on this, we will oblige.

In regards to the rest of your defence:

The underlying purpose of our correspondence is to deal with purely the factual elements of Our Client's claim. Whilst your defence raises a swathe of technical arguments, the source of which appears to be an online template, we do not intend to rehearse any technical arguments at this stage, as the suitable forum for this would be by way of submjssions at the relevant hearing.

We do not consider these arguments to be relevant in any event as the evidence held in Om Client' favour supports the logical conclusion that you parked without registering your Vehicle. As uch, Our Client maintains that you are liable for the parking charge.

zeljko

2nd, was Respond to Defence:

REPLY TO DEFENCE

1.    The Claimant considers that the Defence discloses no reasonable cause of action for the following reasons, and should be struck out by the Court pursuant to its powers under CPR 3.4(2) to avoid further wasted costs and time.

BACKGROUND TO THE CLAIM

2.    The claim is in relation to 3 outstanding parking charges; XXXX, XXX and XXXX (PCNs). At all material times, the Claimant was authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking at the Car Park at The Chequers Pub, XXXX (Car Park).

3.    On XXXX (Contravention Dates) the Defendant was the driver of a vehicle, registered XXXX (Vehicle), which was observed breaching the terms and conditions (Terms and Conditions) at the Car Park as "Parked Without Registering Vehicle At The Bar Or Reception".

4.    The Terms and Conditions of the Car Park, which were displayed upon the signage within the Car Park, stated that:

4.1  Private Land

4.2    Authorised Vehicles Only

4.3  PATRONS ONLY

4.4  Terms and Conditions apply

4.5  RESTRICTIONS AND TERMS & CONDITIONS APPLY AT ALL TIMES TO ALL VEHICLES

4.6  USERS    OF    THIS    CAR    PARK    MUST    REGISTER     THEIR VEHICLE REGISTRAT/ON AT THE BAR

4. 7 £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to vehicles which:

•        Fail to register vehicle registration details at bar

5-  The Defendant failed t0      .

register his Vehicle at the pub bar in order to obtain free parking at the Car Park on the Contravention Dates. The Claimant has searched their records for all 2 Contravention Dates, which shows all the vehicles which were authorised to be parked at the Car Park on the Contravention Dates (these motorists having registered their vehicle for free parking at the bar). The Vehicle does not appear on the Claimant's

records and therefore the Vehicle was not authorised to be parked within the Car Park.

6.     The Terms and Conditions specifically state that the charge for breaching the Terms and Conditions is £100.00 reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days. The Defendant has failed to make payment at either the full or reduced sum.

7.     The Defendant admits to the use of the Car Park on the Contravention Dates and to thereby agreeing to the above Terms and Conditions, including liability for the parking charges.

8.     The Claimant is also seeking debt recovery costs in the sum of £60.00 for each of the PCNs. The signage at the Car Park (displaying the Terms and Conditions) makes provision for these costs, which are confirmed as recoverable pursuant to appeal case authority, as well as being detailed in the BPA Approved Operator Code of Conduct.

REPLY TO DEFENCE

9.     Unless expressly stated otherwise below, the Claimant denies the contents of the defence.

10. The Defence raises generic technical arguments which are frequently found online and not all are relevant to this claim; for example, POFA does not apply where the Defendant, as here, is contractually liable as the driver. These will be addressed within the Claimant's Skeleton Argument. In relation to the factual and bespoke submissions made within the Defence at paragraphs 2-5, these will be address below.

11.  Paragraph 2 of the Defence is noted. The Defendant's admission to being both the registered keeper and the driver of the Vehicle on all 3 of the Contravention Dates is acknowledged. The Claimant holds the Defendant contractually liable for the PCNs as the driver of the Vehicle, as he entered into the parking contract with the Claimant when parking his Vehicle on the Claimant's private land (Car Park) on the Contravention Dates. As the Defendant parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions, he became liable for the PCNs.

12.  Paragraph 3 of the Defence is denied. The Claimant has placed clear and prominent signs at the entrance of the Car Park and throughout which notify and make all drivers aware of the Terms and Conditions. In order to enter the private Car Park, the Defendant would have noted and passed the 2 entrance signs.

13.      Paragraph4 of the Defence is denied. Paragraph 2 above is repeated. The Claimant has full and correct authorisation from the landowner to manage and enforce parking under an agreement dated 27/10/2020 at the Car Park.

14.  Paragraph 5 of the Defence is denied. The Claimant has issued a separate claim against the Defendant which relates to different contravention dates and times and therefore has no relevance to this matter. This is not an abuse of process as the particulars of claim are not identical.

15.  In response to DJ R.R Matthew's Order dated 26/06/2023, paragraph 1 relating to the consideration of the unfair contract terms regarding DLUHC publication of February 2022, the Claimant's position is as follows.

16. The Defendant refers to the draft Code of Practice published on 07/02/2022 (CoP). However, the guidance on the draft Code was formally withdrawn on 07/06/2022 as confirmed within the government's official website, www.gov.uk, which notes: "This guidance was withdrawn on 7 June 2022 - Private Parking Code of Practice is

temporarily withdrawn pending review of the levels of private parking charges and additional fees" [page 1J.

17. As the government has officially withdrawn the draft CoP, which was never implemented, it has no application. The Claimant refers to the case law referred to in the skeleton argument on the issue of debt recovery charges.

zeljko

In Skeleton Argument I could find "Particulars of Claim" under point 7

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

Introduction

1                        This skeleton is filed by the Claimant because it is the Claimant's solicitor's belief that the Defendant has filed a template Defence commonly found on internet forums seeking to challenge parking charges. One frequently used forum can be found on www.moneysavingexpert.com.

2                        As the Court will appreciate, CPR 32 confirms that evidence should address facts. The Defence largely seeks to rely on technical arguments based on case law and legislation which therefore fails to comply with CPR 16.5 requiring a Defendant to admit or deny (with reasons) the Claimant's allegations in a claim.

3                        Therefore, in order to make the best use of the Court's time, the Claimant's solicitors shall:

(a)   Only respond to the facts stated in the Defence in the Claimant's witness statement. This ensures that the hearing can focus on the facts of the case at the hearing; and

(b)   Address the technical issues raised in the Defence in this Skeleton, so that the Court can decide which, if any, of these technical points should to be considered at the final hearing

Formation of the contract

4                       The signage situated across the Car Park forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location, and there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the performance of entering the private land and remaining there is the act of acceptance.

5                       The Claimant also places reliance on the judgment in the appeal case - Vehicle Control Services Limited v Alfred Charles Crutchley [2017], in which the court confirmed the user's positive obligation to familiarise themselves with the Terms and Conditions. In this case, His Honour Judge Wood QC decided that:

"It is incumbent, in my judgment, on a person entering private property, when it is clear that a contractual licence is being provided, to understand the terms of such a licence. It would not be onerous or oppressive, although probably inconvenient, for a visitor to establish those terms and conditions before entering the business park in the first place, even if this required remaining outside, and entering on foot, when the contents of the notices in combination, would become apparent"

6                        Therefore, the Defendant, by entering and remaining in the Car Park, wilfully agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions, including payment of the contractual charge upon any breach.

Particulars of Claim

7                        The Claim has already passed through the hands of a judge upon allocation to the small claims track. As such, it is submitted that the same has already been deemed CPR-compliant.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015)

8                        The Defendant's arguments are generic and not at all made out.

9                        S.62(4) provides that"... a term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer."

zeljko

Coupon-mad said:

Just a quick reply as I only skim-read this. 

You need to look at the WS bundle by @_blueberry_ for the extra stuff you need re the struck out cases, especially CEL v Chan.

Also please show us the Particulars of Claim.

Yes I was checking WS bundle by @_blueberry and I can see "Exhibit xx07   CEL v Chan Case Transcript" but could not see where in hiss WS he is referencing  Exhibit xx07 .
Should I just add CEL v Chan Case Transcript?

1505grandad

Are you looking at this as advised by C-m?:-

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/umwm4jzp7csnmfz7hwv92/WS.docx?rlkey=6ege2dskrqyqxg6gnopfdzgi9&dl=0

"You need to look at the WS bundle by @_blueberry_ for the extra stuff you need re the struck out cases, especially CEL v Chan."

Coupon-mad

zeljko said:

Coupon-mad said:

Just a quick reply as I only skim-read this. 

You need to look at the WS bundle by @_blueberry_ for the extra stuff you need re the struck out cases, especially CEL v Chan.

Also please show us the Particulars of Claim.

Yes I was checking WS bundle by @_blueberry and I can see "Exhibit xx07   CEL v Chan Case Transcript" but could not see where in hiss WS he is referencing  Exhibit xx07 .
Should I just add CEL v Chan Case Transcript?

Surely you didn't stop at the first draft you saw in that thread, before advice and changes?

You didn't read on for the final WS bundle nor read how they got £500 in costs?

We are instructed that Britannia Parking Services limited is a subsidiary company of our Client.

I don't think a Ltd company can be a subsidiary of another Ltd company. Did they attach a copy of this 'landowner agreement'? If yes, please show it.

What EXACTLY does the claim form say in the Claimant box (name of Claimant) and what does the POC say under that? The POC are on the Claim Form, not anywhere else.