PCN 2min satnav stop Spinningfields- County Court Demand due

KeithP

loganby said:

Received a DQ from Gladstones  Feb 15th (only notable things was that they ticked the D1 question about settling pout of court). I undertand I should tick NO for this

Do I need to dload the DQ form myself or wait to be sent the form? If the latter how long do I wait please?

Go back to that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence.
Item 7 on that list says...

Suggest you now read items 8, 9 and 10 for the answers to your questions.

loganby

Got a Court hearing mid Sept. Gladstones not attending. Need to send a4 photo of sign + witness statement by Sept 7th. I presume the latter is just what I put the above but in 1st person.

"For the Defendant it was a rare visit to Manchester, on 09/07/2022. The Defendant is unfamiliar with Manchester. After a journey of over 3 hours, the Defendant felt it was necessary to reprogram the satellite navigation system..."

Coupon-mad

No.  Not just that and not just a photo.  There are other exhibits to include.

The NEWBIES thread section about WS stage tells you what a WS bundle looks like, and there's a link to an exemplar version to adapt to suit, and use some of baz's exhibits too.

loganby

Got there. Is it the 32 page document via a dropbox link?

Coupon-mad

Dunno. It's the link to baz's thread. 

loganby

The Baz WS bundle link is about returning late to a pay and display, mine is for stopping for 2 mins on a street. Arguments look to be different, I may be wrong. DO you happen to know of a template for Court for the latter scenario please?

Coupon-mad

You aren't being advised to copy his facts. That's the bit you replace with your own scenario.  You are being advised to use his WS start and finish and some standard exhibits (the newbies thread suggests what they might be but baz's example gives you them visually too).

That is what yours should look like and the exhibits to use.  Obviously not his own case exhibits.

To get inspiration, just search the forum for consideration period predatory ticketing witness statement (or a shorter combo of those words).  It's all about searching the forum, everything has been written a thousand times.

loganby

THINK ITS READY TO GO, SAVE FOR THE COUNTER CLAIM:........

Claim No.                                                                               

Between

ES Parking Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

and

(Defendant)


WITNESS STATEMENT

I, name/address, will say as follows:

It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked Exhibit 001-007 to which I will refer (see pages 7-20).

001 - A Street map of the site on Water Street in Manchester, M3 3AQ

002 - A Photo (google streetview) of the entrance to Water Street taken from the A34

003 - Google aerial photo of Water Street, Manchester M3 3AQ
004 - Letter Received From Claimant Showing Photos Of Vehicle Stopped At The Site
005 - Photo of Claimant’s Sign Taken later in 2022 (as a Pedestrian) on Water Street,

            from Point where my Car Had Stopped

006 - Photo (google streetview) showing the Claimant’s sign in relation to where Water Street meets Left Bank

007 – Close up photo showing text on Claimant’s sign in Water Street
NFR012 MY COST SCHEDULE

1.

The Claimant asserts that I, the Defendant, entered into a contract with them, that I breached that contract and must pay a contractual charge, with further undefined and unexplained additional charges. ES Parking claim that by stopping the car in question for 2 mins in Water Street in Spinningfields, M3 3AQ , I ‘agreed’ to enter into a parking contract with the Claimant. The Claimant asserts that their sign (see RK006) located at the corner with Left Bank (see 002) represents sufficient notice of this contract.
The sign says “No stopping on roadways or pavement” (see Exhibit 007), ironically, in order to be able to read the sign one would have to stop and exit from one’s car.

2.

Facts and Sequence of Events:
On the day in question, XXXX, I, the Defendant pulled off the busy A34 into a quiet street (known as Water Street) to briefly stop in order to reset the car GPS navigation to a nearby hotel (not knowing Manchester well), I returned to the A34 only two minutes later. At that point it never occurred to me that I had just entered into and/or breached any kind of parking contract.

 

3.

 I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:

a.

 The Claimant's signage is small and uses unclear print, one would have had to stop and leave the car in order to spend a few minutes standing in front of the sign in order to read it (see Exhibit 005) This photo shows the typical view from where the car was stopped, taken at a later date, on foot.

b.
 I did not knowingly enter into any parking contract with the Claimant. No clear offer of a contract was made. The sign is too unclear to act as any kind of parking contract.

c.

The street looks like any other street with double-yellow lines, with no bold signage to inform otherwise, in fact no signs at all upon entry to the street. (see Exhibit 002). At the time of said contravention there were no parking-related signs visible on entry to the street to indicate the supposed parking/stopping policies that the Claimant’s enforces therein.

d.

The location of the sign is misleading. It is mounted on the same post as the Left Bank No Entry sign. Objectively, it looks like it is relating to access to the Pedestrianised street (called Left Bank), as opposed to relating to Water Street (see Exhibit 007).

It is trite law that any uncertainty in a contract should be resolved against the person who offered it under the contra proferentem rule.

4.
 It is my understanding that there are three elements to a contract: offer, acceptance and consideration. I could not possibly have accepted any contract offered by the Claimant at the precise moment I drove through the ANPR cameras, and stopped briefly before turning around and re-joining the A34, because at that point no offer had been made. An offer must be communicated to an offeree. There was no offer communicated at the entrance to the site, and the claimant’s sign was not readable from my car. I left the site oblivious to any supposed parking contract, as none had been clearly offered.

5.

The Claimant’s letter dated 15/07/2023, threatened a £100 fine and showed the picture of the car in question (see Exhibit 004). I had heard about unscrupulous firms frightening people with parking scams, so decided to ignore it.
A similar ‘final demand’ threatening letter arrived dated 19/08/2022 demanding £170. Again, I was determined not to be intimidated by the strategy, which victims of similar firms had informed me about.
The Claimant’s solicitors escalated matters with a letter dated 27/09/2022. This time threatening me with Court and a figure of £285.

6.

 In the well-known parking case of Cavendish Square Holdings BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis, the Supreme Court made clear in its judgment that strict compliance with the CoP is paramount where a Claimant seeks to enforce a private parking charge. Paragraphs 96 and 111 of the judgment stated:
96. ''The BPA Code of Practice is a detailed code of regulation governing signs, charges and enforcement procedures.''
111. “''And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.'' (emphasis added).


7.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
 CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.


8.

Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.


9.
The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.



10.
 Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.


11.
According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.


12.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) (Exhibit 011) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.


13.
Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
The judges stated:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.''


14.
 In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

15.

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."

 

16.
There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.



The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Le_Kirk

It looks like you have used an old WS exemplar, one of the most recent is by @baz417 which you use as an example of style and format and change the facts to suit your own.  We don't use the old "Abuse of Process" any more but do use Excel v Wilkinson.  AND your statement of truth is outdated.

loganby

This was based on a WS by Baz. TBH I spend a long time searching the forum for these things, find plenty of people referring to examplars but struggle to find the actual document!