Claim defence: VCS long-standing residential parking dispute

JerryJ64

12.   At no point in the set up, renewal or eventual termination of my parking permit did I ever deal with the Defendant. I was always dealing directly with the Landlord.

13.   I understood there was parking management in place, managed by the Defendant, however the purpose of this was surely to have been to prevent unauthorised users of the car park, not those who have purchased access to a parking space (indeed, I paid £500 a year to have use of a parking space, not to have a permit).

Surely you mean Claimant?

bluebanana62

Hi, thanks for the input so far. Yes, this certainly needs a proof read, I need to find some time that's not late at night...

@Coupon-mad is it this you're referring to? I couldn't find a reference to it (or any reference to an example WS) on the newbies thread but found the link on another thread.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i1u2vudfmb4xgyksxf6fd/Aug2023WS.rtf?rlkey=bfedahtd4lw4pqth2cncrrpli&dl=0

Le_Kirk

The witness statements referred to in the NEWBIE sticky are by @_blueberry_ and @vincentvega27

Coupon-mad

It is all explained in the NEWBIES thread, along with tips for evidence exhibits.

bluebanana62

Hi,

I've updated my WS and evidence to include relevant parts from the references ones.

Please see below; if anyone has any further comments, they will be very much appreciated, otherwise I will look to send this weekend.

Please ignore exhibit/paragraph references; these will be renumbered.

Many thanks.

In the County Court at xxxxx

Claim no. xxxxx

Between:-

Vehicle Control Services Limited

Claimant

-V-

xxxxx

Defendant

Witness Statement of Defendant

1.       I, xxxxx, of xxxxx, 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 xx-yy 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:

Preliminary matter: the claim should be struck out

3.       I draw to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims). I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

4.       A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (Exhibit 0).

5.       Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 0a)

6.       Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit 0b)

7.       Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 0c)

8.       I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to the Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement was provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

Background and sequence of events

9.       I was the owner, keeper, and driver of xxxxx (the Vehicle) at the time of the alleged contract contravention. I purchased the vehicle on 21 January 2018.

10.   I was a resident at an apartment of xxxxx(the land in question) at the time of the alleged contract contravention. The apartment was jointly rented (with another occupant) from xxxxx (the Landlord).

11.   Rental of the apartment alone did not include parking provision, however it was possible to obtain use of a parking space from the Landlord at a cost of £250 per 6 months, made payable to the Landlord. Exhibit 1 shows the email chain between myself and the Landlord in setting up the initial permit, and an email on 15 December 2017, confirming my renewal for the period covering the alleged contravention dates, and that I was assigned bay 11.

12.   Upon replacing my previous car with the Vehicle, I found it difficult to promptly procure a suitable permit holder, due to the nature of the permit being paper, non-adhesive, circular, and slightly larger than a traditional tax disc. Tax disc holders are difficult to obtain now tax discs are obsolete, and it did not fit in standard holders. Whilst trying to find a suitable holder, the permit was left visible sitting on the windscreen.

13.   On the evening of 3 February 2018, I noticed two yellow cards on the dashboard from the Claimant, which drew my attention to the fact the permit was missing. To avoid further confusion, I immediately requested a new permit from the Landlord, which I received on 6 February 2018. In this time another card had been placed on the windscreen.

14.   At the time, I both appealed the parking charge through the Claimant’s system, and also asked the Landlord to request the charge to be revoked. Neither resulted in my favour, however I still dispute that I ever entered a contract with or owe a debt to the Claimant.

Land management

15.   The claim states that the Claimant “owns or manages” the land. This is disputed: the Claimant’s evidence indicates their contract was strictly for “parking control services”.

16.   The Claimant claims that they had landowner authority to manage parking on the land in question. The evidence they provided hides dates, however my Exhibit 4 shows a copy the Claimant has previously sent to me, which expired on 31 December 2005. The Claimant claims the agreement was renewed, however has provided no evidence of this.

Legitimate interest

17.   I dispute that the Landowner’s legitimate interest to manage the Land is – to quote the Claimant - “because it is a shopping area”. The site is residential, as are most of the surrounding buildings, with the main exception of two retail units opposite, which have their own, large, free, car park. I propose that the Landowner’s legitimate interest is to stop persons other than those who have paid for parking from parking in the bays. As such, there is no legitimate interest to charge those who have already purchased parking from said Landowner.

18.   If the Claimant’s legitimate interest is to protect the Landlord’s legitimate interest, then such an interest falls through when it is my own space which is allegedly being protected.

Primacy of contract

19.   The Claimant’s signs stated that by simply entering the land I was entering into a contract with the Claimant, however this simply cannot have been the case, since access to the land was provided by way of my residential contract with the Landlord; this could not have been overridden by a third party contract such as the Claimant’s.

20.   At no point in the set up, renewal or eventual termination of my parking permit did I ever deal with the Claimant. I was always dealing directly with the Landlord.

21.   I understood there was parking management in place, managed by the Claimant, however the purpose of this was surely to have been to prevent unauthorised users of the car park, not those who have purchased access to a parking space (indeed, I paid £500 a year to have use of a parking space, not to have a permit).

22.   It is therefore impossible that I could be expected to enter into another contract, when I already had an agreement in place with the Landlord that I could park in the given space.

23.   I therefore deny ever entering into a contract with the Claimant.

Validity of contract

24.   The signage of the alleged contract contained small text, difficult to read, some of which the Claimant’s Witness Statement refers to. However from the Claimant’s own evidence (Claimant’s Exhibit 2 photographs), this can hardly be read, so cannot be expected to be read by someone parking in the parking area. The digital representation does not match the photographs so must not be considered.

25.   The sign stated, “Valid Parking Permits Only”, so I dispute that a contract could be formed without a valid permit.

Exaggerated costs

26.   The original alleged charge was £300. The Claimant is now claiming £695.48. The Claimant claims in the Particulars of Claim that £480 is “the total of the PCN(s) and damages”. I dispute that pursuing the claim by sending of template letters caused the Claimant £180 in damages. The Claimant has yet to provide evidence to the contrary.

27.   Unknown costs over and above the alleged charge of £300 were not quantified on prominent text (or at all) on signage.

28.   The quantity of interest added is the result of the Claimant’s own actions; had they filed their claim soon after their initial Letter Before Claim (issued on 1 October 2018), the value of the claim would have been far less.

29.   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.

30.   I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

a.       the alleged breach, and

b.       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.

31.   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.

32.   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."

33.   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

34.   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.

35.   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 I take that position.

36.   The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £60 per PCN routinely added (and indeed in this case). 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.

37.   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'). 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’.

38.   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.

39.   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 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

40.   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).

...

bluebanana62

...

Breaches of the Consumer Rights Act

41.   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 (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.

42.   Section 71 of the CRA 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.

43.   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).

44.   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-14)

With regards to ParkingEye vs Beavis

45.   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) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

46.   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 for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis.

47.   In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There are several issues that renders this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable, including hidden terms:

a.       The £100 penalty clause is positively buried in small print, as seen on the signs in Exhibit xx.

b.       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, and their evidence shows their signage doesn't warn me about a possible £100 charge.

48.   Court of Appeal authorities include:

a.       Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2, both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

b.       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".

Claimant’s evidence and witness statement

49.   The first image (digital sign representation) in Exhibit 2 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement is completely different wording to the photographs, and I request it is thrown out.

50.   The Claimant’s Witness Statement has numerous factual inaccuracies which even contradict its own evidence, such as Paragraph 18 stating that a Privacy Notice was affixed to the vehicle, and relies on their Exhibit 3, when in reality, their Exhibit 3 shows no such “Privacy Notice”, nor does it contain the privacy information suggested, as shown in my Exhibit 3.

51.   I put to the court that the Claimant’s Witness Statement is a template Witness Statement and bears limited relevance to the case. I politely request it is thrown out, as it clearly contains factual inaccuracies.

Unreasonable behaviour

52.   The Claimant and their representative have behaved completely unreasonably throughout the duration of this matter. I put to the court that the Claimant has sought to abuse the court process only to scare and harass me.

53.   The initial correspondence was received in February 2018, and after various threatening letters, a Letter Before Claim was sent on 1 October 2018. There was no court claim issued until 2 February 2023, but between these periods, no fewer than two more Letter of Claims were issued, in June 2021 and June 2022, and many other threatening letters.

54.   I repeatedly requested basic information from the Claimant or their representative about the claim(s) - some of which should have been supplied on their Reply Form but wasn’t - which were either never provided or in some cases took up to 6 months to respond (Exhibit 5).

Costs

55.   I claim fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14.

56.   I ask for finding of unreasonable conduct in relation to paragraphs xx-yy and seek costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

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 documents verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed

 

 

xxxxx

Xx/12/2023

 

Coupon-mad

That's good.  Exhibit numbers should be your initials and consecutive numbering.

bluebanana62

My WS has been filed and served. I'll update here as things proceed!

Thanks for all the help.

bluebanana62

So here’s how things panned out. Sorry it’s a bit long, but I felt others might benefit from what I’ve learned.

I submitted my Witness Statement on 23 Dec, however because of all the bank holidays, it wasn’t filed until 27 Dec. I made sure to chase up that it had been filed, although it was technically a day late.

VCS issued a Supplementary Witness Statement which basically covered the following:

·         Complaining I had failed to serve the WS in time and it should be struck out.

·         Disputing various parts of my WS.

·         Corrected a couple of errors in their first WS, namely changing the basis of Legitimate Interest, and providing an updated digital image of the sign.

·         Other repetition and nonsense.

I prepared for court by printing and filing everything, including various docs and parts of laws referenced in the WS, as well as bullet point notes of various aspects I wanted to cover.

I turned up with plenty of time, which was good as parking was a nightmare, and I couldn’t find the right entrance for a while.

After checking in, VCS’s representative arrived and introduced himself. He didn’t ask me to talk to him privately or anything. He thought it should be a relatively straightforward case. It was clear he had just been handed the bundle that morning.

The Claimant’s examination pretty much covered the main basis of claim, nothing surprising. Although when referring to the signage, he quoted from the original, incorrect digital representation of the sign.

The Judge asked about the claim for “damages” in addition to the original charge in the PoC. This is something I’d raised in the WS, and the Claimant’s Representative was unable to specify what these were for or why they were added when probed.

At several points during the proceeding, the Representative kept referring to my tenancy agreement which they hadn’t seen nor had I supplied; something I’d never relied upon (indeed, it wasn’t relevant to the case). It was clear a lot of the points raised were generic points.

For the rest of the proceeding, the Representative mainly did stuff on his laptop and phone; I don’t think relevant to the case.

My examination went relatively smoothly. The Judge didn’t really buy the point about excessive interest, stating the way it is calculated is separate to the claim itself; I’m not sure she exactly got my point but she gave me an opportunity to argue the % or amount was excessive; I said that the 8% was excessive and not representative of interest actually incurred by the Claimant, and that had they started proceedings after their initial LBC, the sum would be much less.

I made sure to highlight that the Representative had been referring to wording on the digital sign representation which did not match the photos, which caused the Judge to be very interested and verify this herself. I tried to highlight the fact that in the real sign the £100 charge was hidden in loads of small text; the Judge stopped me and said she cannot read it from the images she has been provided; I concurred and suggested that a person in a vehicle would not be able to read it either.

The Representative tried to raise that actually there was a correct version in the Supplementary WS, but unfortunately for him it was too late and he was not allowed to argue that point again.

One thing I didn’t think to submit as evidence the fact I had sent a photo of my replacement permit to VCS via the appeal process. The Representative raised that he hadn’t seen this. I don’t know whether this would have swung things if it came to it.

I’d printed Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act, which I referred to several points, however the judge wasn’t satisfied whether it applied. She looked it up but in hindsight it would have been good to have relevant parts of the actual act too, particularly where Schedule 2 applies, and the definition of a Trader.

The remainder of my points ran pretty smoothly.

The Judge provided a summary of the case from both sides. She then stated the Particulars of Claim consisted of “vagueness in the extreme”. It stated “the PCN(s) was issued”; it is either one PCN or more than one PCN, not “one or more”. It stated the land was “owned or managed by the Claimant” but the Defence stated it was managed, not “owned or managed”. She said the Particulars of Claim should be exactly that: “particular”.

She raised the contract terms were different in the digital image and the photos can’t be read. Therefore, evidence is being relied upon which is not true. She described this as “sloppy”, considering submissions were being made based on this.

The PoC stated that costs were for “damages” therefore states that the Claimant is claiming damages, but not for what and why.

With such deficiencies in the PoC, including lack of specificity, the Judge struck out the claim as an abuse of process.

The Representative tried to raise again at this point about the corrected image in the Supplementary WS, but the judge dismissed it. He asked for an appeal basically on the basis of the claim, but it was refused.

I asked for fixed costs for mileage and parking for a grand total of £5.60, which was approved. I asked if the judge found unreasonable behaviour but unfortunately she did not.

On the way out I asked the Representative if it’s what he expected, he just said he wishes the Judge had struck it out at the start, rather than wasting time with examinations. Ha!

I must say I’m very happy with the outcome. Thanks again for all the support from this forum!

Coupon-mad

bluebanana62 said:

So here’s how things panned out. Sorry it’s a bit long, but I felt others might benefit from what I’ve learned.

I submitted my Witness Statement on 23 Dec, however because of all the bank holidays, it wasn’t filed until 27 Dec. I made sure to chase up that it had been filed, although it was technically a day late.

VCS issued a Supplementary Witness Statement which basically covered the following:

·         Complaining I had failed to serve the WS in time and it should be struck out.

·         Disputing various parts of my WS.

·         Corrected a couple of errors in their first WS, namely changing the basis of Legitimate Interest, and providing an updated digital image of the sign.

·         Other repetition and nonsense.

I prepared for court by printing and filing everything, including various docs and parts of laws referenced in the WS, as well as bullet point notes of various aspects I wanted to cover.

I turned up with plenty of time, which was good as parking was a nightmare, and I couldn’t find the right entrance for a while.

After checking in, VCS’s representative arrived and introduced himself. He didn’t ask me to talk to him privately or anything. He thought it should be a relatively straightforward case. It was clear he had just been handed the bundle that morning.

The Claimant’s examination pretty much covered the main basis of claim, nothing surprising. Although when referring to the signage, he quoted from the original, incorrect digital representation of the sign.

The Judge asked about the claim for “damages” in addition to the original charge in the PoC. This is something I’d raised in the WS, and the Claimant’s Representative was unable to specify what these were for or why they were added when probed.

At several points during the proceeding, the Representative kept referring to my tenancy agreement which they hadn’t seen nor had I supplied; something I’d never relied upon (indeed, it wasn’t relevant to the case). It was clear a lot of the points raised were generic points.

For the rest of the proceeding, the Representative mainly did stuff on his laptop and phone; I don’t think relevant to the case.

My examination went relatively smoothly. The Judge didn’t really buy the point about excessive interest, stating the way it is calculated is separate to the claim itself; I’m not sure she exactly got my point but she gave me an opportunity to argue the % or amount was excessive; I said that the 8% was excessive and not representative of interest actually incurred by the Claimant, and that had they started proceedings after their initial LBC, the sum would be much less.

I made sure to highlight that the Representative had been referring to wording on the digital sign representation which did not match the photos, which caused the Judge to be very interested and verify this herself. I tried to highlight the fact that in the real sign the £100 charge was hidden in loads of small text; the Judge stopped me and said she cannot read it from the images she has been provided; I concurred and suggested that a person in a vehicle would not be able to read it either.

The Representative tried to raise that actually there was a correct version in the Supplementary WS, but unfortunately for him it was too late and he was not allowed to argue that point again.

One thing I didn’t think to submit as evidence the fact I had sent a photo of my replacement permit to VCS via the appeal process. The Representative raised that he hadn’t seen this. I don’t know whether this would have swung things if it came to it.

I’d printed Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act, which I referred to several points, however the judge wasn’t satisfied whether it applied. She looked it up but in hindsight it would have been good to have relevant parts of the actual act too, particularly where Schedule 2 applies, and the definition of a Trader.

The remainder of my points ran pretty smoothly.

The Judge provided a summary of the case from both sides. She then stated the Particulars of Claim consisted of “vagueness in the extreme”. It stated “the PCN(s) was issued”; it is either one PCN or more than one PCN. It stated the land was “owned or managed by the Claimant” but the Defence stated it was managed, not “owned or managed”. She said the Particulars of Claim should be exactly that: “particular”.

She raised the contract terms were different in the digital image and the photos and the photos can’t be read. Therefore, evidence is being relied upon which is not true. She described this as “sloppy”, considering submissions were being made based on this.

The PoC stated that costs were for “damages” therefore states that the Claimant is claiming damages, but not for what and why.

With such deficiencies in the PoC, including lack of specificity, the Judge struck out the claim as an abuse of process.

The Representative tried to raise again at this point about the corrected image in the Supplementary WS, but the judge dismissed it. He asked for an appeal basically on the basis of the claim, but it was refused.

I asked for fixed costs for mileage and parking for a grand total of £5.60, which was approved. I asked if the judge found unreasonable behaviour but unfortunately she did not.

On the way out I asked the Representative if it’s what he expected, he just said he wishes the Judge had struck it out at the start, rather than wasting time with examinations. Ha!

I must say I’m very happy with the outcome. Thanks again for all the support from this forum!

Yay!  well done, you won!

That is a great court report. Thankyou.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Please find time to do this new Justice Committee Inquiry before it closes - help us to try to STOP this abuse of the system:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

Consumer groups have said:

"“Looking ahead, this inquiry should be a stepping stone to a full-scale commission on civil justice with the needs of consumers as its heart.”

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Please also state that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the main problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as the dominate and clog up court lists.

Please tell them that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate court lists.

Parking court claim numbers are rising every year and will make up close to a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice draft Impact Assessment.

The MoJ must now be informed to urgently separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol (requiring use of ADR instead of inflated debt demands and bulk litigators who want court). It should be a last resort but litigation is the first aim.

Tell the Committee about your claim and show the Claim Form and how long it took, only for the original claim form POC (and the signage evidence) to be exposed by the hearing Judge at xxxxxx court as inadequate.

But of course this flew right under the noses of the CNBC who din't even look to see if a claim adds up ket alone passes the CPRs for adequate pleadings. 

The whole system is a nasty joke and the courts (and consumers) are being used and abused by firms making a mint (and it's not just the parking operators, it's the 'barely legal' firms).

This is a hidden (unknown to many people) scandal affecting hundreds of thousands of people every year.  Yes it is that many.

There are c1.5m small claims per annum and about HALF A MILLION are parking claims.

Please tell the Committee that the private parking legislative framework needs to be removed from the county court altogether in almist every case, to protect consumers.  There must be evaluatice assessment by the Single Apoeaks service before a case can be brought.

Ideally, parking cases should NEVER go to county court and should not be able to affect people's credit rating.

Please add your voice.

Interested parties only have until 17 January  to make a submission to the committee.