Claim received for unpaid Parking Charge Notice

Afrochap

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum for:

Reasonable regulations lease union

Thanks @Coupon-mad

I've checked, I'm afraid it seems I'm too thick to make the connection here 😩. Can you help me out?

Also, is there anything that may legally make them have a case even though my Postcode is not categorically listed on the contract they are using to back their argument. 

Coupon-mad

You aren't thick.  Do the search and read the results.  It explains.

Afrochap

Coupon-mad said:

You aren't thick.  Do the search and read the results.  It explains.

I've done the search multiple times and can't find any result with these exact terms. I did find and read through some postings about Managing Agents expecting residents with allocated bays to pay CPM for permits and pne about a SORN car. However, in my case there are no allocated bays its just generic use of the parking area.

I saw one where you mentioned that the judges are not swayed by postcodes, but in this case the closest postcode on the contract they signed with landlord is 1.1 miles away from mine.

I've gone to even Google the term Reasonable regulations lease union to no avail.

I'm so sorry if it seems I'm not doing enough. I'm just stressed and now in panic mode.

Another bit of info that may be important...
The signs were raised in 2018 and my lease was signed in 2019.

Coupon-mad

Afrochap said:

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum for:

Reasonable regulations lease union

Thanks @Coupon-mad

I've checked, I'm afraid it seems I'm too thick to make the connection here 😩. Can you help me out?

Also, is there anything that may legally make them have a case even though my Postcode is not categorically listed on the contract they are using to back their argument. 

OK, don't worry about the search which was merely to show you what a Judge thinks about having to display a 'permit' to park at home.

Your postcode not being listed as one of the managed car parks IS a very important spot! 

Afrochap

Coupon-mad said:

Afrochap said:

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum for:

Reasonable regulations lease union

Thanks @Coupon-mad

I've checked, I'm afraid it seems I'm too thick to make the connection here 😩. Can you help me out?

Also, is there anything that may legally make them have a case even though my Postcode is not categorically listed on the contract they are using to back their argument. 

OK, don't worry about the search which was merely to show you what a Judge thinks about having to display a 'permit' to park at home.

Your post ode not being listed as one of the managed car parks IS a very important spot! 

Ah thanks so much. 

Plan to put together the while witness statement this weekend and send it off to Gladstones and the Courts before the 2 weeks deadline. 

If found in my favour, am I able to ask the judge to get them to refund the money l paid for the default judgement for the case I mistakenly submitted late on? 

Also, is there an acceptable method of quantifying damages, I.e, the stress caused, my time dealing with this whole thing, the time I will be taking off work and the fact they breached GDPR by accessing my records when they have no right to? 

Coupon-mad

No you can't recover the monies paid for the other claim.

You can include a Costs Assessment (for loss of salary or loss of leave, plus travel, and time taken at £19 per hour).  The conclusion of the template defence shows you which Civil Procedure rules apply. Read those. There are set sums.

Or just search the forum! Thousands of costs assessments already written in recent years.

Afrochap

Coupon-mad said:

No you can't recover the monies paid for the other claim.

You can include a Costs Assessment (for loss of salary or loss of leave, plus travel, and time taken at £19 per hour).  The conclusion of the template defence shows you which Civil Procedure rules apply. Read those. There are set sums.

Or just search the forum! Thousands of costs assessments already written in recent years.

Great. Many thanks 

Afrochap

Here is the final draft of my witness statement. I have partly used other witness statemenhts I found in the forum. Could you please critique?

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BROMLEY

Claim No.:  XXXXXXX

Between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -  

 (Defendant)

_________________

 

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF

Mr XXXX

I, XXXXXXX of XXXXXXX, will say as follows:

INTRODUCTION

I make this Witness Statement in readiness for the hearing listed on 06 November 2024 at Bromley County Court and in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim.

In this statement, I shall reference various documents which I refer to as Exhibits. Each exhibit is mentioned by its corresponding number, i.e. Exhibit 1, 2, and so on. 

Facts of Events

1.      I am the leaseholder of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. I signed the lease to this property on 20 May 2019 with the landlord.

 

2.      I am also the owner of the vehicle registration mark XXXXXXXX, which I always park in front of the block where my flat is located.

 

3.      There are no designated parking bays, and motorists can park anywhere there is available space, provided traffic is not impeded.

 

4.      While I do recall receiving a parking permit by post, I do not remember the exact date. I usually display the permit on my car's dashboard as a courtesy to other residents. However, the display of a permit is not a clause present in my leasehold contract. Leasehold is presented as Exhibit 1.

 

5.      Although I do not recall the exact events on the day of the alleged contravention, the photos supplied by the claimant show the permit on my dashboard, albeit face-down.

The Claimant has argued the following:

1.      That at the time of the alleged contravention, the car was parked on SE26 XXXX.  The map of SE26 XXXX is presented as Exhibit 2.

 

2.      That they have a Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement with the landlord to manage and enforce parking on private and also provide the particulars of the contract.

 

3.      That the aforementioned contract grants the Claimant the power to somehow inject itself into the particulars of the leasehold signed with the landlord.

 My response:

1.      The car was parked in front of SE26 YYY, where my leasehold flat is located.

 

2.      A look on Google Maps shows the distance between SE26 XXX and SE26 YYY as 0.2 miles.

 

3.      Upon reviewing the Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement the Claimant asserts it has with the landlord, I find no evidence granting the Claimant any authority to intervene in my leasehold contract.

 

4.      Paragraph 13 of my leasehold clearly states the following with regards to Third Party Rights “Save as expressly provided none of the provisions of this lease are intended to or will operate or confer any benefit (pursuant to the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 on a person who is not named as party to this lease.”

 

5.      There is no clause on my leasehold contract stipulating that I shall be liable to make any form of payment to third parties or entities.

 

6.      Paragraph 5 (Easements, Rights, and Privileges) of my leasehold contract, clearly states that I as the leaseholder have the right to use the parking space for the parking of a roadworthy, taxed, and insured domestic vehicle not exceeding 3 tonnes.

 

There is no mention of parking permits or paying third-party entities any sums of money.

 

7.      My postcode, SE26 YYY, is not included in the Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement that the Claimant asserts grants it authority.

 

8.      Google Maps indicates that postcodes similar to mine, within the SE26 catchment area, show the nearest postcode covered by the Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement is 0.2 miles away from my location. Therefore, I cannot comprehend how the Claimant believes they have the right to issue me a PCN, let alone levy other charges against me

 

9.      Even if the contract the Claimant signed with the landlord included my property, there is nothing within the contract that grants the Claimant the authority to determine whether I have breached my leasehold agreement. Such matters should be addressed by the landlord, not a third party like the Claimant.

1.      The Claimant bearing a false contract has aggressively and tortiously interfered with my peace for no justifiable reasons and caused me financial loss and undue stress.

 

a.      The Claimant has issued me with multiple PCNs.

 

b.      One of these claims, number XXXXXXX (Exhibit 4), was issued on 11 /07/2023. Given that claim the claim (YYYYYYY) this case is addressing has already been filed, I emailed the Client’s Solicitors on 18/02/2024 (Copy of email presented as Exhibit 5) , requesting them to cease and desist and highlighting that submitting multiple claims with identical facts is an abuse of the civil litigation process. This necessitates that both the Courts and I prepare for separate court hearings, resulting in unnecessary costs in terms of time and money, particularly due to the duplication of paperwork. Additionally, this practice causes significant intimidation and distress for me as a Litigant in Person.

 

c.      Neither the Claimant nor their solicitors responded to my concerns. Owing to ill health, I was unable to file my defence against the Claim in a timely manner, which led to the Claimant obtaining a Judgment in default on 17/08/2023. Consequently, I paid £296.32 on 22/08/2023. The receipt of payment is presented as Exhibit 6.

 

d.      This is a common strategy employed by the Claimant, a notorious serial litigator, to extract substantial amounts of money from unsuspecting members of the public. Should the Courts find in the Claimant’s favour, I humbly ask that the payment already made for Claim XXXXXXXX be taken into consideration and accepted as full payment for this and any other claim the Claimant may hold against me, as the Claimant should have progressed all claims together when filing the current Claim.

 

e.      Indeed being a third party with no rights on my leasehold, the Claimant has fraudulently extracted funds from me and obtained my details from the DVLA and London and Quadrant under false pretences which goes against the GDPR.

........CONTINUED 

Afrochap

.........CONTINUED 

Hearsay evidence:

1.      The Claimant’s 'witness' is a paralegal employed by the Claimant’s solicitors and has no direct knowledge of the actual events that form the basis of the claim. Any evidence provided by this individual is second-hand, supposedly relying entirely on information supplied by the claimant, and thus cannot carry the same weight as testimony from someone who witnessed or was directly involved in the incident.

 

2.      While the Civil Evidence Act 1995 allows hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, it is required to be given less weight, especially when it comes from someone with no firsthand knowledge. Furthermore, under CPR 32.2, the court has the discretion to exclude hearsay evidence when it is of limited probative value. In this case, the witness provides only second-hand information from the claimant and cannot be considered reliable or probative.

 

3.      The claimant's Witness Statement fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, as it does not clearly distinguish between what the witness knows firsthand and what has been provided to them by others. It is evident that the individual providing the statement, being a legal assistant with no direct involvement in the events, relies on information provided by their client and lacks personal knowledge of the facts. As a result, this statement amounts to hearsay, which weakens its credibility.

 

4.      The paralegal 'witness' does not work for the Claimant’s company and therefore has no role in the operations, policies, or specific events regarding the parking charge or this case. This distance from the Claimant’s company further undermines their ability to give a credible account of the facts.

 

5.      The Claimant's Witness Statement is written in the third person, which is inappropriate for a witness statement. A Witness Statement should represent the personal account of the witness and should be written in the first person, as per CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.1, which requires a witness to state their evidence clearly, in their own words.

 

 

Unenforceable Additional Costs:

 

6.      In paragraph 13 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, it is stated that the signage provides for a "Parking Charge in the sum of £100, plus additional costs if the same remains unpaid." However, I submit that these "additional costs" are not defined anywhere in the signage or contract terms allegedly relied upon by the claimant, rendering them vague and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which requires that contract terms be both fair and transparent.

 

7.      In the Claimant’s “Schedule of losses”, the claimant has added £70 per Parking Charge Notice (PCN), claiming this as "contractual costs as per the contract terms and conditions." However, these additional costs are not referred to or specified on the signage at the site. The claimant cannot impose additional costs that are not clearly stated in the contract (assuming a contract even existed, which is disputed). This lack of transparency violates Schedule 2, Paragraph 10 of the CRA, which prohibits unfair terms 'that have the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.'

 

 

Penalty Charge, Not Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss:

 

8.      Furthermore, these additional costs appear to be arbitrary and penal in nature. Under established law principles, such as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], parking charges must either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially justified. In this case, the additional £70 is neither justified nor explained.

 

9.      The claimant has provided no breakdown or explanation of how this amount was calculated or why it is appropriate. It can only be viewed as a punitive charge designed to penalise the defendant, which is contrary to established legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties.

 

10.  The claimant’s demand for additional costs of £70 per PCN is entirely baseless. It is not supported by any clear contractual term, it violates the CRA's requirements for fairness and transparency, and it constitutes an unlawful penalty charge. The court should strike out this portion of the claim as unenforceable.

 

Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to Understand CPR and Legal Issues:

 

11.  In paragraph 27 of the Claimant's Witness Statement, the Claimant’s legal representative, who, as previously noted, has no direct involvement in the events surrounding the alleged claim, makes an entirely inappropriate and offensive assertion regarding my ability to comprehend the complexities of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The witness, without any basis, claims that I have relied on a "generic defence" found online and implies that I do not understand the references I have made to the law and CPR requirements.

 

12.  This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack. The Claimant's witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level of education, professional background, or capacity to understand legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly, embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal professionals would resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document. As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the same legal expertise as the claimant’s solicitors. However, I have made every effort to research and present a reasonable defence. The claimant’s solicitors, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard of compliance with legal procedures, especially concerning the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

13.  I respectfully remind the court that I am a litigant in person. I have every right to research legal matters and use any available resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.

 

14.  Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable behaviour on the part of the claimant's solicitors. Such conduct is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this behaviour violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which requires the parties to act justly and fairly.

 

15.  I respectfully request that the court take note of this unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly on their conduct and should be considered when determining whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the proceedings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion: Claimant's Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof:

 

16.  The Claimant, in their Witness Statement, has failed to satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Despite making various assertions about the alleged contraventions, having rights within a leasehold contract they are not a party to, and my supposed liability, the claimant has not provided adequate evidence to support their claim. Specifically:

 

a.      The Claimant’s Exhibit GS1 – Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement has woefully failed to evidence that they have any right whatsoever to intervene or act on behalf of the landlord.

 

b.      The Claimant’s Exhibit GS4 has failed to evidence that the photographed car was in fact parked at the postcode they are purporting it was seen when the photograph was taken.

 

17.  Inadequate and Speculative Witness Testimony: The claimant’s Witness Statement was provided by a legal assistant who has no personal knowledge of the events surrounding the claim. Much of the testimony provided is hearsay and fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, which requires the witness to clearly indicate which statements are based on their own knowledge and which are based on information provided by others. This undermines the credibility of their evidence.

 

18.  Despite these significant procedural and evidentiary failings, the claimant has unreasonably asserted that my defence is "without merit." I strongly reject this assertion. My defence has highlighted the claimant's failures to provide sufficient evidence and comply with legal procedures, as well as their lack of contractual authority to operate at the location. Furthermore, as a litigant in person, I have made every effort to research and present a defence that addresses the key issues in this case.

 

19.  I respectfully request that the court dismiss the claimant’s claim in its entirety due to the claimant’s failure to meet the burden of proof and their failure to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court should also consider the claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout these proceedings when making any assessment of costs.

 

20.  With the eagerly anticipated ban on false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. 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

 

 

 

 

21.  In the matter of costs, I ask for:

a.      standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

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

 

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.

Coupon-mad

That's a good, non-templatey WS.

Remove the word "fraudulently" which a Judge won't like and is inappropriate to a civil case.