CAPITAL CAR PARK CONTROL / DBL LEGAL COSTA COFFEE PCNs

Metaphysicist

KeithP said:

Metaphysicist said:

Umkomaas said:

Metaphysicist said:

I have submitted my defence today around 30 minutes ago but have not received an auto correspondence confirmation from dcb legal and Shoreditch county Court. Should I be worried? Thanks.

You're submitting outside of normal business hours (9-4) which has been known to cause problems from time to time. Keep an eye on it this evening, if you don't get the acknowledgment, try again tomorrow morning. 

The issue is today was my last day to send it.

Then your deadline was 4pm today.
Like the banks, anything that takes place after the end of the working day is attributed to the next working day.

Keep your fingers crossed, and as previously mentioned, resend the email during working hours early tomorrow.

Sorry I meant my deadline is tomorrow which is Wednesday the 19th. I wanted to send it today so it’s not on the day of the deadline. Thanks 

KeithP

@1505grandad and @Umkomaas, remember this is following a successful set aside. 

Coupon-mad

Metaphysicist said:

KeithP said:

Metaphysicist said:

Umkomaas said:

Metaphysicist said:

I have submitted my defence today around 30 minutes ago but have not received an auto correspondence confirmation from dcb legal and Shoreditch county Court. Should I be worried? Thanks.

You're submitting outside of normal business hours (9-4) which has been known to cause problems from time to time. Keep an eye on it this evening, if you don't get the acknowledgment, try again tomorrow morning. 

The issue is today was my last day to send it.

Then your deadline was 4pm today.
Like the banks, anything that takes place after the end of the working day is attributed to the next working day.

Keep your fingers crossed, and as previously mentioned, resend the email during working hours early tomorrow.

Sorry I meant my deadline is tomorrow which is Wednesday the 19th. I wanted to send it today so it’s not on the day of the deadline. Thanks 

But what about the rest of the bundle as advised?

Metaphysicist

Coupon-mad said:

Metaphysicist said:

KeithP said:

Metaphysicist said:

Umkomaas said:

Metaphysicist said:

I have submitted my defence today around 30 minutes ago but have not received an auto correspondence confirmation from dcb legal and Shoreditch county Court. Should I be worried? Thanks.

You're submitting outside of normal business hours (9-4) which has been known to cause problems from time to time. Keep an eye on it this evening, if you don't get the acknowledgment, try again tomorrow morning. 

The issue is today was my last day to send it.

Then your deadline was 4pm today.
Like the banks, anything that takes place after the end of the working day is attributed to the next working day.

Keep your fingers crossed, and as previously mentioned, resend the email during working hours early tomorrow.

Sorry I meant my deadline is tomorrow which is Wednesday the 19th. I wanted to send it today so it’s not on the day of the deadline. Thanks 

But what about the rest of the bundle as advised?

I’ve looked everywhere for it with no avail. I have messaged the members directly with no reply unfortunately. I have read every discussion from their profile did not find it. I do not have any time left I wanted to do what you advised and submit the bundle as well, which I still could but I am unable to find it. I did not want to come across as a nuisance to you hence why I did not ask again. 

Metaphysicist

Metaphysicist said:

Coupon-mad said:

Metaphysicist said:

KeithP said:

Metaphysicist said:

Umkomaas said:

Metaphysicist said:

I have submitted my defence today around 30 minutes ago but have not received an auto correspondence confirmation from dcb legal and Shoreditch county Court. Should I be worried? Thanks.

You're submitting outside of normal business hours (9-4) which has been known to cause problems from time to time. Keep an eye on it this evening, if you don't get the acknowledgment, try again tomorrow morning. 

The issue is today was my last day to send it.

Then your deadline was 4pm today.
Like the banks, anything that takes place after the end of the working day is attributed to the next working day.

Keep your fingers crossed, and as previously mentioned, resend the email during working hours early tomorrow.

Sorry I meant my deadline is tomorrow which is Wednesday the 19th. I wanted to send it today so it’s not on the day of the deadline. Thanks 

But what about the rest of the bundle as advised?

I’ve looked everywhere for it with no avail. I have messaged the members directly with no reply unfortunately. I have read every discussion from their profile did not find it. I do not have any time left I wanted to do what you advised and submit the bundle as well, which I still could but I am unable to find it. I did not want to come across as a nuisance to you hence why I did not ask again. 

I think I found it at almost 1am 😴. Can you please confirm this is the right exemplar WS bundle ? 

1. I am _____________ of __________ and I am the defendant against whom this claim is being made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based on my own knowledge.

2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

3. Both dates of the PCNs (__/__/2019 and __/__/2018) were unremarkable days in my memory and it is impossible for me to recall the exact circumstances that led to any alleged overstay at Norwich Riverside Retail car park.

4. Though I am the registered keeper, I have not been the only person to drive the vehicle in question, so it is impossible for me to confirm on such unremarkable days that I was the driver at the time of the alleged overstay.

5. Though I cannot recall the specifics of the above listed days, there are several reasons why an overstay may have been recorded: 

6. The first is the typical ANPR camera flaw known as ‘double dip’, referenced in the new Code of Practice and in my defence. The Claimant has provided no evidence that manual checks were completed on __/__/2019 or __/__/2018 to discount the possibility of this known and well-documented error.

7. The second is the frequent congestion that the car park is known to experience. Evidence of this congestion is provided in EXHIBIT 1, a local news article from 2021 with the most relevant phrases highlighted. Further evidence is presented in EXHIBIT 2, and in customer reviews on the website Parkopedia in EXHIBIT 3.

8. EXHIBIT 4 shows an aerial view of Riverside. From this image, it is possible to see how much traffic is forced to use the exit on Albion Way, and therefore easy to understand how the frequent congestion detailed in EXHIBITs 1-3 occurs.

9. The third reason is that I am the mother of two young children, one of whom was in nappies and being breastfed at the time of the alleged overstays, and the other of whom has had medical issues that led to her being treated under the NHS child incontinence service until recently. It is entirely possible that any overstay could have occurred due to an emergency related to the children. Such emergencies have occurred frequently when I have been out with the children, so it is impossible for me to recall any dates. 

10. Finally, it is my belief that the 2.5 hour limit on parking at Riverside is insufficient, and only put in place to deter football parking. Nearby retail parks, such as Hall Road and Sweet Briar, are much smaller and have fewer shops, and yet they have no time limit to parking at all. I have always been a genuine customer and spent money at Riverside, usually at Matalan, B&M, Starbucks, Costaand Boots. 

11. In summary: the Claimant’s statement claims that I “failed to adhere to the terms of the contract by parking as [I] did”. The Claimant cannot offer any proof that a) I parked the car at all, as I cannot say with honesty that I was the driver, b) the cameras were in good working order and had been checked manually on the days of the alleged overstays, and c) that my car was parked for over the maximum allotted time; their cameras can only prove that the car was IN the car park, not parked. In addition, any overstay that might have occurred may have been due to circumstances out of my control, and in this case, any action against me is excessive and unfair. 

12. With regards to Claim J2KF584Q, I maintain that the two claims are identical and ask the court to vacate the second hearing and summarily dismiss those claims under the grounds of cause of action estoppel.  In the alternative, the Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

13. I did not receive the letters from the Claimant until they came to my current address because at the time the letters were issued, I was not living under the name or at the address on the forms due to the breakdown of my marriage, and could not access my logbook or other documentation due to complications arising from being a victim domestic abuse. Letters sent to my old address were disposed of by my ex-husband without my knowledge.

14. For this reason, I was unable to take advantage of any appeals process.

 

Abuse of process – the quantum

 

15. The Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that the intention is for this to be banned in the new Code of Practice. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. AlsoParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified ‘admin costs’ inflating it to £135 ‘would appear to be penal’, i.e, unrecoverable. 

16. My stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding ‘debt recovery costs’ were ‘extorting money’. The Department for Levelling Up, Housng and Communties (‘DLUHC’) published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

17. Whilst it is known that the rogue parking industry have just filed Judicial Reviews and have delayed the new Code of Practice (as per paragraph 27), the Government is pressing ahead and has conceded to undertake a final Public Consultation and Impact Assessment, as the latter was missing from their rationale. Going by the damning words of the Minister, and the fact that two consultations and an industry and consumer represented Steering Group have already informed the DLUHC's decision over the past two years, I believe there is no reason to think the Government's view will significantly change about adding unconscionable costs that were not incurred and which merely exist as a mechanism to enhance already-doubled parking charges, to fuel the roboclaimrace to court and to side-step the £50 legal fees cap set in the Small Clams Track.

18. Adding debt recovery/costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is due to be banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

19. This particular Claimant's legal team routinely continues to pursue a sum on top of each PCN, despite indisputably knowing that these are banned costs in the incoming statutory Code of Practice. The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and unincurred 'damages' enhancement of £60 upon which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking. Clearly an abuse of the court process.

20. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "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."

21. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response (also in February 2022), they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, and are effectively Trade Body Board member colleagues passing motorists' data around electronically and seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced.

22. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the full parking charge itself more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called a 'letter chain' business model that generates a healthy profit.

23. These are costs which the Claimant has neither paid nor incurred and were not quantified in prominent lettering on alleged signage. Introducing the purported 'costs' add-on in later debt demands is a moneymaking exercise to extract a high fixed sum from weaker motorists and came far too late. I did not agree to it.

24. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts.

25. This overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy). Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further.

26. It is pertinent to note that the Britannia v Semark-Jullien appeal judgment by HHJ Parkes criticised the District Judges at Southampton, for apparently not having enough evidence to conclude that Britannia 'knew' that their added costs were abusive (unincurred, unpaid and unjustified). Unbeknown to HHJ Parkes, of course all District Judges deal with template, generic evidence and arguments from parking operators every week, and BPA member firms including Britannia, certainly had been told this by Judges up and down the Country for many years. And the decision and words used by the DLUHC show that DJ Grand and DJ Taylor were right all along. As was HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson (not appealed - see Exhibit xx-16) where she went into great detail about this abuse.

27. The Semark-Jullien case is now unreliable going forward and is fully distinguished now that the Government has at last stepped in and exposed and published the truth. This Claimant indisputably has knowledge (and always had knowledge) that they have not paid a penny in debt recovery costs, nor incurred any additional costs that the £100 parking charge is not designed to more than cover. The abuse is now clearly established and a new judgment re-stating this position, in the light of the damning words in the Foreword and the Explanatory Document published alongside the Code of Practice and stating (for the avoidance of doubt) the knowledge that District Judges have from years of experience of seeing these template enhanced claims and telling this Claimant to stop bringing exaggerated parking claims to court, would be welcomed to bring much needed clarity for consumers and Judges across England and Wales.

28. In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those old cases, significant errors were made. Evidence - including unclear signage and Codes of Practice - was either ignored, even when in evidence at both hearings (Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to regulatory DVLA KADOE rules requiring landowner authority) or the judgment referred to the wrong rules, with one Judge seeking out the inapplicable BPA Code after the hearing and using it erroneously (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver, was inexplicably aligned with Beavis. The learned Judges were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC.

My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14 34. 

29. As a litigant-in-person, I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs. I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave.

 

30. The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD 27, 7.3(1) ''The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person.''

 

 

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. 

Exhibit 1

Metaphysicist

Hi,

Can someone please confirm this is the right exemplar WS bundle above? 

Regards 

Coupon-mad

Yes, but do a comparison between your Defence and the second half of that WS as I suspect it's a lot of repetition; in which case you don't need to repeat those paragraphs that are already in your defence.

And don't put "finally" in para 10.  

Your WS says the location is:

"Norwich Riverside Retail car park".

I didn't think it was?  Did you copy that in error?

If it was Norwich Riverside Retail park:

I seem to recall that there is no BPA compliant entrance sign (which you should say is a breach) and instead, there's a large sign on the left on the winding approach, that we saw a photo if a few months ago (a fairly recent thread).

IIRC it identified the principal (JLL) and sets out that the inly rule is free parking between certain stated hours for customers only.

This is important because that sign identifies the principal as the Managing Agents Jones Lang Lasalle, therefore the visible invitation and parking contract offered at the entrance is by THEM not this claimant, and there

Search the forum for threads about the retail park if it is Norwich Riverside Retail park....is it?

KeithP

There are lots of unanswered questions here.

@Metaphysicist, what happened next?

jrc123

Any update on this one? As i am going through the same thing

Le_Kirk

jrc123 said:

Any update on this one? As i am going through the same thing

The OP joined on 12th April and was last active on 19th April, so it might be better to send a PM (use the envelope symbol at top of page) and ask your question direct.