HELP: Parallel Parking Court Claim

Coupon-mad

The defence was based on the defendant should not be held accountable for the failure of bar staff to register the vehicle reg. Just to confirm, I will be reiterating this in the witness statement alongside including all the regular stuff for the WS?

Yes.

Look at the very recent WS by @vincentvega27  and @_blueberry_  because that's what is needed.


"Is it imperative to include images of the signs in the car park in the dark? As may need to get FIL to make a trip down to the venue if needed."

Yes.

In pitch black with no flash, especially showing dark car park sweeping views with NO SIGNS VISIBLE and inside the bar showing how the need to exempt your car IS NOT PROMINENT.  

Not close ups of signs.  Quite the opposite. Keypad hidden in a corner, or worse, retained by staff behind the bar and you have to know to ask for it?  A video is equally good.

GolfR12

KeithP said:

GolfR12 said:

Hearing date is on 03/11 which I've only been advised of today! I understand from the parking thread that the Witness Statement needs to be filed no later than 14 days before the hearing, so I have until Thursday to be safe?

You best check on that.
Whilst '14 days' might be usual, the Notice of Allocation will confirm it... or not.

Look again at the Notice of Allocation. The Notice that gives the hearing date.

Is there not a paragraph something like:

Each party must deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than [ . . . ] [14 days before the hearing].

Might be on the back.

Those 'documents on which you intend to rely' are your Witness Statement and evidence.

Just had a look and it states no later than 14 days before the hearing. So this gives me until Friday to get the WS emailed to the claimant and courts. 

Will get drafting today!

UncleThomasCobley

GolfR12 said:

P.S. Claimants WS stated the defendant is using a generic defence which can be found on the internet and it is highly doubtful that the defendant would understand the complexities etc etc lol

They have also stated 'it is therefore submitted to the court that notwithstanding the defence that has been filed, my company has satisfied the burden of proof in this case and is entitled to judgement'. Is it normal for them to be asking for judgement at this stage?

In order to show unreasonable behaviour, you should highlight that the claimants  embarrassing allegation that you have no ability to understand the complexities of your defence, is insulting, unacceptable and amounts to abuse and should be sanctioned by the court.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

The defence was based on the defendant should not be held accountable for the failure of bar staff to register the vehicle reg. Just to confirm, I will be reiterating this in the witness statement alongside including all the regular stuff for the WS?

Yes.

Look at the very recent WS by @vincentvega27  and @_blueberry_  because that's what is needed.


"Is it imperative to include images of the signs in the car park in the dark? As may need to get FIL to make a trip down to the venue if needed."

Yes.

In pitch black with no flash, especially showing dark car park sweeping views with NO SIGNS VISIBLE and inside the bar showing how the need to exempt your car IS NOT PROMINENT.  

Not close ups of signs.  Quite the opposite. Keypad hidden in a corner, or worse, retained by staff behind the bar and you have to know to ask for it?  A video is equally good.

He has to take these pics in the dark tonight.

GolfR12

UncleThomasCobley said:

GolfR12 said:

P.S. Claimants WS stated the defendant is using a generic defence which can be found on the internet and it is highly doubtful that the defendant would understand the complexities etc etc lol

They have also stated 'it is therefore submitted to the court that notwithstanding the defence that has been filed, my company has satisfied the burden of proof in this case and is entitled to judgement'. Is it normal for them to be asking for judgement at this stage?

In order to show unreasonable behaviour, you should highlight that the claimants  embarrassing allegation that you have no ability to understand the complexities of your defence, is insulting, unacceptable and amounts to abuse and should be sanctioned by the court.

Will definitely highlight this, thank you 

GolfR12

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

The defence was based on the defendant should not be held accountable for the failure of bar staff to register the vehicle reg. Just to confirm, I will be reiterating this in the witness statement alongside including all the regular stuff for the WS?

Yes.

Look at the very recent WS by @vincentvega27  and @_blueberry_  because that's what is needed.


"Is it imperative to include images of the signs in the car park in the dark? As may need to get FIL to make a trip down to the venue if needed."

Yes.

In pitch black with no flash, especially showing dark car park sweeping views with NO SIGNS VISIBLE and inside the bar showing how the need to exempt your car IS NOT PROMINENT.  

Not close ups of signs.  Quite the opposite. Keypad hidden in a corner, or worse, retained by staff behind the bar and you have to know to ask for it?  A video is equally good.

He has to take these pics in the dark tonight.

FIL will be going to the venue tomorrow night so will get the pics and submit WS first thing on Friday morning. He has however advised the signs now are more prominent than they were back then so should I also note this in the WS? Bearing in mind the defence was based on the fact the vehicle reg's were provided to bar staff and he cannot be held accountable for their failure in not registering them. Just a bit confused on which angle to attack this from.

Also just to point out, the claimants WS still relates to two vehicles (one of which he was obviously not the driver of). Should I highlight this again in the WS?

Coupon-mad

If he wasn't driving on one of the occasions, he can also use VCS v Edward and Excel v Smith (two persuasive appeals) IF THE NTK IS NON-PoFA. Does he have a copy of the right NTK for the car he wasn't driving?  Let's see.

GolfR12

Coupon-mad said:

If he wasn't driving on one of the occasions, he can also use VCS v Edward and Excel v Smith (two persuasive appeals) IF THE NTK IS NON-PoFA. Does he have a copy of the right NTK for the car he wasn't driving?  Let's see.

Apologies, confusion on my part. The claim relates to CAR 1 on 10/11 and CAR 2 on 11/11. In the defence, it was denied that the defendant was the driver of CAR 2 on 11/11. The defendant does not recall receiving any pre claim correspondence from the claimant. 

Coupon-mad

OK so he can still use both cases and put the Claimant to strict proof of keeper liability being invoked.

Search the forum for:

VCS Edward Excel Smith

as I wrote some wording about them last week.  You can copy it and I'll link the transcripts.

GolfR12

                                                                 

Table of Contents Witness Statement of Defendant  Exhibit xx-01 - Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan Judgment  Exhibit xx-02 - Parallel Parking v Anon. Exhibit xx-03 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1  Exhibit xx-04 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1 Exhibit xx-05 – Signage Upon Entry Exhibit xx-06 – Signage in Venue.  Exhibit xx-07 – Online Banking Transaction Exhibit xx-08 - Excel v Wilkinson Case Transcript Exhibit xx-09 - The Beavis case sign for comparison Exhibit xx-10 - ParkingEye Limited v Beavis  

 

 

 

 

Parallel Parking Ltd (Claimant)

V

XXXXX (Defendant)

 

Witness Statement of Defendant

 

1.       I am XXXXX, (ADDRESS) 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.       In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 1-10) 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.       The Defendant draws 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, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes 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 xx-01).

 

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 xx-02)

 

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 xx-03)

 

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 below, 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 xx-04)

 

8.       The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

 

9.       The Defendant would like to highlight the Claimant’s embarrassing allegation that the Defendant has no ability to understand the complexities of his defence. This is insulting, unacceptable, amounts to abuse and should be sanctioned by the court.

 

 

Facts and Sequence of events

10.    Date and Time of the Incident: On Thursday, XX November 2022, at approximately XX:XX, I visited XXX for social purposes in vehicle registration XXXXXXX.

 

11.    On Approach: As I approached the car park for XXXXX, I do not recall encountering any prominent signs with regards to parking at the site. I understand the signage has been updated since the date of the alleged contravention (See Exhibit xx-05).

 

12.    Parking: I had been notified by a friend that parking at the site was free, and all that was required was to provide my vehicle registration to bar staff.

 

13.    Venue Entry: Upon my entry to the venue, I encountered one sign which stated ‘Please make sure you register your car with bar staff when you purchase your drink’ (See Exhibit xx-06). There was no ‘keypad’ in sight.

 

14.    Registration Provided: To the best of my knowledge, I provided my vehicle registration to bar staff upon my purchase of a drink, as evidenced by transactional data from my Online Banking (See Exhibit xx-07). As the Defendant, I cannot be held responsible for bar staff failing to register my vehicle if they failed to do so.

 

15.    Contract for Parking Enforcement: The Claimant has provided a ‘Contract for Parking Enforcement’ between Parallel Parking Ltd (Claimant) and the owner of the car park for XXX (The Client). This states that ‘The Contract between Parallel Parking Ltd and XXX is for 12 months starting with the agreed date 4th January 2021 until 3rd January 2022. At least 1 month before the contract is due to expire a ‘contract renewal’ will take place to discuss the renewal. The Claimant is put to strict proof with regards to the renewal of the contract.

 

16.    Vehicle Registration XXCAR 2XX: VCS vs Ian Edward (appeal) established that a keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver even if they are silent. The claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant was the driver of vehicle XXCAR 2XX at the time of the alleged contravention.

 

 

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

 

17.    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.

 

18.    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.

19.    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.

20.    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."

21.    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

 

22.    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.

 

23.    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.

 

24.    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.

 

25.    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.

 

26.    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.

 

27.    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.

 

28.    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).