Upcoming court case - UK CPM

velour

Hi all,

I have a pending court case with UK CPM for a parking ticket received while at the hairdressers in 2019. I have been through the process to get this far thanks to the hugely helpful advice from this forum and hope you might be able to give me some feedback on my witness statement, to submit this week for the court case on 12 May. 
I have attached a redacted version of the witness statement from UK CMP and my own redacted draft.

I'd be very grateful for any thoughts and comments.

I have not put anything in the statement about the appeal, which was declined as I submitted it after 22 days and their cut off is 21. They are a member of both the IPC and the BPA, who state 21 days and 28 days in their respective guidance about appeals timescales I wasn't sure if it was worth putting anything in the statement?

Many thanks

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pW7Nsw8aKSJP3npD1wTmJoqa1ufm6kBY/view?usp=share_link

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MDCJzhiZlQySoyzyb3NEpttn9_bFsUnd/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=100171334549522210471&rtpof=true&sd=true

B789

They are BPA members but they are accredited to the IPC and so the IPC CoP is the one that applies.

B789

You could point out in your para #9 that the entrance sign is not only improperly pointed out in the Cs plan but is, as shown in this GSV image to be much further to the left as you approach the entrance, is unreadable if you were standing more than a few feet away, never mind from a moving vehicle and appears to be related to the driveway it is actually posted on:

https://goo.gl/maps/QXECPi5gy7BRhVQTA

vs the Cs plan:



Where is the entrance sign in this GSV?



Or is this the signed for the driveway it is immediately next to?

velour

Thanks - I'll leave the appeal timescale out.

On the signage, the car park where I parked is accessed through a different (council managed) car park. The entrance sign you see on Google maps is actually for the council car park - there are no entrance signs to show that the car park after the bollards is different. Should I point this out as a separate paragraph?

B789

velour said:

Thanks - I'll leave the appeal timescale out.

On the signage, the car park where I parked is accessed through a different (council managed) car park. The entrance sign you see on Google maps is actually for the council car park - there are no entrance signs to show that the car park after the bollards is different. Should I point this out as a separate paragraph?

I know that it is accessed through the Council car park but the sign for the car park you parked in is that illegible green/yellow sign that is nowhere near the entrance to the separate car park you parked in. I'm just highlighting how you ay want to do this in your WS to make it clear to the Judge that the obligatory sign from their CoP is not where it is shown on their plan, is not at the entrance to the separate car park and is obviously unreadable and appears to be applicable to the driveway it is immediately adjacent to.

velour

Also realised I forgot to mention that UK CPM have confirmed they will not be attending the hearing

Umkomaas

velour said:

Also realised I forgot to mention that UK CPM have confirmed they will not be attending the hearing

Hardly any PPC ever does. But ..... they will be fielding a gun-for-hire legal advocate to act for them. 

velour

B789 said:

velour said:

Thanks - I'll leave the appeal timescale out.

On the signage, the car park where I parked is accessed through a different (council managed) car park. The entrance sign you see on Google maps is actually for the council car park - there are no entrance signs to show that the car park after the bollards is different. Should I point this out as a separate paragraph?

I know that it is accessed through the Council car park but the sign for the car park you parked in is that illegible green/yellow sign that is nowhere near the entrance to the separate car park you parked in. I'm just highlighting how you ay want to do this in your WS to make it clear to the Judge that the obligatory sign from their CoP is not where it is shown on their plan, is not at the entrance to the separate car park and is obviously unreadable and appears to be applicable to the driveway it is immediately adjacent to.

Ah, I understand. Sorry. Thanks, I'll update paragraph 9 to make it clear that's what I'm saying. 

Coupon-mad

That's a very good first half witness statement but bin the second half and the Britannia v Crosby case which was effectively appealed, and so is out of date and no use.

That old WS version is also silent about the new Government Code of Practice (part of statute law) coming in, which is a useful steer for a Judge.

Also remove the heading 'abuse of process'.

Instead grab the second half seen in more recent WS bundles, e.g. by @aphex007 or @SJRRJS and add instead Excel v Wilkinson as your exhibit.

I think you are missing a point that you made well in your appeal, that there was no term that required any 'display' of a permit.  Both the PCN and Notice to Keeper state that the breach was 'failure to display'.

But no sign sets that contravention.  Thus, the defence must succeed on lack of 'relevant contract' and an indisputable absence of breach of breach of any 'relevant obligation' (PoFA 2012, Schedule 4 refers and defines this basic starting point).  The claim should never have been brought, let alone pursued to a hearing.  It is not just meritless but worse, it is purely vexatious bullying of a person who they should have thanked four years ago, for drawing to their attention that their purported contractual sign was on the floor.

It would go well after your point 14.

And I think you should state that you appealed, you disputed the charge with valid points which - despite the requirement for both parties to narrow the issues at pre-action stage - were completely ignored by this Claimant, on the flimsy excuse that it arrived "a day late" as per their self-serving trade body's arbitrary 21 day time limit.

I would also state that this is clearly designed to 'time people out' and is both unprofessional and unfairly short, being a week less than the rival BPA trade body stipulates and the standard 28 days appeals allowance is also echoed and set out in the Government's new incoming Code of Practice (linked later in this witness statement) which is progressing (despite currently stalled by bullets fired by the parking industry) and which will replace both the BPA and IPC Code within months.

Timing people out and refusing to even look at a dispute which would have avoided court action altogether (NB: the appeal referred to and included a photo that the Claimants have disingenuously REMOVED from the appeal exhibit, which evidenced at the outset that their parking sign is clearly discarded on the ground) is wholly unreasonable conduct.  Parties' behaviour (whether or not acting ostensibly in line with a Code of Practice) both before and during litigation must be considered when it comes to costs.  CPR 44.4(3) states that when deciding the amount of costs, the court will also have regard to “(a) the conduct of all the parties, including in particular:

(i) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings; and
(ii) the efforts made, if any, before and during the proceedings in order to try to resolve the dispute”

in support of that, there's really good stuff about costs and some great case authorities here that press the point about parties behaving unreasonably:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80000209#Comment_80000209

velour

Coupon-mad - fantastic thank you! I'll update my WS based on those comments, and the others received and aim to post an updated version soon.

This is a great forum! :-)

velour

Hi,

I've added a further 2 paragraphs following your excellent advice and have amended the later part to refer to 'The quantum' rather than 'Abuse of process - The quantum), referencing Excel vs Wilkinson. 

Could you tell me if these additional 2 paragraphs are OK:

Contract

There is no term on any of the signage, including on the example submitted by the Claimant as Exhibit GS2 and the photograph in Exhibit GS5, that requires any display of a permit. However, both the PCN and Notice to Keeper alleged a breach entitled ‘Not displaying a valid permit’. No signage sets this contravention and so the defendant submits that there is no relevant obligation which could have been breached (PoFA 2012, Schedule 4 refers and defines the basic starting point as the driver having a relevant obligation to pay parking charges). The defendant submits that this claim should never have been brought, let alone pursued to a hearing.  It is not just meritless but worse, it is purely vexatious bullying of a person who the claimant should have thanked four years ago, for drawing to their attention that their purported contractual sign was on the floor.

Appeal

The original PCN was appealed following the process laid down by the Claimant, clearly stating the dispute with valid points which have been re-iterated in this statement. However, despite the clear requirement for parties to narrow issues pre-action these valid points were completely ignored by the Claimant on a flimsy excuse that they were submitted a day late according to their own arbitrary time limit. The Defendant submits that this time limit is clearly designed to ‘time people out’ and is both unprofessional and unfairly short. It is a week less than the 28 days stipulated by the other industry trade body, the British Parking Association (BPA). It is also less than the 28 day appeals allowance set out in the Governments incoming Code of Practice (linked later in this Witness Statement) which is progressing and will replace the codes of conduct of both the IPC and BPA within months. 

Thanks again.