Two NPM/Gladstones Cases - WON AT COURT

Le_Kirk

AdamBliss said:
16. The Claimant’s ticketer did not give a 10-minute consideration period. 

17. There are no statements from the ticketer or attendant who was present during the incident. 

18. The agreement with the landowners (Gordon Nobles Builders Ltd) was presented as evidence by the Claimant, which outlines the terms of their contract and authority/permission to issue PCNs on the Snooker Club site, has a commencement date of 01/10/2022 -  Exhibit xx9.                                                                             

19. However, the alleged parking contravention took place almost two years prior on 31/12/2021 – Exhibit xx10.                                                                                                                         

20. The Claimant has utterly failed to present any evidence proving their authority/permission to issue parking tickets on the relevant land at the time of the alleged parking contravention in 2021 for which they are claiming an exorbitant amount of money. 

21. The Claimant did not provide all the data they hold on their system as a result this affected my defence and my case in general. I reported this to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and upon review the ICO confirmed my complaint: ‘’We have considered the issues you have raised with us. Based on this information, it is our view that National Parking Management Limited has infringed their data protection obligations’’ – Exhibit xx11. This statement provides additional evidence of the Claimant's unethical and disturbing practices.

22. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of the additional charges. 

23. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £221 for each alleged offence.

Maybe adjust as above.

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Add Jopson v Homeguard (search the forum) as unloading is not parking. You need the wording and the Transcript.

You have 2 paras numbered 20.  Remove the second one because it doesn't quite make sense.  HMRC has not identified 1000 similar roboclaims.

Remove "for each alleged offence". 

Thank you for the feedback!

AdamBliss

@Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk Looking to email this to the court/gladstones tomorrow. Any final adjustments? 

Thank you 

WS Draft 2: 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxxx

Between

NATIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -

xxxxxxxx

(Defendant) 

 

                                                       WITNESS STATEMENT

I, (name) of (address) will say as follows: 

1. 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 knowledge.

2. In this statement, I will refer to Exhibits xx01 - xx13 provided with this statement. I will indicate page and reference numbers as necessary.

Facts and Sequence of Events:

3. I am a courier delivery driver and have been since 2018. I work for Uber and Stuart. - Exhibit xx1.

4. On Friday, 31st December 2021, deliveries were required to be unloaded and dropped off to a customer at the snooker club. The vehicle was parked at the Snooker Club site since it is the safest and most convenient location for delivering packages to this business.

5. After delivering the packages to the customers at the snooker club, I returned to my vehicle and left the site. The entire process took around 5 minutes.

6. There were no clear, large and prominent signs at the entrance of the car park, and this is still the case to this day - Exhibit xx2.

7. There were no large and clear signs on the wall in front of where the vehicle was parked - Exhibit xx3. 

8. There were no large and clear signs on the fence directly behind where the vehicle was parked – Exhibit xx4.

9. There is a tree branch next to one of the signs, which covers it and reduces visibility – Exhibit xx5.

10. To this day, there are no illuminated signs to aid visibility for drivers during darker hours, such as evenings and winter afternoons – Exhibit xx5.

11. There are no clear boundaries on the site. It is very difficult to determine the boundaries of the site since there are no markings or signs at the entrance indicating any. The land is also in extremely poor condition, as evident in the pictures. The lack of large, visible signs can make it challenging for drivers to notice the terms and conditions, especially since large vehicles can block any signs present – Exhibit xx6.

12. The evidence above clearly shows that the site lacks sufficient and clear signs, especially large and prominent signs that detail the terms and conditions in a clear and large font. The Claimant’s exhibit demonstrates that the sign is unclear, particularly with regards to the small print terms and conditions which are unreadable. 

13. Based on the facts above, it is evident that the Claimant has failed to maintain and improve their signage. Despite years passing, no effort has been made to enhance the visibility of the signs and assist drivers in reading them. One simple solution to this problem could be to set up large, easily readable and illuminated signs at the site's entrance indicating the boundaries. This way, drivers can make an informed decision about whether to enter the site or not. However, no measures have been taken, and given the Claimants' practices, I don't think necessary measures such as this will be implemented anytime soon.

14. The Claimant cannot prove that I did not display a ‘’valid permit’’ as there are no close-up pictures of my windscreen.

15. The Claimant’s ticketer did not attach a PCN to the windscreen of the vehicle. The ticketer simply took pictures of the vehicle parked and also pictures of the vehicle leaving the site within a few minutes. Exhibit xx7 and Exhibit xx8.

16. There was no consideration period and there is no evidence of this. 

17. The ticketer did not allow for the 10-minute grace period outlined in section 13 of the International Parking Community (IPC) guidelines that NPM is a part of. Exhibit xx9.

18. There are no statements from the ticketer or attendant who was present during the incident. 

19. I received the notice to keeper through the post after 14 days from the date of the incident. The Date of Sending is 13th January 2022, I received the letter 2 working days after this date. - Exhibit xx10

20. According to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), a Notice to Keeper must be sent within 14 days from the date of the incident. Since this was not followed, I, as the keeper of the vehicle, am not liable for the charges from the outset.

21. The agreement with the landowners (Gordon Nobles Builders Ltd) was presented as evidence by the Claimant, which outlines the terms of their contract and authority/permission to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on vehicles in the Snooker Club site has a commencement date of 01/10/2022 – Exhibit xx11      

However, the alleged parking contravention took place almost two years prior on 31/12/2021 – Exhibit xx12. The Claimant has therefore utterly failed to present any evidence proving their authority/permission to issue parking tickets on the relevant land at the time of the alleged parking contravention in 2021 for which they are claiming an exorbitant amount of money. 

22. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Gordon Nobles Builders Ltd.

a) Gordon Nobles Builders Ltd are not the lawful occupier/owner of the land. 

b) A valid contract with the lawful owner of the land being produced by the Claimant or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful owner of the land is absent. I have the reasonable belief that the Claimant did not have the authority to issue parking charges on this land in their own name and that they therefore have no legal standing to bring this case.

23. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:

a) The Claimant has no commercial justification.
b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC Code of Practice.
c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unethical.
e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.

24. The Claimant did not provide all the data they hold on their system as a result this affected my defence and my case in general. I reported this to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and upon review the ICO confirmed my complaint: ‘’We have considered the issues you have raised with us. Based on this information, it is our view that National Parking Management Limited has infringed their data protection obligations’’ – Exhibit xx13. This statement provides additional evidence of the Claimant's unethical and disturbing practices.

25. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of the additional charges. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £190.61. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

26. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Claimant claims a sum of £190.61 for a single PCN as the amount claimed (for which liability is denied). The Particulars of Claim does NOT include any cost amount presented as contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions. We can then well assume that the figures calculated as those plucked from their imagination and as such hold no legal justification. in addition, there is a further £35 court fee and £50 legal representative's costs, totalling £275.61. 

27. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

28. I would like to draw the attention of the honourable judge to the following case that resembled my own: Laura Jopson v Homeguard.Securities, case number: B9GF0A9E. This case was also handled by Gladstones Solicitors, and it was determined by His Honour Judge J Harris QC at Oxford Court that loading and unloading is not considered parking. This is a court of appeal case, and its decision is influential on the lower court.

29. The claimants are notorious for their repeated filing of generic claims that are almost identical to the current one. The HM Courts Service has flagged more than a thousand such claims. This kind of behaviour is commonly referred to as roboclaims and is a clear violation of the public interest.

30. The claimant has accused me of using the internet for my defence. I fail to see what the issue is, as I am not legally represented and seeking advice online is my only option since I cannot afford legal representation.

31. Ultimately the Claimant is claiming a total of £275.61 This is clearly a grossly unfair and exorbitant amount to pay for a single parking ticket for only 5 minutes of unloading.

32. Based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the claim, especially the mere fact that the Claimant had no permission/authority from the landowner to issue parking charges in 2021 in the first place. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the claim must be rejected.

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. 

Defendant’s signature: 

Date: 03/01/2024

troublemaker22

This case has been rumbling for months and I haven't studied all the previous posts or the Defence, but what's the point of paragraphs 20 and 26 dealing with POFA?  POFA can only be relied on in a case where the Defendant does not admit to being the driver.  Am I getting the wrong end of the stick but doesn't the rest of the WS pretty much say that the Witness/Defendant was the driver?

1505grandad

SoT states "Defence"  -  is it not Witness Statement?

KeithP

A small point, but should the title line - repeated on every page - read IN THE xxx COUNTY COURT?
where xxx is the name of the court.
An example might be IN THE HALIFAX COUNTY COURT.

Coupon-mad

Para 28 talks about Jopson but where's the exhibit number? As I said in my earlier reply, you need the wording AND the transcript.

This (below) isn't correct.  The POFA is not about when NTKs were sent, and it's irrelevant if you are admitting to driving anyway:

20. According to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), a Notice to Keeper must be sent within 14 days from the date of the incident.

And I haven't seen anything I recognise as the usual exhibits and wording seen in the WS bundle exemplars linked for everyone to use as their WS base, in the NEWBIES thread.

troublemaker22

To summarise what @Coupon-mad, @1505grandad and I have said:

1. Paragraphs 20 and 26 are wrong and should be deleted with consequent renumbering (hopefully your Word document has automatic paragraph numbering and cross-referencing);

2.  Para 28 (now 26)  talks about Jopson but lacks an exhibit number.

3. You need to send a transcript of Jopson with your witness statement.  If you haven't got one, you can download it here https://we.tl/t-kniLdyt1eV>.

4.  You need to change the Statement of Truth to say "Witness Statement" instead of "Defence".

Good luck!

Coupon-mad

And they need the usual other exhibits as seen in the exemplar WS bundles in the NEWBIES thread.

AdamBliss

troublemaker22 said:

To summarise what @Coupon-mad, @1505grandad and I have said:

1. Paragraphs 20 and 26 are wrong and should be deleted with consequent renumbering (hopefully your Word document has automatic paragraph numbering and cross-referencing);

2.  Para 28 (now 26)  talks about Jopson but lacks an exhibit number.

3. You need to send a transcript of Jopson with your witness statement.  If you haven't got one, you can download it here https://we.tl/t-kniLdyt1eV>.

4.  You need to change the Statement of Truth to say "Witness Statement" instead of "Defence".

Good luck!

Thank you for the feedback. I have updated it.
But just the link to download the transcript of Jopson doesn't seem to work keeps saying ''page can't be found'' is the issue on my end?