Two NPM/Gladstones Cases - WON AT COURT

AdamBliss

I got a letter from the court today regarding the 2nd Claim (4 PCNs)
Need to send WS by 15th January
1st Claim I got until 4th January

Both Claims will have the same hearing date/time on 22nd Jan

Coupon-mad

Are you sure?

Having a WS deadline just 7 days before a hearing is unheard of. If there are 2 hearing Orders it's more likely 2 hearings.

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Are you sure?

Having a WS deadline just 7 days before a hearing is unheard of. If there are 2 hearing Orders it's more likely 2 hearings.

Yup, 3rd paragraph includes the 1st Claims' case number. 
So 2 Claims on the same exact hearing date/time. 

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Are you sure?

Having a WS deadline just 7 days before a hearing is unheard of. If there are 2 hearing Orders it's more likely 2 hearings.

And says here by 15th January - exactly 1 week before the hearing date we have to send WS/documents 

2 claims in 1 hearing - I don't know whether this is a good thing for me or not

Coupon-mad

£85 is a high hearing fee. Remind us how much these two claims are for?

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

£85 is a high hearing fee. Remind us how much these two claims are for?

1st Claim (1PCN) : £275.61 - Trial Fee: £27 deadline 4pm 25/12

2nd Claim (4 PCNs) : £923.12 - Trial Fee: £85 deadline 4pm 29/12

Not sure if any of the trial fees have been paid already. 

Coupon-mad

Loving the fact they are required to pay two hearing fees for one hearing!

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Loving the fact they are required to pay two hearing fees for one hearing!

Haha true 

AdamBliss

Witness Statement Draft:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXX

Between

National Parking Management Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -

XXXXXXXXXX

(Defendant) 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

I am xxxxxx of xxxxxx address

 

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 my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits xx01- xx11 within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. 

 

Facts and Sequence of Events:

3. I am a courier delivery driver and have been since 2018. I work for multiple companies such as Uber and Stuart.

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 customer 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 xx1.

7. There were no large and clear signs on the wall in front of where the vehicle was parked - Exhibit xx2. 

8. There were no large and clear signs on the fence directly behind where the vehicle was parked – Exhibit xx3.

9. There is a tree branch next to one of the signs, which covers it and reduces visibility – Exhibit xx4.

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 understand the terms and conditions, especially since large vehicles can block any signs present – Exhibit xx6.

12. 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 important measures such as this will be implemented anytime soon.

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

14. 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. Exhibit xx7 and Exhibit xx8.

15. There was no 5-minute grace period and there is no evidence of this. 

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

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

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

18. 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.

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

20. 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.

 20. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

22. "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. 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 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.

23. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Gordon Nobles Builders Ltd.
Gordon Nobles Builders Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land

Based on the issues outlined above, the claim cannot be successful.
@Lemon_Tree

@Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk

This is my WS so far, Are any improvements to be made? I'm sure there are some not sure what else I can include. 

Coupon-mad

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".