Fluttering ticket parking fine

Fruitcake

Yes, it's to do with the redactions in the landowner contract.

ParkingScum

Well I won. Pretty much a landslide victory in court. Will post my witness statement and court experience for others below...

ParkingScum

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NORTH SHIELDS

Claim No.: ********

Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited

(Claimant)

- and -

Mr **************

(Defendant)

_____________________

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

I, ***** ********* of **************************************, will say as follows:

 

(Within this statement page numbers in brackets identify the location of documents referenced as evidence. Transcripts of any court cases referenced will be brought to the court hearing for the benefit of the Judge.)

 

Background

1.      On the 18/02/2023 at 11:18am the driver of vehicle registration ********* purchased and clearly displayed a valid 3 hour ticket (page 7/8) whilst parked in the Blandford Square Car Park. The Defendant refutes the statement made by the Claimant that the ticket ‘may have blown over by a gust of wind when shutting his door’ as the Defendant checked the ticket was clearly and correctly displayed before walking away from the vehicle. No such statement was ever made by the Defendant.

 

2.      Upon returning to the vehicle at approximately 13:30pm the valid ticket was lying on the reverse side still clearly displaying its unique serial number printed on both sides. A subsequent Parking Charge for breach of the terms and conditions had been issued in the drivers’ absence. The driver and Defendant had both fully honored the terms and conditions of the said car park by parking correctly, purchasing a ticket and returning to the car within the allotted time. The Claimant does not dispute that a valid ticket was purchased for the vehicle ********* at the said carpark on the said date and time nor do they dispute that the driver returned to the vehicle within the allotted 3 hour time limit.

 

 

3.      What can only be described as ‘aggressive’ recovery against the Defendant then began. All correspondence posted from the Claimant arrived late giving the Defendant less time than required to respond before deadlines when attempting to mediate with the Claimant.

 

4.      The Defendant has been subject to a continuous stream of CCJ threats (some threatening my employment) to coerce an inflated settlement outside of court.

 

 

5.      On the 04/07/23 the Claimant received (by tracked postage (pages 11/12/13/14)) the Defendants completed questionnaire in response to a Letter Before Claim and a cover letter requesting action be suspended for 30 days while CCJ threats were investigated with a financial advisor as per Pre Action-Protocol. 3 days later the Defendant received a Notification of Instruction giving 14 days to settle or face court action (pages 15/16)

 

6.      The Claimant has not even taken the time to remove other motorist’s car registration plates from images supplied in their WS; demonstrating their lack of attention or care when procuring evidence as well as a lack of care for data protection (page 17)

 

 

7.      The above points demonstrate what little regard the Claimant has for the process. A rushed, ill thought out conveyer belt process from start to finish. A Mockery.

 

Lack of Landowner Authority

8.      The Landowner Contract (page 18) submitted by the Claimant as evidence has the following discrepancies the Defendant would like to bring to the attention of The Judge;

 

9.      The Landowner Cousins Property LTD does not exist and the Defendant is therefore confused as to the Landowner Authority of the contract. Please see the Land Registry search (Pages 19/20) where the Title Absolute was transferred from Cousins Properties LTD to Hanro LTD in February 2014. The Defendant draws attention to clause 6.4 of the contract. A new contract should have been drawn up between VCS and Hanro LTD. The fact this contact has not been provided by the Claimant leads the Defendant to believe that no contract exists.

 

10.  The Claimant has redacted the names of the signatories and the addresses of both VCS and the landowner. These redactions in disclosure are inappropriate (Hancock vs Promontoria LTD (2020) EWCA Civ 907) ‘the entire document should be placed before the Court and if, exceptionally, any redactions are made, they should be fully explained and justified by the party making the redaction’.

 

11.  The contract is out of date. The Defendant would like to bring paragraph 6.5 to the attention of The Judge. The contact expired in 2019. The Defendant is confused as to how the Claimant can base their whole case on contract law and yet provide an out dated, overly redacted, invalid contract as evidence.

 

Consumer Contract Law

12.  The Claimants grievance is based solely on consumer contract law where they state the Defendant ‘Parked without clearly displaying a valid ticket’ therefore failing to comply with the contractual terms and conditions. This contravention is hugely ambiguous and places the Defendant in the same category as a motorist who parked knowingly without purchasing a ticket – a much more unfavorable offence.

 

13.  The Defendant directs The Judge to Section 62(4) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 where it states: ‘A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.’ The Claimants terms and conditions require the Defendant to be responsible for the vehicle and the ticket in the windscreen for the entire time they are parked. The definition of a car park states: ‘an area or building where cars or other vehicles may be left temporarily’. To hold the Defendant accountable for unforeseen events whist not at the vehicle and unable to intervene puts them as a consumer not only at a significant disadvantage within this unfair contract but also able to claim ‘frustration of contract’ where an event not reasonably foreseen and outside the control of the Defendant has taken place.

 

14.  ‘Force Majeure’ in the Claimant/Landowner Contract states ‘The Company shall not be liable for failure to perform any obligation under the terms of this agreement if such failure results from circumstances beyond its control’- a clause the Claimant does not extend to the Defendant.

 

15.  In relation to the above points; Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 1, Term 6 states: ‘A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’ – in this case the Claimants PCN.

 

16.  With reference to the facts stated above the Claimants parking terms are subsequently non binding to the Defendant under the protection of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

17.  The Claimant has previously stated (page 21) that ‘it is the responsibility of the motorist to fully comply with the contractual terms and conditions of parking displayed.’ The identity of the driver has yet to be clarified so I kindly request the information upon which this statement - an attempt to obligate the Defendant to the Claimants terms and conditions is based.

 

18.  Furthermore, the Claimant states that as the registered keeper of the vehicle ‘it was the appellants responsibility to correctly display their ticket as per the terms and conditions’. However, adherence to such terms and conditions can surely only be expected of the individual who was driving the vehicle at the said time the alleged breach of terms took place as opposed to one who is merely registered as its keeper?

 

Poor signage

19.  The Claimant has previously stated (page 22) that ‘signs were clearly visible from the car’ and ‘3 signs visible from vehicle’ yet show no evidence of this. Photo evidence supplied with the Claimants WS clearly shows a summers day (page 25). The alleged contravention took place on a rainy, overcast day in February. The Defendant therefore contests this evidence as it could be from months or years before or after the alleged contravention.

 

20.  Car parking signs were damaged and either posted extremely low or high as seen in the Claimants own evidence.

 

21.  No signage at all was visible from the ticket machine; the point at which the contractual agreement between VCS and the consumer is formed (page 27).

 

22.  Lettering on signs were of mixed font and sizing making them extremely difficult to read; important contractual information being especially small and illegible without kneeling on the floor or obtaining a ladder. The Claimant is relying on a specific contractual term which should be clearly pointed out – please see Parking Eye LTD vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 signage for comparison (page 28).

 

23.  Signs within the car park are un identical with some mentioning a £70 additional charge and some not. Again, these are from the Claimants own evidence. (page 26 & 29)

 

Unreasonable Charge

24.  The ‘Principal Balance’ Costs as set out in the Claimants Statement of Account section within the Letter before Claim do not show how such costs have been accrued and calculated. The Defendant highlights this attempt at ‘double recovery’ to the Court as it shows a blatant disregard for the process by using the threat of a County Court Judgement to extort sums not entitled. An ‘abuse of the process’ such as this is not tolerated. (Excel vs Wilkinson G4QZ465V).

 

25.  Any debt recovery costs to the Claimant; which are negligible due to the automated letter systems in place are covered by the original £100 PCN. 8% interest (if any) should only be claimed against the original £100 PCN.

 

26.  The Claimants addition of a £70 Debt Collection fee for the printing and posting of a pre written letter is astounding, absurd and quite frankly unreasonable. Add to this the addition of a £50 legal fee for yet another single pre written letter from ELMS and it becomes apparent that the Claimant is attempting to seek unliquidated damages as liquidated damages. The Defendant has previously asked for proof in the form of an invoice regarding the £50 legal fee but was subsequently ignored.

 

 

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.

 

Date: 20/03/2024

Signature:

                        ***** ***********

Umkomaas

ParkingScum said:

Well I won. Pretty much a landslide victory in court. Will post my witness statement and court experience for others below...

Nice one. 👍

Let's be 'avin it. We've been missing some red meat over the past couple of weeks! 🥩 😊

ParkingScum

Court Day

By this time I had been to court twice to drop off a lost defense and again to check if VCS had paid their court fee and were going to go ahead. As said on here definitely pay a visit to the court if possible as it makes it much less daunting on the day (security/metal detectors etc)

 

I arrived half an hour early and was approached by VCS's solicitor who asked me if I'd been to court before and started telling me how the process would work. I avoided getting to chatty with him. It was at this point that he realized he had no copy of my witness statement and didn't know one existed. From the advice on here I had preempted this and had proof of the email being sent and acknowledgement receipt from VCS printed out as well as a copy of VCS's 'Notice of change of legal representative' giving their email address as an option for correspondence. The solicitor then asked if he could read my copy of my WS to which I said 'no take it up with the judge.'

 

The case was held in a proper hearing room although myself, the solicitor and The Judge were the only people in there. Immediately the solicitor brought to the judges attention that he had no copy of my WS, and when asked why, he stated the claimant says they were never sent one. I politely cut in and offered The Judge my evidence (stating VCS are clearly living up to my expectations) but she didn't need it. She to had the copy of the 'Notice of change of legal representative' form and pretty much started kicking the solicitors !!!!!! about the accusation (asking him where they had ever stated to me that they only accepted documents by post)

 

We then had to adjourn for ten minutes while the court printed an extra copy out and allowed him to read it. By this point most of my nerves had subsided as I had a good feeling The Judge was going to back me on the case. VCS really didn't help their own solicitor by not giving him a copy of my WS as he had no time to prepare.

 

Court then started again and the solicitor then stated his case which was just generic contract law and how I was bound by it etc etc pretty much what VCS had been stating from the start of my parking charge. The Judge didn't really accept any of what he was saying. It was nice to see she'd clearly read all my WS and was familiar with the case.

 

I then had a chance to speak but really didn't need to. I just reiterated points from my witness statement and quoted from the transcripts I had taken along, but nothing came out as well as I had rehearsed in my head. I probably should have written word for word what I wanted to say instead of bullet points. Nonetheless my WS spoke for itself and the judge agreed with every single point on there. She paid a lot of attention the landowner contract which I wasn't expecting and agreed it was completely out of date and invalid (getting a copy of the land registry to see that the company name was incorrect really helped - so well worth doing to check the validity of any contract sent to you from a parking operator). She said they had no land owner authority to issue me a fine.

 

She agreed the signs were illegible and displayed different terms so contracts were invalid and unfair. Additional charges were unreasonable as they weren't detailed on all signs and that she was 'struggling to see how VCS' had suffered any loss as I had paid for a ticket and kept to the rules. The solicitor tried to quote from Beavis but she said that was irrelevant as this is nothing like Beavis I had paid for a ticket.

 

Overall I though The Judge was brilliant. She was shrewd and sharp and I wouldn't have wanted to get on the bad side of her. I was just really happy she'd taken the time to read all of my WS and agreed with my points.

 

She then dismissed the claim and refused any appeal.

 

I asked her about costs as I said I've had to take half a day off work to be here and after stating some legislation she awarded me £56 in costs. Feels great to be owed money from VCS no matter the small amount. I will be emailing them to give them my details for payment and reminding them of the deadline to pay.

 

Over all a great result couldn't have asked for more. A big thank you to everyone on this chat for your help you made the process a lot less daunting. I'd like to send that threatening letter to someone in the DLUHC as well if anyone knows of a direct contact email? I was told by a criminal law barrister I know that he would have shown it to the Judge as VCS know I'm not legally represented and are taking advantage of that situation knowing full well they can't recoup solicitor fees. His take on it was that the judge should know about it and they would not be happy about it.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant court report and your WS wasn't a template and well and truly demolished every aspect of their case!  Fantastic stuff.

I will add that WS to the NEWBIES thread as an example of a bespoke non-template WS.

We will need something non-templatey like this to bridge the gap between all the changes as the new statutory Code comes in, when the General Election dust has settled.

Which court was this?

If you want me to pass something misleading/threatening on to the DLUHC civil servants, I have their ear. I have them as direct named contacts and they read everything I send them. Work hasn't stopped even though there are currently no sitting MPs.

Or hold onto your evidence until after the GE because, if we get a Labour Govt there is unlikely to be a 'DLUHC'.  But there will be a final Public Consultation and draft Impact Assessment before it all gets finalised, so there will be a chance to have your say and possibly attach evidence you want the relevant Dept to read.

Fruitcake

@ParkingScum
Well done! You could if you wish complain to the DVLA what the judge said about VCS not having a contract with the landowner, so VCS should never have unlawfully obtained and processed your personal data, nor should the DVLA have sold your personal data to VCS.

You could also complain to the ICO about VCS and the DVLA with regards to your data breach.

LDast

Coupon-mad said:

Which court was this?

North Shields County Court.

Brilliant WS. Excellent court report. Outstanding outcome.

As VCS clearly obtained your data unlawfully and consider your new found confidence in the civil legal system, perhaps you should consider suing VCS for your GDPR breach.

ParkingScum

Coupon-mad said:

Brilliant court report and your WS wasn't a template and well and truly demolished every aspect of their case!  Fantastic stuff.

I will add that WS to the NEWBIES thread as an example of a bespoke non-template WS.

We will need something non-templatey like this to bridge the gap between all the changes as the new statutory Code comes in, when the General Election dust has settled.

Which court was this?

If you want me to pass something misleading/threatening on to the DLUHC civil servants, I have their ear. I have them as direct named contacts and they read everything I send them. Work hasn't stopped even though there are currently no sitting MPs.

Or hold onto your evidence until after the GE because, if we get a Labour Govt there is unlikely to be a 'DLUHC'.  But there will be a final Public Consultation and draft Impact Assessment before it all gets finalised, so there will be a chance to have your say and possibly attach evidence you want the relevant Dept to read.

Thank you. Yes it was North Shields county court. I would send the threatening letter now personally but I post it again on here and leave it to you to foward on. If I’m unable to redact my name and details from it I’ll email it to you direct if you give me your details. 

ParkingScum

Fruitcake said:

@ParkingScum
Well done! You could if you wish complain to the DVLA what the judge said about VCS not having a contract with the landowner, so VCS should never have unlawfully obtained and processed your personal data, nor should the DVLA have sold your personal data to VCS.

You could also complain to the ICO about VCS and the DVLA with regards to your data breach.

I’ll look into this thank you.