Court Case for unloading bulky furniture outside own (rented) residence

UnloadTheShelves

As requested by Fruitcake, here is their WS text- since I con't know how to use dropbox, I copied and pasted their WS text here and edited our personal data with ****. Presentation is rubbish, it changed form and shape etc, this is the best I can do.

But mistakes in numbering and jumping from para 31 to 39, and adding a random para 32 at the end - those are all their mistakes!!
(again - if anyone spots that I left personal details in, please please do let me know asap so i can edit it, I am paranoid!)

Claimant's witness statement:
__________

Filed on behalf of: Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

Name of Witness: ***

Witness Statement No: One

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BROMLEY

CLAIM NO: ****

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED

Claimant

V

MR ****

Defendant

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ****

FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

 

I, *****  of Gladstones Solicitors Limited, Unit B, 210, Cygnet Court, Centre Park, Warrington,

WA1 1PP, will say as follows;

 

INTRODUCTION

1. I am a Legal Assistant, in the employment of Gladstones Solicitors Limited, who act for the

Claimant in this matter. I have conduct of this action, subject to the supervision of my principal.

The matters to which I refer within this witness statement are within my own knowledge, or based

on information provided to me by my client within the course of my instruction, save where

expressly stated to the contrary. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on

their behalf.

2. I make this witness statement in readiness for the hearing listed on **** 2024 at the Royal

Courts Of Justice and in support of the Claimant’s claim against the Defendant.

3. Within this statement, I make reference to various documents. These are now produced by me to

the court as exhibits and are specifically referred to within the statement by reference to their

exhibit numbers. These exhibits have been provided to me by the Claimant in support of their

claim. Any reference to an exhibit number within this witness statement is a reference to the

corresponding exhibit unless otherwise expressed to the contrary.

THE CLAIMANTS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE PARKING CHARGES.

4. The Claimant is and was at all material times involved in the management and enforcement of

parking on private land. The Claimant achieves this by way of a variety of schemes including, but

not limited to, warden controlled sites and ANPR.

5. The Claimant does so in accordance with the authority granted to them under the terms of a

Landholder agreement. In accordance with the terms of the Landholder agreement the Claimant is

authorised to manage and enforce parking on the land in question. The Claimant does so in return

for a right to raise charges from the users of vehicles who infringe the ‘regulations’ (a relevant

obligation) which relates to the entitlement to use the same. As a result, the Claimant does issue

Parking Charge Notices (hereinafter referred to as PCN) in relation to vehicles parked in breach of

the terms and conditions, on sites that they manage. The landholder agreement confirms that the

Claimant has a legitimate commercial interest and sufficient standing to;

a. Issue PCNs as a result of the Terms and Conditions (as detailed in the signage) being

breached; and

b. Bring proceedings in its own name.

6. The Claimant is and was at all material times a member of an Accredited Trade Association

(ATA) as evidenced by the logo displayed on the signage at the site and the Claimants

correspondence.

7. The Claimant is and has been at all material times a signatory to the Keeper at the Date of the

Event agreement (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KADOE’). Under the terms of the agreement

with the DVLA the Claimant is entitled to request that the DVLA provide the Claimant with the

details of a vehicles registered keeper as at a specific date (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Data’),

under the reasonable cause criteria, provided that certain criteria are met.

THE CLAIM

SITE DETAILS

8. The Claimant provides, manages and enforces private parking at the land located ***** (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Site’).

 

9. Now shown at Exhibit reference GS1 is a copy of the agreement between the landowner and the

Claimant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’), which sets out, inter alia, the Claimant’s

standing and rights to manage and enforce the regulations in situ at the Site.

10. The “regulations” referred to above (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Terms and Conditions’) are

displayed on signs erected by the Claimant at various points throughout out the Site. Exhibit

reference GS2.

11. The Terms and Conditions of the Site, Inter alia, express the following conditions for any motorist

using the Site;

VEHICLES MUST BE PARKED FULLY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A MARKED BAY

12. The signs are displayed at various points throughout the site as evidenced by the attached site

plan. Exhibit reference GS3, and the Driver would have had the opportunity to read and

understand them when entering and then parking at the site. An objective observer would consider

this action to have been done in acceptance of the Terms and Conditions. It is the signage that

forms the basis of the contract between the driver and the Claimant (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Contract’).

13. The signage also states that any breach of the terms and conditions of using the site will result in

the issuing of a Parking Charge in the sum of £100.00, plus additional costs if the same remains

unpaid.

14. It is the Claimant’s case that such terms and conditions are clear and fair to all motorists, in

accordance with their ATA’s Code of Practice and established case law. However, if the motorist

believes them not to be, they always have the option to leave, and not enjoy the benefits offered

from using the site. The signage situated across the Site forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing

to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the

motorist to communicate their acceptance, their performance of parking (as opposed to leaving) in

accordance with the Terms and Conditions is the act of acceptance.

15. If a driver choses to remain in breach of the terms and conditions of parking at the site, it is the

Claimants position that they agree to pay the parking charge, detailed on the signage, plus any

additional costs associated with the same. Given that the Driver has the choice as to whether to

accept them or refrain from remaining at the site, it is the Claimants case that the Terms and

Conditions should not be considered unfair or unreasonable.

16. Every recipient of a PCN from the Claimant is afforded the opportunity of appealing the PCN, via

the Claimants internal appeals process, if they consider that it is issued in error or was unlawfully

issued. In the event that the recipient fails to exercise their right to appeal via the internal appeals

process or they are dissatisfied with the outcome they have the right to make an appeal to the

appeals service hosted by their ATA.

17. Both limbs of the appeals process are designed to ensure that a person who is aggrieved by the

issuing of a PCN has the opportunity to have the opportunity to engage in ADR both with the

Claimant itself and an independent appeal entity at an early stage.

 

THE DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

18. On the **** 2020, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Contravention Date’), vehicle

registration number ****, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Vehicle’) was observed by the

Claimant to be parked in breach of the terms and conditions applicable at the site. The

photographic evidence Exhibit reference GS4 shows that the vehicle was parked outside of a

marked bay at the time of the contravention. The vehicle was therefore parked in clear breach of

the terms and conditions applicable at the site.

PCN

19. A PCN was not affixed to the vehicles windscreen at the time of the contravention.

20. As a result of the above the Claimant obtained the details of the vehicles registered keeper from

the DVLA, under the terms of the KADOE. The Defendant was named as the Registered Keeper.

The address supplied by the DVLA as being the Registered Keepers address is an address by

which notices concerning the Vehicle can be sent and is deemed to be current, given that it is the

Registers Keepers responsibility to update the DVLA of any changes. The Claimant issued a

postal PCN to the Defendant on the **** 2020 as they were the Registered Keeper of the

vehicle at the time of the contravention. Exhibit reference GS5.

21. The PCN gave the Registered Keeper three options:

i. To pay the PCN;

ii. If they were not the driver to provide the Claimant with the driver’s full name and a

serviceable address, in order that liability could be transferred; and

 

iii. To appeal the PCN initially via the Claimants internal appeals process and then if

dissatisfied by the outcome to appeal the PCN to the IAS.

22. The Defendant submitted an appeal against the PCN on the **** 2020. Their appeal

was later rejected as the PCN was issued correctly. Exhibit reference GS6.

23. No payment was made and no response was received, the Claimant therefore issued a liability

notice to the Defendant Exhibit reference GS7, on ****  2020.

24. To date the PCN remains unpaid.

 

THE DEFENCE

25. The Defendant suggests that was no contract was entered however the signage on site is the

contractual document. The rules of interpretation require simply that the parties knew of their

obligations to one-another. The Defendant was offered to comply with the normal conditions (as

clear on the sign), or park otherwise than in accordance with the normal conditions and incur a

£100 charge. The acceptance of the contract was at the point the Defendant decided to park,

having read the sign, and their consideration was the promise to pay £100 for the privilege of

parking outside the normal conditions.

26. The Claimant would like the Court to note that the Defendant is using, for the most part, a generic

defence which can be found on the internet. It is highly doubtful that the Defendant would

understand the complexities of all the references to the Civil Procedure Rules, the requirements in

the Act and in established case law, which is often the case when a Defendant is questioned about

such references at Court. Therefore, everything that the Defendant has outlined is not accepted

and denied by the Claimant.

27. Whilst the Claimant can appreciate the circumstances that led to the charge being incurred, these

do not absolve the Defendant of their liability. The prominently displayed signage at the site

makes the applicable terms and conditions clear. The Claimant submits that the Defendant

unloading furniture did not permit them to park in breach of the applicable terms and conditions.

The Claimant highlights that no unloading activity was observed by the warden. Furthermore, the

Claimant submits that it is unlikely that the Defendant was unloading over 20 large pieces of

furniture due to the size of the vehicle. The Claimant therefore denies the Defendant’s assertions

in regards to the alleged unloading of the vehicle.

 

28. The Claimant submits that tenants are not exempt from complying with the terms and conditions

applicable at the site. The Claimant highlights that the Defendant has failed to provide a copy of

their tenancy agreement in support of their defence. The Claimant reserves the right to file a

supplementary witness statement should a copy of the Defendant’s tenancy agreement be

received.

29. The Defendant avers the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are deficient, however despite this the

Claimant notes the Defendant has been able to produce a substantive Defence. In this regard, the

Claimant believes the Defendant has not suffered any prejudice.

30. Notwithstanding the above, the Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a

procedure specifically provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to

insert brief details of the Claim. In any event, the Claimant confirms that the Particulars of Claim

contained sufficient information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to;

namely:-

i. The date of the charge;

ii. The amount outstanding;

iii. That it relates to a parking charge; and

iv. That it is a debt.

31. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with the

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have

been aware of the charge in which the claim relates.

39. The Defendant raises points of dispute in regards to the amount sought within their defence. The

Claimant submits that charges are issued in accordance with the guidelines set out by its trade

association and are industry standard. Furthermore, the postal notices and signage advise that

contractual costs will be sought in the event of further action. It is therefore the Claimant’s

position it has the ability to seek the same as a part of the contract entered into for the parking

charge. The Claimant denies each and every point raised by the Defendant in regards to the

amount sought.

40. The Defendant entered a contract with the Claimant when parking on the Site. The terms of this

contract being displayed within signs on the Site. As the Defendant parked the Vehicle in breach

of the terms of this contract, a charge was incurred which the Claimant is entitled to recover.

Therefore, the cause of action in this matter is breach of contract. A decision of the Supreme Court

 

made it clear that the charges are not penal nor do they have to be reflective of the parking

operator’s loss.

41. Furthermore, Defendant asserts that under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (4.5),

the maximum amount recoverable in these circumstances is the amount specified on the notice to

keeper, in this case £100. However the Claimant relies on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Schedule 4(6) which states that the paragraph does not affect any other remedy the creditor may

have against the keeper of the vehicle. Consequently as the Claimant is seeking to recover

additional costs on an indemnity basis as outlined above, due to the Defendant’s breach of

contract; this is not affected.

42. The Claimant submits that action has been taken in accordance with the landowner agreement.

The Claimant denies the Defendant’s allegations in regards to landowner authority.

TO CONTINUE...

UnloadTheShelves

CONTINUED:

43. The Defendant was afforded the opportunity to appeal the charge to the Claimant directly and to

appeal further to the IPC. The Defendant submitted an appeal against the PCN that was later

rejected by the Claimant. The Defendant failed to respond to the Letter before Claim that was

issued to them by post by Gladstones Solicitors. The Defendant allegation that ADR was not

afforded to them is denied by the Claimant.

44. It is submitted that the defence is entirely without merit.

45. For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimant denies the defence in its entirety.

32. It is therefore submitted to the Honourable Court that notwithstanding the defence that has been

filed, the Claimant has satisfied the burden of proof in this case and is entitled to judgement.

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in 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.

Signed:

Name: ****

 

Date: 19th June 2024

Ref: ****

Gladstones Solicitors Limited

 

SCHEDULE OF LOSSES

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

(i) The sum of £100 in respect of the unpaid PCN (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Principal Debt’).

Total £100.00.

(ii) Additional costs as referred to in the signage on display at the site and referred to in the liability

notice sent to the Registered Keeper (Exhibit reference GS7) in the sum of £70.00.

(iii)By virtue of the IPC Code of Practice where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum

may be added. This sum must not exceed £70 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless

Court Proceedings have been initiated. The Claimant therefore seeks an additional amount of

£70 in addition to the monies in respect of the unpaid PCN as a contractual entitlement which

the Court should enforce. The Claimant however understands that the additional costs, in

terms of amount, are completely at the discretion of the court and are subject to its equitable

power to disallow unreasonable expenses. It is the Claimant’s position however, that as the

PCN remained unpaid, additional costs were incurred by them that were both reasonable and

reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case. The Claimant had to divert time

and resources to recover the PCN charge, including but not limited to referring the matter to

debt recovery services and instructing Solicitors (incurring yet further expense). These costs

could have been avoided had the Defendant paid the PCN within the 28 day period, specified

in the respective notice.

(iv)Additional costs incurred by the Claimant in respect of issue fee, trial fee and fixed costs.

(v) The Claimant also seeks interest at 8% or some other such rate as deemed appropriate by the

Court, pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

 

THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS:

1. Judgment for The Principal Debt of £100.00.

2. The additional costs of £70.00 or such other amount as the court considers fair and reasonable up

to a maximum of £70 given the circumstances of the case.

3. Any additional costs incurred by the Claimant to date.

4. The Claimant also seeks interest at 8% or some other such rate as deemed appropriate by the

Court, pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

Dated 19th June 2024

Gladstones Solicitors

Fruitcake

Who redacted the name/position/signature?

If it was the claimant, then Hancock v Promontoria comes into play where the judge stated that it is not appropriate to redact evidence being presented to the court.

 Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Note that this was an appeal case and is therefore persuasive on the lower courts. The problem is that the redactions hide the identity of the signatory and therefore it cannot be determined if they had the authority to form a contract with the landholder.
You should aver that the alleged signatory did not have the authority to form a contract with PCM, and in any case, the company itself was not the landholder at the time of the alleged event. That is a big problem for the claimant.

With regards to your comment that Family Mosaic does not exist, according to Companies House, it never existed because there is no record of a company by that name ever having been registered. 

Other issues are that The Companies Act 2006 requires two signatories, one from each company, in order to form a simple contract, and two signatories from each company for valid execution of documents.
Sections 43 and 44 of the CA 2006 apply.

LDast

A WS signed by a legal rep from the claimants solicitors as not a witness that has direct knowledge of the event. In addition to this fact, they state in there WS at para #6:

• 6. The Claimant is and was at all material times a member of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) as evidenced by the logo displayed on the signage at the site and the Claimants correspondence.
  
  

If they were a witness with direct knowledge of the facts, they would know that THAT Statement is mendacious because the logo/name on the sign evidenced is for an ATA that has not existed for at least 8 years. 

Therefore you should bring to the courts attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by [Paralegal or Solicitor's Name] of [Solicitor Firm name] Solicitors, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. As [Paralegal or Solicitor's Name] does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, you should respectfully requests that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

UnloadTheShelves

Fruitcake said:

Who redacted the name/position/signature?

If it was the claimant, then Hancock v Promontoria comes into play where the judge stated that it is not appropriate to redact evidence being presented to the court.

 Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Literally wowzers! I'm totally going to add this to my WS why it should be struck out! THANK YOU!! 

As I mentioned, the red editing is by me to cover where we live, but the black has been done by the Claimant so I cannot say at all what was under it!! 

I swear if I wasn't so stressed and short of time, I would love to attend this hearing properly prepared so I can smash them! Thanks Fruitcake! 

UnloadTheShelves

Fruitcake 

With regards to your comment that Family Mosaic does not exist, according to Companies House, it never existed because there is no record of a company by that name ever having been registered. 
.

It used to be Family Mosaic Housing Association, but before we moved here in 2008. Is Housing Association same as a Company? Sorry if a stupid question, I'm totally oblivious to those things, but just to have another proper argument to add to my WS. Tomorrow is literally the last day I can dedicate to any last minute edits, it needs to be sent off by Friday and I am yet to learn how to merge all my Word and PDF documents into the bundle, and that freaks me out as I'm not the tech type at all!! 

Fruitcake

It won't hurt to refer to the management agent/housing association as a company, although Companies House holds records for companies, charitable organisations, and several other types of outfits that aren't classed as companies.

I've just looked at the Companies House website, and there is a company called Family Mosaic, but it appears to be a trading name for Clarence Court (Mill Hill) Management Company Ltd, so don't say that it doesn't exist.
Do say that it is not the entity that currently manages the site, nor did it manage the site at the material time, therefore did not have the authority to form a contract with an unregulated third party parking company.

The important thing is that it is reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities, Family Mosaic and Family Mosaic Housing Association are different entities.

For example, Family Mosaic and Family Mosaic Limited are completely different companies according to Companies House.

UnloadTheShelves

Thank you so much everyone for all the time you have dedicated to advising me. I included everything you have advised me to do this afternoon.

Here is my final draft of my WS (except correct numbering and exhibit numbers) and I would really appreciate feedback, and if possible corrections to what might be absolutely necessary to change. I will have very minimal time tomorrow to give this more work, so ideally I am submitting the bundle by Friday AM the latest. 

I really do thank you all from the bottom of my heart.

Following my WS in two separate posts:

UnloadTheShelves

Name of Witness: ***

Witness Statement No.: One

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BROMLEY

Claim No.: *****

Between

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED

(Claimant)

V

MR ******

(Defendant)

________

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

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

 

INTRODUCTION

·         I make this Witness Statement (hereinafter referred to as WS) in readiness for the hearing listed on *****2024 at the Royal Courts of Justice and in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim.

 

·         In September 2020, I received a postal Parking Charge Notice (hereinafter referred to as PCN) which was issued to me on *****2020 (“posted on *****2020, “given” on *****2020) claiming an alleged breach of a parking term outside my rented residence on *****2020 – on which date a PCN was not attached to my vehicle. This caused a great confusion as I knew I have never breached any parking terms, nor any terms of my Tenancy Agreement, outside of my rented residence.

 

·         I checked the day of the alleged parking event in my diary and found out that it was the day that my family was gifted numerous heavy pieces of IKEA “IVAR series” shelves and dismantled cupboards. On the day of the alleged parking event, I collected those bulky furniture pieces in Central London. Upon returning from Central London, I had temporarily and briefly stationed my vehicle outside my rented residence for the purpose of unloading those said pieces of dismantled furniture. My residence is a flat on the third floor of a block of flats at *****

 

·         I took those furniture pieces into the building in three quick go’s in order to unload the vehicle. This Witness Statement will build on my previous Defence and again argue that I have not breached any contract or an agreement, as my vehicle was stationed for the sole purpose of unloading bulky furniture pieces, and not “parked” there as the Claimant alleges, therefore the Claimant’s claim against me is without merit.

 

·         Stationing the vehicle outside my residence for the purpose of unloading was the only option as on the day of the alleged parking event: 

 

o   there were no unloading bays available anywhere on the whole estate, whether within close or further-way proximity; and

 

o   In 2020, I had not had an access to allocated underground parking bays which are fob-protected, so could not use such bay for the purpose of unloading on the day.

 

o   In 2020 (and in fact, still to this day) the nearest free or paid parking to our building’s front door is over 500 meters away, which is not feasible when unloading of such heavy pieces is needed. In addition to that, I already provided an argument in my Defence that it is my right as a resident under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to station my vehicle to the close proximity of my residence for the sake of legal unloading of extremely heavy and bulky objects, pieces of dismantled furniture in this case.

 

BACKGROUND OF EVENTS / PROOF OF UNLOADING

This part of WS will counter the Claimant’s allegation in their WS that “no unloading was observed” and that “it is doubted that the size of the vehicle could have accommodated such load”.

 

·         On *****2020 and *****2020, my wife *****has exchanged several messages on Facebook with a Facebook member who was offering several shelves and dismantled cupboards of the IKEA IVAR series – both of 30cm and 50cm depths (Please note that my wife does not use her surname in her Facebook account and I prefer to be called ***** amongst friends and family as opposed to my legal name, which is how she refers to me in her Facebook exchange).

 

·         Collection was agreed for the afternoon of ***** 2020 from the Facebook member’s residence in Central London, the day of alleged parking event.

 

·         EXHIBIT XXX showing IKEA website page with shelves dimensions etc to prove that, when dismantled, they would have comfortably fitted into the back of the vehicle through the boot when back seating was lowered down.

 

·         Collection was agreed for the afternoon of *****2020 from the Facebook member’s residence in Central London, the day of alleged parking event.

 

·         Reading thoroughly through the Facebook messenger exchange and noticing the dates and time-stamps (Exhibit xyz), it is clear that my wife was offered – and agreed that I would collect – over twenty large furniture pieces constituting of large shelves and dismantled cupboards. It is also clear that she later – on the same day of *****2020- thanked this Facebook member for the very kind gift, confirming that it was indeed collected on the day of the alleged parking event which in itself counters the wrongful allegations in the Claimant’s WS.

 

·         EXHIBIT XXX shows that I had paid the London Congestion Charge for the day of the collection and alleged parking event, again providing a proof to my WS that the furniture pieces were collected on that day, and needed to be brought home. Once again, the sole reason from temporarily stationing my vehicle outside my rented residence was solely for the reason of unloading these bulky pieces of dismantled furniture, which in legal terms does not constitute of parking (precedent-setting case of Jopson v. Homeguard Service Ltd, 9GF0A9E will be elaborated on later in this WS in paragraphs x-y-z).

 

PRELIMINARY MATTERS: REASONS TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIM

The Claimant’s Witness Statement is not written by the witness themselves:

As the first of several preliminary matters why the Claim should be struck out, I would like to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Mr *****of Gladstones Solicitors Limited, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. As Mr *****does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Claimant’s Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

 

Derogatory comments in Claimant’s Witness Statement:

·         The Claimant’s Witness Statement is derogatory on several accounts:

 

·         In paragraph 26, the Claimant alleges that “It is highly doubtful that the Defendant would understand the complexities of all the references to the Civil Procedure Rules, the requirements in the Act and the established case law, which is often the case when a Defendant is questioned about such references at Court. Therefore, everything that the Defendant has outlined is not accepted and denied by the Claimant.”

 

·         I hereby respectfully request that the claim is struck out as this statement in the Claimant’s WS paragraph 26 is unfounded, speculative, derogatory, as well as lacking factual basis and is irrelevant to the matters at hand.

 

·         The statement is also prejudicial and does not adhere to the requirements for witness statement under CPR 32.1(1), CPR 32.1(2), CPR 32.4, CPR 32.8 and Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2.

 

·         The overriding objective of CPR 1.1 is to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. This includes ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing. The defendant can argue that allowing speculative, unfounded and derogatory comments puts them at an unfair disadvantage and is contrary to the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly.

 

·         CPR 3.4(2) gives the court the power to strike out a claim if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim, or if it is an abuse of the court’s process. The defendant can request the court to strike out the claim on the basis that it has no reasonable grounds and is an abuse of the court's process by introducing irrelevant and prejudicial information.

 

Incorrect and prohibited signage at the place of the alleged parking event

·         In paragraph 6 of his WS, the Claimant alleges the following:

 

·         “The Claimant is and was at all material times a member of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) as evidenced by the logo displayed on the signage at the site and the Claimant’s correspondence”

 

·         This statement is mendacious as the logo/name on the sign that the Claimant produced as Exhibits GS-2 and GS-4 (page 23) has not existed for over eight years. I am referring to a change from Independent Parking Committee to International Parking Committee.

 

·          I would also like to bring to the Judge’s attention that a reputable company would not display signs which charges that are prohibited by law. The Claimant’s Witness Statement is signed under a statement of truth, yet the Claimant appended an Exhibit with signage showing “additional charges” that have been prohibited since 2012:

 

Additional charges for payments by “phone, and card payments including debit cards are banned under statue, in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) regulations 2013, and in the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012. Additional charges above that of the original charge are also prohibited by the PoFA 2012.

 

Unjustified doubt of Defendant’s statement that unloading took place; and Claimant’s photographic “evidence of alleged parking event against the Defendant” spanning only 13 seconds

 

·         In paragraph 27, the Claimant’s WS states that: “The Claimant highlights that no unloading activity was observed by the warden. Furthermore, the Claimant submits that it is unlikely that the Defendant was unloading over 20 large pieces of furniture due to the size of the vehicle. The Claimant therefore denies the Defendant’s assertions in regards to the alleged unloading of the vehicle”.

 

·         As was already demonstrated in a previous paragraph XXX, the sizes of the dismantled cupboards ad shelves would fit into the boot comfortably once the back seating was lowered down (EXHIBIT XXX). In addition to that, some wooden planks of the dismantled furniture can be seen on the Claimant’s own photographic “evidence” on page 19 of their WS.

 

·         In addition to my previous paragraphs X-Y-Z which already provided enough proof that unloading indeed took place, I would like to state and request the following:

 

·         I would like to respectfully request that the claim is struck out unless the Claimant ensures that the only other true witness to the claim attends the Court Hearing: This would need to be the warden employed by the Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. / The Claimant, who, on the day of the alleged parking event took photographs of my vehicles and issued the postal PCN, and who apparently alleged that he observed no unloading taking place.

 

·         If the claim is not struck out, I politely request that this witness provides real evidence to their allegation that no unloading took place. With the warden’s “photographic evidence of alleged breach of a parking term” spanning mere 13 seconds, I submit that this evidence is not sufficient for any claim of a breach of a parking term and the claim against me should be struck out.

 

·         The Claimant’s WS has been submitted by Mr *****, who is a Legal Assistant for Gladstones Solicitors Limited, who – with all due respect – cannot testify at all as to what events took place on *****2020. I, as the Defendant, would like to state that my WS is truthful, whilst the Claimant’s WS is entirely without merit as it is not written by the witness themselves, and the claim should be struck out as a result of this (as already requested in my paragraph *XYZ*)

 

·         As has already been demonstrated in paragraphs xyz (fill in once numbered), I submitted enough proof that bulky furniture pieces have indeed been collected on the date of the alleged parking event and brought home to be unloaded at my residence. Common sense is enough to know that such amount of dismantled furniture could not be unloaded in one go while keeping the driver’s or passenger doors open. As my wife was not at home at that time, I could not ask her to stay by the vehicle to testify that unloading was taking place should the warden be on his patrol. Similarly, as we live on a social housing estate with unfortunate frequent thefts taking place, I could not leave my vehicle’s door or boot open while I was unloading the furniture pieces by the building’s lift and taking it to my third floor flat. As already stated in my Defence, I drove away as soon as the unloading had finished.

TO CONTINUE:

UnloadTheShelves

CONTINUED:

  

·         On the note of paragraphs x –y , I would also like (fill in numbers later) to state what we had often observed from our windows, or while walking around the estate: The PCM wardens are usually seen hiding in entrance doors, or behind cars parked in the disability bays, waiting for a person unloading their shopping or dropping children off, et cetera – waiting for the brief opportunity when the driver walks into the building to unload/drop off, subsequently taking quick series of photos as a “proof of alleged breach of a parking term” whilst not even displaying a yellow PCN sticker as they have been known and witnessed to “get into an argument and even a fight with the returning driver who got angry at not being given sufficient time to unload/drop off”.

 

·         This tactic seems to have taken place on the day of my alleged parking event, which I claim to be a “predatory and money making business for the Claimant”: The warden submitted a photographic “evidence” of alleged “breach of a parking term” spanning mere 13 (thirteen) seconds. I assert that this does not consist of “true evidence of a breach of any parking term” in the slightest and renders the Claimant’s case to be entirely without merit, and therefore I respectfully ask that the Claim is struck out.

 

No breach of tenancy agreement by the Defendant

·         In their WS paragraph 28, the Claimant states that “The Claimant submits that tenants are not exempt from complying with the terms and conditions applicable at the site. The Claimant highlights that the Defendant has failed to provide a copy of their tenancy agreement in support of their defence. The Claimant reserves the right to file a supplementary witness statement should a copy of the Defendant’s tenancy agreement be received”.

 

·         Attached to my WS is my Tenancy Agreement EXHIBIT XXX. In the Tenancy Agreement, there is indeed no mention of parking and/or unloading not being allowed anywhere on the estate or outside the building of one’s residence.

 

·         Under the Section 3 “Tenant’s Obligations” is a paragraph “3.13 Roadways: Not to block local roadways and other vehicular access , and to keep them, and car parking spaces, clear of unroadworthy vehicles and other obstructions.”

 

·         To prevent and pre-empt a potential supplementary witness statement by the Claimant stating that my unloading of bulky furniture pieces on the date of the alleged parking event was in breach of the 3.13 clause of my Tenancy Agreement I am hereby submitting the following evidence and exhibits:

 

o   The Claimant with their own photographs of my vehicle on the date of the alleged parking event clearly show that the road is still passable as it is wide enough to accommodate one vehicle stationed by the kerb, whilst another vehicles can still pass next to it,

 

o   To eliminate any doubt that the road is wide enough for two vehicles to drive/stop next to each other, attached is my EXHIBIT xxx, a photograph taken from our third floor balcony clearly showing that even if a vehicle is stopped next to the small playground which makes the road a little narrower, a vehicle could still stop/pass next to the parked vehicle (it is noteworthy that I had not stationed my vehicle in the place next to the playground on the day of the alleged parking event which makes the road a little narrower).

 

o   EXHIBIT xxx shows a photograph from May 2020, a couple of months before my alleged breach of a parking term. This is our Landlord notice on the *****building’s main entrance door informing residents that PCM patrols will be returning to the estate and parking permits will again need to be displayed for all vehicles. In effect, this shows that parking was allowed by the Peabody Landlord during the Covid pandemic alongside the building and the kerbs without blocking roadways, and as a matter of fact, one such car can be seen parked on the photo in the background behind the notice. Even though my alleged breach of a parking term took place after this notice was posted, it proves that unloading in that specific location did not cause a breach of clause 3.13 of my Tenancy Agreement.

 

 

o   EXHIBITS xx and yyy show more recent, time-stamped photographic evidence from 25th June 2024 showing scaffolding built alongside the whole length of the ***** building (our residence). This scaffolding is built on the pavement, with workers’ vans having a cordoned-off area on the road itself, alongside the scaffolding. This area is on the exact spot where my vehicle was stationed for the sake of unloading on the date of the alleged parking event– on the EXHIBIT photograph it is the very same place where a workers’ van is seen parked next to the scaffolding. 

 

o   This scaffolding will be in place for several months while new cladding is being installed on the building.  This clearly shows that our landlord/landowner themselves approve of the spaces alongside the kerb being used for parking and/or scaffolding taking this exact space (and all the spaces alongside the entire building), resulting in no obstruction or blockage of roadways. Therefore my stationing my vehicle there for the purpose of unloading on *****2020 was not in breach of clause 3.13 of my Tenancy Agreement either, and the Claimant cannot claim otherwise

 

o   EXHIBIT xxx shows a time-stamped photographic evidence of what does consist of road blocking. At the same time that I took photos of the scaffolding for Exhibit xxx, an Amazon delivery driver was making a delivery to our flat (see EXHIBIT of a proof of delivery in my wife’s name with the same date and time as my photos). Due to scaffolding being built alongside the entire length of *****buildings, there is nowhere else to station vehicles for deliveries, unloading, Royal Mail, maintenance vehicles, taxi pick up/drop off, emergency vehicles, et cetera, then on the second half of the length of the actual road which results into the road getting blocked as the other half is taken by the scaffolding itself. However, no such breach occurred on the date of my alleged breach of a parking term on *****2020 while I was unloading over twenty bulky pieces of dismantled furniture.

 

·         In addition to all of the above points, and perhaps most noteworthy, is the fact that there is a large body of previously heard parking ticket cases which establishes facts and protects the rights enjoyed by tenants and leaseholder residents.

In Link Parking Ltd v Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7, the Judge, referring to a similar case in Pace Recovery v Noor [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] ruled that: “…the Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract.''

 

The Claimant’s Landowner Agreement to operate a PCN enforcement service at our place of residence does not seem to be with our Landlord/Landowner; and is overall questionable

·         The Claimant’s Exhibit GS-1 shows the Agreement between the Freeholder “Family Mosaic” and PCM to “authorise the Claimant to operate a PCN enforcement service” at the place of our residence and the whole housing association estate.

 

·         However, it is noteworthy that this authorisation is from 2016 and the Freeholder has not been our Landowner nor our Landlord since my family moved into this residence in 2018. Our tenancy agreement is with ***** Housing Association, so I would like to respectfully request that the Judge decides whether this claim has any merit on the grounds that the Claimant does not seem to have an enforcement authority with the current Landowner who was also the Landowner on the time of the alleged parking event.

 

·         Similarly, “Family Mosaic” is not an entity that currently manages the site of the alleged parking event, nor did it manage the site at the material time, therefore it did not have the authority to form a contract with an unregulated third party parking company.

 

·         I would also like to point to the judge’s attention the facts of the Agreement appended as Exhibit GS-1 by the Claimant: The Claimant redacted the name, position and signature of the person who signed this agreement. I would like to challenge this on two counts:

 

 

o   Those redactions hide the identity of the signatory and therefore it cannot be determined if they had the authority to form a contract with the Landowner; as a result I am hereby averring that the alleged signatory did not have the authority to form a contract with PCM. I challenge the Claimant to prove otherwise.

 

o   In an Appeal case Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907, the Honorary Judge decided that it is not appropriate to redact evidence presented to the court (EXHIBIT XYZ). Most notable are paragraphs 74 and 75 respectively, where the Honorary Judge states that “...The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole”
[and]
“Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision.”

 

o   Last, but not least, The Companies Act 2006 requires two signatories, one from each company, in order to form a simple contract, and two signatories from each company for valid execution of documents (sections 43 and 44 of the Consumer Act apply). This has not been shown to be the case in the Claimant’s alleged “contract” to enforce parking control at place of my residence and the place of the alleged parking event at the material time.

 

·         If the Judge finds the above paragraph No. xyz accurate, I would like to respectfully ask that the case is struck out as the Claimant had no right to issue a PCN claim against me in the first place.

 

Previous appeal hearing establishing that “unloading is not parking” – Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E

 

·         Since I truthfully stated that I was unloading bulky furniture pieces my vehicle at the time of the alleged parking event and provided evidence to prove it - unlike the Claimant who did not provide any evidence of my alleged “parking for a significant duration of time” - , my case is on all fours with the persuasive appeal case heard by HHJ Charles Harris QC at Oxford: Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E. As a result, I respectfully ask that on this point and all of the above paragraphs too, this Claim against me is struck out as being entirely without merit (EXHIBIT XXX, Jopson print out).

 

·         This persuasive appeal hearing constitutes of my strongest argument why the Claim against me should be struck out before yet more Court’s time is wasted:

 

·         In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E, in paragraph 21 His Honour Judge Harris states that a car stopped temporarily or “left for a moment while unloading […] an awkward piece of furniture […] is not parked”.

 

·         In Paragraph 19 of the same appeal case, His Honour Judge Harris states the following statement on a situation that is identical to mine: “The purported prohibition was upon ‘parking’, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable […] heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time.”

 

·         Following all of the above, I strongly believe that there is no merit left in the Claimant’s witness statement, Mr *****’s derogatory statements, and in his untruthful statements as to what really happened on the day of the alleged since I seem to be the only true witness to the events of the alleged , and the only true witness who had submitted a witness statement and who will be attending the hearing.

 

Unreasonable charges:

The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added additional fees, cots and interest are genuine.

·         The claimant must provide solid evidence of:

o   (i) the alleged breach of a parking event, and

o   (ii) As per the Claimant’s WS, page 9, point 2-4, I request that the Claimant first provides the Court and myself with a breakdown of how this enhanced amount that they are asking the Judge to consider is being calculated, including an explanation how the interest is determined. 

·         The Claimant asserts in his Schedule of Losses on page 9 para (iii) of his WS Schedule of Losses that “the Claimant understands that the additional costs, in term of amount, are completely at the discretion of the court and are subject to its equitable power to disallow unreasonable expenses. It is the Claimant’s  position however, that as the PCN remained unpaid, additional costs were incurred by them that were both reasonable and reasonable and proportioned to in the circumstances of the case”.

·         I would like to respectfully request that the Judge questions a breakdown of how the Claimant calculated the enhanced amount being claimed, including an explanation of how interest would be determined. It seems as if they applied interest improperly to the entire inflated sum, which was initially £300.32 in their Letter before Claim dated *** 2023 (Exhibit ***). In neither the WS’s Schedule of Losses, nor the Letter Before Claim has the Claimant provided a breakdown of how such additional costs – £70 specifically – have been calculated, or how the additional costs and interest would be calculated if the Judge deems them as appropriate.

 

·         Most crucially, even if the Claimant attempts to justify the additional costs he is claiming on the day of the hearing, I would like to highlight to the Judge the fact that the unjustified £70 add-on debt recovery cost is not specified on the sign appended as Claimant’s Exhibits GS-2 and GS-4(page 23). Additional charges cannot be introduced after the event as determined in the persuasive appeal case of Thornton v Shoe Lane. The amount of additional charges does not appear on the sign which the Claimant alleges form a contract with the motorist, and those charges themselves are prohibited.

 

 

Supplementary Witness Statement:

The Defendant reserves the right to file a supplementary Witness Statement.

 

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.

Signed: ________________________

Name: Mr *****

** July 2024