ParkingEye Witness Statement help/review.

mickey_blu

Hi all. 

First post newb so I'll be brief in detailing my case. Before I do though, an important inclusion that last year I successfully defended a PCN in a county court. Basically, my defence was that I thought the car park was free as there was literally a banner upon entry saying 'Free Parking' (which I had images of) and the case was adjourned due to the claimant not being able to cross examine on the day (because they were using a representative who knew nothing about the car park in question). Then in the end it was thrown out due to insufficient evidence. This has given me confidence moving forward where I believe I have genuinely been stiffed by a parking firm.

ParkingEye sent LBC, I submitted defence, N180 and refused mediation as advised on the sticky forum. Court date is set for next month and I took a day off work today to get my witness statement written up. 

Some context: 

1. They made an error on their witness statement (typo about timings from the ANPR)
2. There is no lighting in the car park, it's pitch black at night yet all the signage they provide in their witness statement exhibits are in broad daylight. I've mentioned this in paragraph 6 and have pictures included in the exhibit)
3. No sign upon entry of the car park, it's blocked from  drivers view by a height restriction barrier.
4. I wasn't actually driving, my partner was but I haven't included this as part of my defence (should I?)
5. I keep referring to 'I' in my witness statement but at no point own up to being the driver. Should I replace anything?

Here is my witness statement so far:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXX       CLAIM NO.: GXXXXX

Between

PARKINGEYE LTD

(Claimant)

- and -

XXXXXXX                                        (Defendant)

_____________________________

1st WITNESS STATEMENT

_____________________________

I, _________ of ________ will say as follows:

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I confirm that I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on April 24th 2022 and thereafter date.

3. I confirm that my vehicle entered the _________ car park in _________ on _________ 2022 at ___pm. I want to emphasize that I was not aware of any displayed terms and conditions or the requirement for tariff payment in the XXXXX  car park. Despite regular visits to this car park for the purpose of collecting food, I have never seen any signage indicating the need for payment. Based on my previous experience, I believed the car park was free for short stays to collect food which I do frequently from _________ Road.

4. In the claimant's witness statement regarding the ANPR camera time. The claimant states that my vehicle left the car park at 28:38. However, in paragraph 3 of their own statement mentions that the vehicle entered at 20:23 and left at 20:28, which I believe to be the correct time (Exhibit XX-01). This inconsistency raises doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the claimant's evidence.

5. I have concerns regarding the reliability and accuracy of ANPR technology. It is well-known that ANPR systems can be prone to errors, and false time readings are possible. Numerous examples and studies have demonstrated the potential inaccuracies of ANPR systems. Therefore, in light of this and the contradicting times in their own witness statement it is essential to approach the claimant's reliance on ANPR evidence with caution.

6. I would like to highlight the inadequate signage present in the XXXXX car park. In Exhibit 3 of the claimants witness statement they provide evidence of signs around the car park in broad daylight. The images provided by the Claimant do not accurately reflect the visibility of signage at the time my vehicle entered the car park (Exhibit XX-02).

7. It should be noted that the Signs section 3.1.1 under the private parking code of practice (Exhibit XX-03), states that an entrance sign must be clearly displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions. As you will see from my photographic evidence (Exhibit XX-04), the only entry sign is positioned in such a way that it is blocked by a height restriction barrier from the viewpoint of a driver turning into the car park. 

8. I can confirm that I did not receive the letter the claimant alleges to have sent on XXXXX, 2022, or any subsequent letters. I have no knowledge of any correspondence from the claimant prior to receiving the letter before the court claim on June XX, 2022. The claimant's failure to provide evidence of sending these letters casts doubt on their claim and raises questions about their credibility. They do not appear to have provided a tracking number for any letters sent to prove they were delivered and have only provided copies of the parking charge notices they claim were sent to me.

My fixed witness costs – ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

1. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs. I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave.

2. The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD 27, 7.3(1) ''The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person.''

Conclusion

Based on the discrepancies in the ANPR camera time, the unreliable communication from the claimant, the inadequate signage in the Mill Street car park, and the concerns surrounding the redacted landowner contract, I respectfully request the court to consider the weaknesses in the claimant's case. I assert that I did not breach any terms and conditions or incur a valid parking charge, and I request that the claim against me be dismissed.

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





_________________________________________________

Could you guys let me know what you think to this? It's a first draft so I totally understand if I've made errors.

Coupon-mad

Did ParkingEye claim £100 or £120?

Don't guess, please check the £ in the columns on the right of the Claim Form?

Is it the same car park as the case you already won in court?  Was that ParkingEye too?

Finally please copy & paste word for word what your defence against this current claim said.

mickey_blu

Hello, thanks for replying!

1/ They claimed £100 in the first instance on the claim form. (in exhibit 01 of their witness statement is states:
Financial
Current Value £100
Outstanding £185
Paid To Date £0

2/ Different Car Park, the other one was managed by a different parking firm not parkingeye.

3/ Defence I submitted is as follows:

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant understood to have a bare licence as managers has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied whether or not the Claimant is claiming keeper liability which is unclear from the Particulars. The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.
3. The Defendant is unaware that any alleged parking breach had taken place as they were not informed by the Claimant prior to the claim being submitted at the county court. The PCN has been raised by the Claimant but the Defendant has no information regarding what time the alleged PCN specifically took place and the particulars of claim are vague. Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant has emailed and asked the Claimant for a Subject Access Request to better understand the alleged parking contravention in greater detail. The Subject Access Request has yet to be provided by the Claimant and without this, it is not possible for the Defendant to understand exactly what the alleged Parking Charge Notice pertains to. The car park noted on the Particulars of Claim, XXXXX, XXXXX, XXXX, has no light surrounding it during the evening, nor does it have the adequate signage necessary upon entering the car park to explicitly show that it is operating under specific parking conditions set out and managed by the Claimant.
4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To preempt the usual template responses from this serial litigator, the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience, and they cannot be criticized for adapting some prewritten wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronize the Defendant with ironically template unfounded accusations of not understanding their defense.
5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes, after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim (POC) set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case. Prior to this and in breach of the pre-action protocol for Debt Claims, no copy of the contract sign accompanied any Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however, the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic, and inflated.
6. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum routinely added per PCN despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable authorities two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis 2015 UKSC 67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD 2011 EWHC 4023 QB where the parking charge was 75 discounted to 37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst 75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty sitting at the High Court, later ratified by the CoA, held in paras 419-428 that unspecified admin costs inflating it to 135 would appear to be penal.
7. This finding is underpinned by the Government who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding debt recovery costs were extorting money. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published in February 2022 a statutory Code of Practice found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice
8. Adding costs/damages/fees, however described, onto a parking charge is now banned. In a section called "Escalation of costs," the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."
9. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim. Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection, and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.
10. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether, this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this, and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were parking firms posing as motorists. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/roboclaim law firms operate on a no win, no fee basis, seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced.
11. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs, not even for reminder letters because the already high parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.
12. The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event.
13. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA/IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing, not future cases when declaring that recovery fees were designed to extort money. A clear steer for the Courts.

Coupon-mad

You shouldn't have used the Template Defence, which says it isn't suitable for ParkingEye cases (where they have not added fake fees).  In your case they have not added any fake fees so over half that defence is irrelevant.

If picked up on it by the Judge, just apologise and say that you beat a different parking firm in court, and thought this was pretty much the same, so you adapted your last one.  This was due to inexperience, lack of time (as you work full time), feeling unfairly bombarded by letters and not fully understanding the 'cut & paste' nature of this claim or seeing any real difference.

All your WS should concentrate on is:

- unclear signs (you have done this)

- lack of compliance with BPA consideration period rules, as the vehicle was only there 5 minutes(?) which is covered by the BPA CoP clause ...whatever...

- Jopson v Home Guard if you were loading a pre-ordered item.  Were you?  Was this for work as a food courier/delivery driver? Or personal food?

mickey_blu

Coupon-mad said:

You shouldn't have used the Template Defence, which says it isn't suitable for ParkingEye cases (where they have not added fake fees).  In your case they have not added any fake fees so over half that defence is irrelevant.

If picked up on it by the Judge, just apologise and say that you beat a different parking firm in court, and thought this was pretty much the same, so you adapted your last one.  This was due to inexperience, lack of time (as you work full time), feeling unfairly bombarded by letters and not fully understanding the 'cut & paste' nature of this claim or seeing any real difference.

All your WS should concentrate on is:

- unclear signs (you have done this)

- lack of compliance with BPA consideration period rules, as the vehicle was only there 5 minutes(?) which is covered by the BPA CoP clause ...whatever...

- Jopson v Home Guard if you were loading a pre-ordered item.  Were you?  Was this for work as a food courier/delivery driver? Or personal food?

Thanks so much for your help. I knew I'd made an error in the defence when I started writing the witness statement and they don't have an abuse of process. 

Fingers crossed the judge doesn't even look at the defence statement. If I remember correctly in the last case they didn't because they're so backlogged, they only took into consideration the first few paragraphs of both witness statements . 

mickey_blu

Oh and on your last question, it was for personal food not work.  

Fruitcake

Jopson v Homeguard is relevant. The judge in that case stated that loading/unloading goods/people is not parking. This applies to collecting/delivering food.

If you weren't driving then say so, even if the keeper can be held liable. If you were an occupant of the car at the time then you are a witness and can attest to the inadequate signage.

Coupon-mad

That and 'no grace period' are crying out to be added to your WS.  Search the forum to copy from a Jopson one already written.

mickey_blu

Good point. I've included it in there. Here's a revision of the whole thing. Redaction looks weird because I had chatGPT do it.

Let me know what you guys think

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Between

PARKINGEYE LTD

(Claimant)

- and -

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                        (Defendant)

_____________________________

1st WITNESS STATEMENT

_____________________________

I, XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX XX XXX will say as follows:

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I confirm that I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on XXth XXXXXXX 202X and thereafter date.

3. I confirm that my vehicle entered the XXXX Street car park in XXXXXX on XXXXX XXth 202X at XX:XX. I want to emphasize that I was not aware of any displayed terms and conditions or the requirement for tariff payment in the XXXX Street car park. Despite regular visits to this car park for the purpose of collecting food, I have never seen any signage indicating the need for payment. Based on my previous experience, I believed the car park was free for short stays to collect food which I do frequently from XXXXXXXX Road.

4. In the claimant's witness statement regarding the ANPR camera time. The claimant states that my vehicle left the car park at XX:XX. However, paragraph 3 of their own statement mentions that the vehicle entered at XX:XX and left at XX:XX, which I believe to be the correct time (X minutes). This inconsistency raises doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the claimant's evidence.

5. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E case where the judge said stopping/delivering is not parking. This applies to collecting food.

6. Furthermore, section X.X of the British Parking Association Code of Practice clearly states that ‘The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of X minutes.’ (Exhibit XX-XX).

7. It is clear that the Claimant has not considered a grace period and has instead reverted to sending out a parking charge notice without any consideration of the time my vehicle was in the car park for.

8. I have significant concerns regarding the reliability and accuracy of ANPR technology. It is well-known that ANPR systems can be prone to errors, including false time readings and misidentification of vehicles. Numerous examples and studies have demonstrated the potential inaccuracies of ANPR systems. For instance, cases such as Elliott v. Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd [2018] and Jopson v. Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] have highlighted instances where ANPR systems inaccurately recorded entry and exit times, leading to unjustified parking charges. These cases reflect the need for caution when considering the claimant's reliance on ANPR evidence. Given the potential for errors in ANPR technology, it is essential to approach the claimant's reliance on ANPR evidence with caution.

9. I would like to highlight the inadequate signage present in the XXXX Street car park. In Exhibit X of the claimants witness statement they provide images of signs around the car park in broad daylight. The images provided by the Claimant do not accurately reflect the visibility of signage at the time my vehicle entered the car park. I have provided images for consideration (Exhibit XX-XX) that show the true visibility of this car park in the evening. The images I have provided were taken at around Xpm on Wednesday XXth XXXXXXX 202X which would have similar if not identical lighting conditions to XXXXX 202X. It is also clear that in Exhibit X of the claimants own statement, the lack of visibility in the ANPR images of my vehicle further correlates the inadequacy of the car park lighting at XXXX Street car park.

10. It should be noted that the Signs section X.X.X under the private parking code of practice (Exhibit XX-XX), states that an entrance sign must be clearly displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions. As you will see from further photographic evidence (Exhibit XX-XX), the only entry sign is positioned in such a way that it is blocked by a height restriction barrier from the viewpoint of a driver turning into the car park.

11. I can confirm that I did not receive the letter the claimant alleges to have sent on XXth XXXXXXX 202X, or any subsequent letters. I have no knowledge of any correspondence from the claimant prior to receiving the letter before the court claim on Xnd XXXXXXX 202X. The claimant's failure to provide evidence of sending these letters casts doubt on their claim and raises questions about their credibility. Though I am well aware of how deceptive and intimidating parking firms can be, had I received the parking charge notice letter I would be in a position to appeal. They do not appear to have provided a tracking number for any letters sent to prove they were delivered and have only provided copies of the parking charge notices they claim were sent to me.

My fixed witness costs – ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

1. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs. I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule XX.XX of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave.

2. The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD XX, X.X(1) ''The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule XX.XX(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £XX per day for each person.”

Conclusion

Conclusion

Based on the discrepancies in the ANPR camera times, the unreliable communication from the claimant, the inadequate signage on the XXXX Street car park and the lack of transparency in the Claimants evidence, I respectfully request the court to consider the weaknesses in the Claimant's case. I assert that I did not breach any terms and conditions or incur a valid parking charge, and I request that the claim against me be dismissed.

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

mickey_blu

One other question, would it be worth me providing an exhibit of the Jopson v Homeguard case or is it sufficient to provide a reference like I have done in para 5?

Coupon-mad

You must exhibit the Transcript.

Found linked in loads of Jopson threads.

You also must link the BPA Code of Practice as a hyperlink for the Judge.

Correct this as shown:

5.  The Defendant will rely upon the judgment on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E (exhibit xx)  where the learned Judge held that brief loading / unloading is not parking.  This persuasive appeal judgment does not merely have application in a residential car park.  Further, the new incoming statutory Code of Practice re-introduced this month (July) defines a period of parking: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

"2.24 parking period

the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle) ... This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."

And remove para 8 which is wrong on every level (ANPR is nothing to do with Jopson) and the rest is at best, merely hearsay.  I get you, but it's a bit of a rant.  Remove that paragraph.