IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
ADVICE: Premier Parking Solutions LTD Court Date set
cornboy
Posts: 61 Forumite
I now have a court date set and have to submit witness statements by 24th July and am unsure what to do.
I used the template Defence and Directions Questionnaire from here can anyone help me? or point me in the right direction?
I used the template Defence and Directions Questionnaire from here can anyone help me? or point me in the right direction?
0
Comments
-
The NEWBIES thread explains all stages. Just don't use the old RobertCox example linked there. Read any recent witness statements from this year and adapt it to suit.
Do you already have a thread about this case? If so, please reply there so we have some context.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you I did look but didn't see it, I will look again.
No this is my first post on here about this case.
0 -
I have just recieved this from the legal team.. BW Legal1 This skeleton is filed by the Claimant because it is the Claimant's solicitor's belief that the Defendant has filed a template Defence commonly found on internet forums seeking to challenge parking charges. One frequently used forum can be found on www.moneysavingexpert.com.2 As the Court will appreciate, CPR 32 confirms that evidence should address facts. The Defendant's Defence largely seeks to rely on technical arguments based on case law and legislation which therefore fails to comply with CPR 16.5 requiring a Defendant to admit or deny (with reasons) the Claimant's allegations in a claim.Therefore, in order to make the best use of the Court's time, the Claimant's solicitors shall:(a) Only respond to the facts stated in the Defence in the Claimant's witness statement. This ensures that the hearing can focus on the facts of the case at the hearing; and(b) Address the technical issues raised in the Defence in this Skeleton, so that the Court can decide which, if any, of these technical points should to be considered at the final hearing.3 The signage situated across the Car Park forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location, and there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the perfonnance of entering the private land and remaining there is the act of acceptance.4 The Claimant also places reliance on the judgment in the appeal case - Vehicle Control Services Limited v A(/i·ed Charles Crutchley [2017], in which the court confinned the user's positive obligation to familiarise themselves with the5 Terms and Conditions. In this case, His Honour Judge Wood QC decided that:"It is incumbent, in my judgment, on a person entering private property, when it is clear that a contractual licence is being provided, to understand the terms of such a licence. It would not be onerous or oppressive, although probably inconvenient, for a visitor to establish those terms and conditions before entering the business park in the first place, even if this required remaining outside, and entering on foot, when the contents of the notices in combination, would become apparent"6 Therefore, the Defendant, by entering and remaining in the Car Park, wilfully agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions, including payment of the contractual charge upon any breach.7 The Claim has already passed through the hands of a judge upon allocation to the small claims track. As such, it is submitted that the same has already been deemed CPR-compliant.8 The Defendant's arguments are generic and not at all made out.9 9 S. 62( 4) provides that " ... a term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith,it causes a significant imblance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer"S.62 (5) confoms: ''Whether a term is fair is to be determined(a) Taking into account the nature of the subject matter of the contract, and(b) By reference to all the circumstances existing when the term was agreed and toall of the other terms of the contract or of any other contract on which it depends."As confinned by His Honour Judge Parkes QC in the appeal judgment of Britannia Par!dng Group Ltd v Matthew Semark-Jullien [2020] 7 WLUK 443 (Appeal), the court must properly take into account a claimant's evidence before making a determination under this section, otherwise any premature conclusion is liable to be set aside.10 Therefore, it is submitted that in order for the Court to make a detennination under CRA 2015, the Defendant must properly apply its arguments to the claim, and the Claimant's advocate can then respond.11 The Defendant again quotes a number of paragraphs from the lengthy Supreme Court judgment of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015} UKSC67, scattered throughout the Defence, with little or no application of those paragraphs to the facts of this claim. For example, after summarising the Supreme Court's findings at various paragraphs, the Defendant simply says "this claim must fail" and "In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis."; the Defendant has not applied the facts of this case to Beavis to enable these conclusions to be arrived at, and upon cross examination, is unlikely to be able to do so.12 The parking charge of £100.00 was confirmed as reasonable in Beavis and 1s supported by the Claimant's Accredited Trade Association's Code of Practice.13 In ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores Limited (2011), a commercial dispute surrounding the provision of parking services at the Defendant's supermarkets, HHJ Hegarty madea finding of fact in that particular case that the objective was deterrence rather than compensation. The Claimant is seeking the additional sum, not as part of the parking charge, but as its debt recovery costs. As HHJ Hegarty recognised in para. 419, the Claimant will show that these debt recovery charges ( or additional administrative costs as he called them) are reasonable in circumstances where the Defendant has been given the chance to pay the parking charge, but declined to do so.14 On 28 September 2021, HHJ Saffman handed down the judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Mr Adam Percy (currently unreported) in an appeal in the County Court in Leeds. HHJ Saffman fully considered lengthy skeleton arguments concerning Beavis, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the recoverability of debt recovery costs under the parking contract (set out in the signage) where no specific amount was set out. He concluded that:(afi Such costs were not considered in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015} UKSC 67. He said at paragraphs 42-43 "True it is, as [the judge below} says in paragraph 15 and 16, that Beavis concerned a motorist who did not pay but it does not touch on the question of recovery of an additional charge for Stage 2. It deals only with the lav.:fulness of the original charge for failing to comply with the contractual terms - not the additional charges for chasing up the motorist who has failed to pay what was owed for failing to comply with the contractual terms."(b) Such costs are not built into the parking charge, saying at para. 39 " ... It is inevitable that further work of some kind is necessary where the motorist does not respond to the PCN. Fundamentally it requires the appellant to undertake the fstage 2 activity which would have been avoided i payment had been made at stage 1 ... it is not double recovery. It is an attempt to recover in respect of stage 2 work that would not have been incurred if payment had been made at stage 1." For the same reasons, he found that such costs were not a duplication of post-issue legal costs restricted by CPR, as these costs relate to pre-issue.( c) Such costs were not unfair as against the Consumer Rights Act 2015:( 1) Conside1ing examples 10 and 14 of Schedule 2 to the Act, he said at para 6 " I do not think that the term albeit that it seeks an unqualified amount, causes a sign(ficant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations. As HHJ Maloney QC observed [in Beavis}, the motorist is being given the valuable privilege of parking on private land in return for a promise to pay a specified sum in the event that he/she fails to display a ticket and, in this case, an additional sum if he/she fails to pay the spec(fied sum. ",He went on to say at para 64 that " ... any imbalance in that case did not arise contrary to the requirements of good faith because ParkingEye and the owners had a legitimate interest in inducing Mr Beavis not to overstay ... I do not see why VCS does not have a legitimate interest in inducing motorists to pay on receipt of the PCN so as to avoid. .. the stage 2 procedure."(2) Considering example 6 of Schedule 2 to the Act, he said at para 65 & 66."VCS is governed by a Code of Practice which currently limits theadditional charge to £70. 00. I fitlly accept that the Code of Practice doesnot bind the court but it is clearly a consideration in the context of all thecircumstances. The Supreme Court in Beavis had in mind the Code ofPractice in the course of its .finding that the contract term was fair ... It isalso appropriate to observe that I do not think that the charge of £60 isexcessive or disproportionate. Even if that sum does not represent VCS'loss, it cannot be said that it is a charge that is higher than is necessaryto achieve VCS' legitimate objective of inducing motorists to pay at stageI." He also concluded at para 57 that previous judgments up and downthe country in the County Court had erred in their findings that such aterm was unfair.Finally, he also found that such costs were not contrary to paragraph 4(5) ofSchedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 given it sets out the content ofthe PCN, but regardless of this, para 4(6) provides for "other remedy".15 Under the Claimant's Trade Association's Code of Practice, where parking chargesbecome overdue, debt recovery charges may be added. THis was also endorsed by HHJ Saffman in the above appeal, acknowledging the Supreme Court's recognition of the same in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015} UKSC 67.Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 POF A relates solely to the recovery of "parking charges", which is defined as "a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or a charge".Debt recovery charges only become payable if the PCN remains unpaid and debt recovery has to be pursued, as explained in the Claimant's statement under the heading "Debt Recovery Charges". Such costs are therefore clearly not a parking charge and therefore not within the scope of paragraph 4.18 Once again, the Defendant attempts to summarise these cases without applying the same to the facts of this claim. To simplify the matter, the Claimant relies on the factual evidence as to its signage in its witness statement..19 The Defendant refers to the draft Code of Practice, which has been subject to successful challenges against the reduction of the parking charge amounts and debt recovery costs, with www.gov.uk withdrawing it's guidance on the draft code and advising:"This guidance was withdrawn on 7 June 2022 - Private Parking Code of Practice is temporarily withdrawn pending review of the levels of private parking charges and additional fees. There is there.fore no draft code of practice and it was never "enacted".20 Subsequently, all reference to ministerial forwards and documents pnor to the withdrawn draft code are also irrelevant, being the opinions of various bodies used to design the now defunct code.25 Conversly, the claiment relies on paragraphs 2-4 above to invite the court to make an order for unreasonable costs against the Defendant. In considering conduct that can be deemed as unreasonable in relation to appeals in Small Claims (under CPR 27.14(2)(g)), the Court of Appeal in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 said "In the somewhat different context of the jurisdiction to order a party's legal (or other) representative to meet what are called "wasted costs" ... defined as costs incurred "as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission" of such representative), the court spea!dng through Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: " ... conduct cannot be described as unreasonable simply because it leads in the event to an unsuccessfit! result or because other more cautious legal representatives would have acted differently. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation. If so, the course adopted may be regarded as optimistic and as reflecting in a practitioner's judgment, but it is not unreasonable," see Ridehalgh v Horsefleld [1994] Ch 205, 232F ... Litigants in person should not be in a better position than legal representatives but neither should thev be in anv worse position than such representatives."26 26 It is submitted that in all the above circumstances, the Defendant's Defence amounts to unreasonable behaviour.0
-
The issue I have is that I wasn't the driver as I would have been working and we don't know who was driving on that day as the car is used by a few different people.
How can I create a witness statement based on these facts that I don't know? I ignored the letters as I presumed they were a scam.
0 -
I have been away and looking at the court papers the dealine for WS is 24/07/2023 so looks like today is my last chance to get this sorted.
CAN ANYONE HELP? @Coupon-mad?
0 -
IMHO, that so-called skeleton is a pile of pants.
The statutory Code of Practice is not 'defunct' - the truth us (that BW Legal and the Claimants know full well) it is about to be resurrected this month!And (sorry the useless quote system has grabbed all my words below and won't let me edit it to place it outside the quote):"6 Therefore, the Defendant, by entering and remaining in the Car Park, wilfully agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions, including payment of the contractual charge upon any breach."LOL, someone who reckons they are a legal professional doesn't know the meaning of the word 'wilfully'!
And"7 The Claim has already passed through the hands of a judge upon allocation to the small claims track. As such, it is submitted that the same has already been deemed CPR-compliant."LOL again- so has your defence!If the WS deadline is Monday, then today is not your last day, you have all weekend.
But haven't you already done your WS?
If you have, is the hearing in August?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
And (sorry the useless quite system has grabbed all my words below and won't let me edit it to place it outside the quote):@Coupon-mad - when faced with this situation, ensuring you have your cursor still in the Quote box with your text, click on the drop down box containing the Quote button, click on Quote and that immediately removes the Quote box surrounding all of the text. Send your text a little way down, then highlight the original Quote text, and click on the Quote button again. This surrounds the original text with the Quote box, but leaves yours 'free' outside of that box, allowing you to add to or edit. Hope this helps (or at least makes sense!).Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street2 -
It does, thanks U! I won't edit it now. Life's too short. Can't be bothered with it sometimes on a phone. It is terrible...PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD2 -
Coupon-mad said:It does, thanks U! I won't edit it now. Life's too short. Can't be bothered with it sometimes on a phone. It is terrible...Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.4K Spending & Discounts
- 238.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 614.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.7K Life & Family
- 251.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards