small claim hearing in few days pcn

tryion

Ok i have now finished it,  i gotta send it asap as they will serve theirs at 4pm today , I emailed them already saying I will send them my WS in a moment and that they should attach it to the bundle. hopefully someone can skim through. bless yu all

In the County Court at xxxxx

Claim Number: xxxxxx

 

 

 Secure-a-space Ltd               (Claimant)

V

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                            (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

 

1.     I, Mr. xxxx, (profession) of (address) am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.     In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Facts and sequence of events

3. The facts in this WS comes from my own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of the case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fails to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". I am unable, based on the particulars of the claim (POC), to understand with certainty what case, allegations, or heads of cost are being pursued, which makes it difficult for me to respond. However, I recognise the vehicle mentioned and admit that I was the registered keeper, but I deny being the driver.

4. I want to bring to the court's attention that the defendant solely serves as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and has not personally operated the vehicle since assuming keeper status, due to the defendant having only a provisional licence. The vehicle is instead utilised by an authorised family member. 

5. The defendant was neither present nor a passenger during the instances leading to the alleged PCNs, and because I had not agreed to any ‘contract’ nor was there any consent from me to form or enter into any agreements with the Claimant beforehand. Concerns arise on whether these ‘contract(s)’ are legitimate or legally binding when the principle of consent, as outlined in the common law and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, is considered. 

6. Since the Claimant has not provided any proof or evidence suggesting that I agreed to any of their alleged ‘contract(s)’, the burden of proof remains unmet. Thus, it is sensible to question the legitimacy of these contract(s). 

7. The defendant adamantly refuses to agree to any of Secure-a-space ltd demands and invites the court to strike out these claim(s) due to the following reasons: 

(i) Secure-a-space ltd Particulars of Claim(s) fails to outline the terms and conditions of the alleged ‘contract(s)’ or subsequentially provide any evidence about the identity of the driver during the alleged incidents as the vehicles have two authorised drivers. Hence, the Claimant's incoherent Particulars of Claim(s) violate CPR 16.4, warranting the dismissal of the claim(s). 

(ii) A similar claim was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being “incoherent”, failing to comply with CPR16.4 as mentioned earlier, and “providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law”. 

8. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as prove a term was breached, there must be: 

(i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and 

(ii) 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines. 

9. I deny (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case',), which is fully distinguished (See Exhibit - 04).

10. On the particular days where all the PCN’s were issued on the windscreen, the defendant was not present. The driver who was an authorised family member, had no alternative parking locally as the neighbourhood had an LTN(low traffic neighbourhood) scheme in place. Restricting even more the freedom for a resident to access/enjoy his property. 

11. As opposed to what the claimant states, the defendant wasn’t offered reasonable parking services as exhibit X shows a list of various parking locations. The management service never mentioned the list or available car park or offered it, even after repeated requests for a parking bay, but only did so after long while after for unknown reasons to the defendant, precisely on 20/09/2021 see Exhibit 2

The defendant, if they were a resident, therefore benefited from the parking management service.They could not reasonably expect to accept the benefit of the service but at the same time refuse to comply with the requirement.

12. The signs contain a lot of information in a minuscule size (see exhibit XX).It is crammed with information written in tiny letters and is placed far from the exit. This makes it impossible to be read while in a moving vehicle at night. (see exhibit XX). The residential area was not illuminated especially when the driver parked on a non marked bay (see exhibit XX), making it challenging to see any signs from inside the vehicle.

13. I received a demand for payment from the claimant inflating the original fee by £20 as shown on notice to keeper copies exhibit X  then an additional £70, justifying it as “debt collection costs”, with the total amounting pcn higher than £190 per pcn, with 18 in total.

14. Subsequently, I received a few intimidating letters threatening court proceeding and demanding payment of the inflated balance.

Hearsay evidence

15. The Claimant's witness is a legal assistant employed by the Claimant’s solicitors and has no direct knowledge of the events that form the basis of the claim. The evidence provided by this individual is entirely reliant on information supplied by the Claimant, making it hearsay and significantly less credible than testimony from someone with direct involvement in the incident.

16. While the Civil Evidence Act 1995 permits hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, such evidence must be given appropriate weight based on its reliability. Under CPR 32.2, the court has discretion to exclude hearsay evidence when it offers limited probative value. In this instance, the witness provides only second-hand information from the Claimant and lacks direct knowledge, rendering the evidence unreliable and of minimal probative value.

17. The Claimant's Witness Statement does not comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, as it fails to clearly differentiate between matters within the witness's personal knowledge and those based on information provided by the Claimant. As the legal assistant has no firsthand knowledge of the events, their statement amounts to hearsay and lacks credibility. Additionally, the witness has not adequately indicated the source of their information and belief, as required under PD 32.18.2.

18. The legal assistant 'witness' is not an employee of the Claimant's company and plays no role in its operations, policies, or management of the parking charge in question. This lack of connection further undermines their ability to provide a credible account of the facts relevant to this case.

Exaggerated claim

19.     The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

20.     I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

(i)       the alleged breach, and

(ii)     a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

21.   This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

22.   I will mention again, as in my defence, a quote from The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published in its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

"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."

23.   The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, of which the Claimant is a member, includes the following which supports my case:

(i)    13.1 Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land;

(ii)   15.1 Parking Charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/or other documentation

(iii) Schedule 1 – Signage: If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting.

24.   The Claimant has submitted no evidence regarding a consideration period. A contract to park by conduct cannot be formed unless there is a consideration period to discover, read, understand and accept the contract.

25.   The Defendant maintains that the car was stopped for a very brief period of time consistent with a consideration period, considering it is my home as the defendant,  the driver on occasion unloaded groceries, or his children who needed to be brought inside the property,  which the government definition shows is not ‘parking’ I moved the car as soon this was done, thereby signalling no acceptance of any contract.(if such were to exist and be valid - but no such contract was seen or in view).

26.   Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

28.   Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case and argue against the efficacy of the inflated sum to act as deterrent.

29. With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

30.   The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

31.   In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). 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 (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal'.

32.   This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

33.   Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

tryion

34.   In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

CRA breaches

35.   Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

36.   Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

37.   The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

38.   The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - see exhibit AM09 - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

39.   In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

(i)    Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

(ii)   Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2, both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space".

Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to Understand CPR and Legal Issues

40. In page 10 paragraph xx. of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant’s legal representative — whose knowledge of this matter is entirely second-hand and based solely on information provided by their client — makes an entirely inappropriate and offensive statement regarding my ability to understand the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). They assert, without evidence, that I have relied on a “generic defence” sourced online and suggest that I lack comprehension of the legal arguments and references to the CPR I have presented.

41. This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack. The claimant’s witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level of education, professional background, or capacity to understand legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly, embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal professionals would resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document. As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the same legal expertise as the claimant’s solicitors. However, I have made every effort to research and present a reasonable defence. The claimant’s solicitors, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard of compliance with legal procedures, especially with respect to the Civil Procedure Rules.

42. I respectfully remind the court that I am a litigant in person. I have every right to research legal matters and use any available resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their Particulars of Claim(s) and Witness Statement. My defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.

43. Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable behaviour on the part of the claimant’s solicitors. Such conduct is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this behaviour violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which requires the parties to act justly and fairly.

44. I respectfully request that the court take note of this unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly on their conduct and should be considered when determining whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the proceedings.

Claimant’s Assertion Regarding My Defence

45. My defence primarily relies on the fact that the Particulars of Claim(s) provided by the claimant were woefully deficient and did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4, as they failed to provide sufficient detail about the basis of the claim. As a result, I was unable to understand the case against me or adequately prepare a response to any specific allegations.

46. The claimant cannot now seek to argue that their inadequate (s) is excusable simply because I have pointed out their legal and procedural failings. Their lack of compliance with CPR 16.4 and their failure to link the charge to the correct driver have severely hindered my ability to respond to this claim in any meaningful way beyond disputing the receipt of prior communication and highlighting their procedural errors.

47. I respectfully request that the court takes my position as the registered keeper of the vehicle into account, especially considering that the claimant has failed to produce any evidence showing that I was the driver. Without such evidence, their claim against me as the keeper is without merit.

48. I further ask that the court consider the procedural failures on the part of the claimant, which have placed me in an unjustly disadvantaged position, and that the claimant's claim be dismissed accordingly.

Claimant’s Standing and Authority to Sue:

49. Further, it is denied that this Claimant, who is understood to hold only a bare licence as an agent, has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. 

50. In the Claimant's Witness Statement, at page 16 exhibit1, it is stated that Exhibit 1 is a “copy of the agreement between the landowner and the Claimant.” However, upon reviewing the agreement, it is evident that the agreement is between the Claimant (Secure-a-space ltd) and Octavia Housing, which is explicitly described as the managing agent of the land, not the landowner. The agreement does not provide the Claimant with direct authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) or take legal action in its own name. It only grants authority through Pinnacle Group, which is acting as the agent for the landowner.

51. This raises significant concerns about the validity of the agreement. For the Claimant to have standing to bring this claim, they must show that they were properly authorised by the landowner or a party with the appropriate legal authority to take such action. As the agreement is with the managing agent and not the landowner, the Claimant’s authority to sue is questionable.

52. Additionally, the agreement does not explicitly grant the Claimant the authority to form contracts or take legal action in their own name, further undermining the Claimant’s standing in this matter. Without clear evidence that the landowner has authorised the Claimant to take such action, the Claimant’s ability to enforce the parking charges is brought into doubt.

Conclusion

53. the Claimant has failed to meet the burden of proof required in this case. Despite making various assertions regarding the alleged contraventions and my supposed liability, the Claimant has not provided adequate evidence to substantiate their claim. Specifically:

(i) Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4: The Particulars of Claim (PoC) are deficient and do not provide sufficient detail about the alleged contravention. This prevents me from fully understanding the case against me and is a procedural failure that warrants striking out the claim, as per recent cases such as CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023].

(ii) Inadequate and Speculative Witness Testimony: The Claimant's witness statement, provided by a legal assistant with no personal knowledge of the events, is based largely on hearsay and fails to meet the standards set in CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2. This further undermines the reliability of the Claimant's evidence.

54. Furthermore, the Claimant has failed to establish the existence of a valid contract and has not demonstrated that the parking charge notices were issued in accordance with the law. The lack of adequate signage and the unlawful nature of the additional charges render the claim unsustainable. The Claimant's attempt to impose liability for these inflated charges is unsupported by both statutory law and leading case precedents.

55. There is also growing evidence that such claims, particularly those involving inflated charges, are knowingly misleading. The July 2023 DLUHC Impact Assessment revealed that the cost of debt recovery is far lower than the inflated charges being pursued, and the industry has been openly aware of this discrepancy. It is clear that such claims cause significant consumer harm, and it is in the public interest to prevent claims like this from proceeding.

56. In the matter of costs, I seek:

(i) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(ii) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

57. Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

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.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

tryion

I just got an email that they send of the WS off despite me telling them that i need to send my WS , and that i would do it before 4 pm, they stated that i should send them an email before 12pm if there is anything i needed to be added, which i did. So why did they just go ahead  all of sudden decided 1.30pm was long enough to wait? and proceeded to serve? what should i do now?

Coupon-mad

tryion said:

I just got an email that they send of the WS off despite me telling them that i need to send my WS , and that i would do it before 4 pm, they stated that i should send them an email before 12pm if there is anything i needed to be added, which i did. So why did they just go ahead  all of sudden decided 1.30pm was long enough to wait? and proceeded to serve? what should i do now?

I told you they would. I warned you.

You know what to do now. I already told you what your requirement was.  Did you cc in the local court like I said?

tryion

i have a hard time finding the correct email  to cc court, is it enquiries@willesden.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk.?

Ive sent it to the legal team, and cc to the email above.

you were right on, but why would they serve it when they said earlier they serve it at 4pm cant they do that legally?

Coupon-mad

They'll do what they like and they were never going to wait long for you.

There was nothing in it for them or their client to indulge your late WS so that's why you needed to do it by 9am.  That's the reason I typed that timeline specifically, so you could have caught them out.  Once it got to several hours into the day they were always going to do this to you.

You should ring the court in the morning (9am!) to ask if they got it from you.

Also keep proof of emailing it because I can see the Judge not having your WS on the day...

tryion

They are a completely dishonest bunch of people.  will ring them at 9am. I will let you know 

Nellymoser

tryion said:

They are a completely dishonest bunch of people.  

Reason why MPs and campaigners are calling for statutory regulation for private parking industry.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81193608/#Comment_81193608

When your less stressed please join the motorists call by signing/share this petition demanding the re-launch of a Govt-backed Parking Code of Practice. 🙏

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701453

Good luck at court.

ChirpyChicken

no you sent to to the wrong email address, this is the correct one
Enquiries.willesden.countycourt@justice.gov.uk.

tryion

A day I'll never forget, a sad one, too. We lost the case, i should note that WS was struck out as the defendant wasn't fully comfortable with all that was written specifically the legal bits and instead relied on 1 defence point that she wasn't the driver but the reg keeper only. In the Defence we forgot to nominate a drive , in the WS we nominated the driver as a family member but since it was struck out by the judge (late submission + Defendant not entirely confident with all the wording in the defence) it had no effect. With that the defendant has been ordered to pay the full amount, though the interest was reduced from 8% to 4% but that doesn't make a big difference the amount is still eye watering for PCN issued at our our residency. Altogether, it’s close to £5K for the PCNs, plus all the additional charges like court hearing fees. We can't afford to pay it in one go right now. 

Now, I’m determined to sue my housing association for their negligence in parking management. They failed to provide or even mention alternative parking options until it was far too late, and that’s what led to all of this. If i can prove that they never mentioned alternative parking sites would this have a significant impact? 

They ignored me, with several emails being sent, calls being made, complaints through their system, nothing worked, I involved the ombudsman and they all of a sudden responded and offered compensation money which i refused and pushed it to a stage complaint, and now they ignore me again purposely to pass the hearing day which was today.  

I really want to hire a professional to handle this properly, someone who knows what they’re doing and can give me the best chance at recovering something or at least holding them accountable. What do you guys think?