Gladstones Claim Form

Coupon-mad

paynele47 said:

Does anyone know where I can obtain these exhibits for my Witness Statement? I have 2 weeks to submit.

5.      Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 02).

 

6.      Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit 03).

 

7.      Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 04).

Please don't use those paragraphs. 

It's ONE EXHIBIT - the linked version provided by @Le_Kirk with everything in it.

paynele47

Coupon-mad said:

paynele47 said:

Does anyone know where I can obtain these exhibits for my Witness Statement? I have 2 weeks to submit.

5.      Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 02).

 

6.      Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit 03).

 

7.      Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 04).

Please don't use those paragraphs. 

It's ONE EXHIBIT - the linked version provided by @Le_Kirk with everything in it.

Thank coupon mad. Can someone send over these judgements or show me where I can get them. Thanks

paynele47

Can someone please review my WS

Index

Content Page number

Witness Statement 2 - 9

01 Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan Judgement

02 Parallel Parking v anon Judgement

03 District Judge Sprague Judgement

04 District Judge McMurtrie Judgement

05 Tenancy Agreement

06 Photograph of Co-Op Resident Bays

07 Photograph of Co-Op Parking

08 Photograph of Sign to the right of Co-Op Parking

09 Excel v Wilkinson Judgement

10 Beavis case sign

11 ParkingEye Limited v Beavis – Paragraphs 98, 193, and 198 17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the County Court at Dartford

Claim Number

Parking Control Management  (Claimant)

V

 (Defendant)

Witness Statement of Defendant

 

1. I am  and I 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 1-12) 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:

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.       As a preliminary matter, I wish to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Beata Uszta  of Gladstones 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 Beata Uszta does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, I respectfully request 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.

 

4. In addition , the Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

 

5.      A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (See Exhibit 01).

 

6.      Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 02).

 

7.      Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit 03).

 

8.      Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 04).

 

9.      The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

 

 

paynele47

 

Facts and Sequence of events

10.      Date and Time of the Incident: Tuesday 14th March 2023  at approximately 15:22PM.

 

11.  On the date of the alleged parking event, I stopped to pick up some shopping at Co Op, as I am a regular customer and member of Co-Op, which is located on Langley Square, where I am also a permanent resident. (See Exhibit 05).

 

12. There are a few resident bays to the left of the shop, where there are signs (See Exhibit 06 and 8). and then there is a driveway next to this on the right, which is used by customers and delivery lorries, which is where I parked. This driveway is located next to the resident bays and there is a clear distinction between the markings and colour brick that this is not resident parking. (See Exhibit 07). I parked there, like I normally do, and was only gone 5 minutes.

14. To the right there is signage which is unreadable from the car and it has also been vandalised therefore making it unreadable. (See Exhibit 10). The wording on the sign was ambiguous and did not distinctly indicate the location to which it pertained. Given the lack of specificity, it was unclear whether the sign applied to the driveway or the residents bays to the left. 

To the left of the resident bays and the signage that Gladstones are relying on (See Exhibit 11) is of the entrance sign, taken from eye level whilst standing. You cannot read all the terms and conditions as the sign is too high and the font is too small to read from standing beside it.

15. A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found  to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this sign in exhibit 12 for comparison. In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.

 

15. Nevertheless, as a permanent resident of Langley Square, I have a parking permit, which was displayed at the time on the alleged incident. It is disingenuous of the claimant to only take a photo from the back of the car. Should they have taken a photo of the front of car, there would be clearly seen in the front screen my parking permit. Therefore, I would not breach any parking rules.

 

 

 

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

16.   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.

 

17.   I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put 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.

 

18.   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.

 

19.   The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here:

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."

20.     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

 

21.   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.

 

22.   With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extent 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.

 

23.   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.

 

24.   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.

 

25.   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.

 

26.   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.

 

27.   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).

 

paynele47

CRA Breaches

1.      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.

 

2.      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.

 

3.      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).

 

4.      Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson. (See Exhibit  09)

 

The Beavis case is against this claim

5.      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 12) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

 6.      Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See Exhibit 13) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

 7.      In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There is one main issue that render this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

 

 

 

 

 

(i). Hidden Terms:

The £100 penalty clause is positively buried in small print, as seen on the signs in evidence.  The purported added (false) 'costs' are even more hidden and are also unspecified as a sum.  Their (unlawful, due to the CRA Schedule 2 grey list of unfair terms) suggestion is that they can hide a vague sentence within a wordy sign, in the smallest possible print, then add whatever their trade body lets them, until the DLUHC bans it in 2024. And the driver has no idea about any risk nor even how much they might layer on top.  None of this was agreed by me, let alone known or even seen as I attempted to gain entry to the store. 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 Civ2both 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".

 

Conclusion

 

8.      The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.

 

9.      The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC.  It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the defendant's parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation.  In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

 

10.   There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

 

11.   With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

 

12.    

(a) The previously reserved costs of £315, and

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

(c) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

 13.   Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) 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.

KeithP

Have you seen this banner at the top of every page on this part of the forum?...


Is that your real name you have shown the world in the headings and again in paragraph 1?
Similarly, the Claim Number uniquely identifies you.

Le_Kirk

paynele47 said:

Coupon-mad said:

It's ONE EXHIBIT - the linked version provided by @Le_Kirk with everything in it.

Thank coupon mad. Can someone send over these judgements or show me where I can get them. Thanks

Generally, if you click on a tag such as @Le_Kirk you are taken to their profile, as @Coupon-mad wrote and from their you can see their threads and posts.  However, the latest link is: -
Judgments

paynele47

So do I just attach the whole Judgement exhibits and then refer to the individual cases in my WS?

Coupon-mad

Yes.
No, just say what the exhibit is.

paynele47

Do i file my WS to the CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk email address?