LOST - MET PARKING - N1 CLAIM FORM RECEIVED

Coupon-mad

You need to add a couple more words to narrow it down, so you only find witness statements in your search results.

Re the paragraphs to remove, I'm afraid I have no time to do the comparison but you can, easily: Look at your defence. Look at your WS. Remove repetition.

F1OrangeField

No worries, hopefully found it? Copied it from a thread you advised another back in November.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT 

Claim No.: 

Between

Met Parking Services Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

 (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 01-06) 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. 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. (Judgments - Exhibit 01)

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. Judgments - Exhibit 02) 

Facts and Sequence of events

 

5. On the 30th of July 2022, I bought a meal in McDonalds and ate in the restaurant, upon leaving the car park I thought it best to use the restroom before my drive home and decided it would be easier going to BP as I could also buy a bottle of water for my journey home.  

6. I then left BP no more than 20 minutes later.

7. I am the driver and the registered keeper of the vehicle  that is shown in the images and do not deny the vehicle being at this location.

 Inadequate signage 

8. I have observed a lack of clear and visible signage regarding the parking regulations. The only sign visible at the entrance to the car park, which is otherwise unmarked, gives no information whatsoever as to the nature of the Terms and Conditions, merely that Terms and Conditions apply. The text which provides this limited information is very small and not clearly legible from inside a vehicle. (See Exhibit 03).

9. The signage upon entering the site is visible during the day however during the night, almost impossible to make out any wording at all. (See Exhibit 04).

 

The Beavis case is against this claim

10.      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, particularly the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit 05) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

11.  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 06) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis.

12.  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 2024/2025. The driver has no idea about any risk nor even how much they might layer on top. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

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

(iii)            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

(iv)             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

 

13.  In conclusion, the claimant has failed to provide clear evidence that a contract was formed, nor has it shown that the parking charge notices were validly issued. The lack of adequate signage and the unlawful nature of the additional charges further invalidate the claimant’s claim. The claimant’s attempt to impose liability for these inflated charges is unsupported by both statutory law and leading case precedents. I ask the court to dismiss the claim and award appropriate costs for the time and effort expended in defending against these unjust claims.

14.  I ask 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 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.

15.  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.

16.  With the DLUHC's impending 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. I believe 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.

 

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.

 

Signature:  

xxxx

Coupon-mad

Looks good.  I'd remove this whole sentence though because it reads oddly:

 I have observed a lack of clear and visible signage regarding the parking regulations. 

F1OrangeField

Thanks have sent off this morning, in your opinion am I likely to get penalised by the late submission? 

Gr1pr

Unlikely,  if asked,  you apologise but ask the court to take it into consideration because you want the case to be over with, not adjourned 

But I doubt that a few days at Xmas or a weekend will matter due to places being closed,  including courts 

I hope that you sent it to both parties   ? Your local civil court,  plus the lawyers ( CST )  acting on behalf of the claimant ( MET )  too

F1OrangeField

Ok, thanks, yes confirm sent to both parties. 

F1OrangeField

Todays the day, wife's there and hearing in 30 mins, thanks for all your help getting us to this stage

F1OrangeField

Update - Lost the hearing, have to pay £300+ sadly. 

Le_Kirk

Sorry to read that,  when you've cooled off can we have some detail of the hearing please and how the judge got to £300

Coupon-mad

F1OrangeField said:

Update - Lost the hearing, have to pay £300+ sadly. 

Unlucky with a Judge who wouldn't listen to the point that the added £70 and the interest is extortionate?

Or was your wife not confident how to cover that issue once she realised it wasn't going the right way?

Did the Judge not accept the Chan judgment as persuasive or didn't the D mention it?

Which court and Judge?

There's one particular female Judge who is clueless but I can't recall the court area.