Help please. I have 3 parking tickets, 1 going to court @ £270.80 and 2 @ £170.

Coupon-mad

BrickwallPap said:

my defence is that I'm happy to pay the fine but they didn't allow me to pay it. the website just said 'debt collection' and didn't allow me to pay. then the letter comes through asking for £170...

That is not a defence.

Do not write that.

Do not say that.

We advised you back in March about reading hearing orders properly and adhering to your WS deadline.  I said this in March:

Coupon-mad said:

Re the one with the Dec 2024 hearing date, you should be preparing your WS bundle like the NEWBIES thread (and the Hearing Order) tells you. What's your deadline? 

Despite that heads up, you are now late with your bundle. You are grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory and have taken your own path instead of following our advice.

Get it in by tomorrow 3pm at the latest.

Look at the one by @Harry77 (read his thread and find his WS).  That's what it looks like.

Alternatively, reply today to the £150 offer with a counter offer of £60. Given you have no defence and no WS bundle (therefore the Judge would only have THEIR evidence to go on) maybe that's wise.

BrickwallPap

ok perfect thank you 

BrickwallPap

I’ve taken out my personal information for the moment. Is this any good? 

Name of Witness: ****

Witness Statement Number: 1

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [REDACTED]

Claim Number: [REDACTED]

Between

National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

and

[REDACTED] (Defendant)

Witness Statement of [REDACTED]

Introduction

1. I, [REDACTED], of [REDACTED], make this Witness Statement in readiness for the hearing listed on [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] County Court and in support of my Defence against the Claimant, National Car Parks Limited.

2. My Defence is based on the fact that I made every reasonable attempt to pay the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100 but was prevented from doing so due to a failure in the Claimant’s payment system. Despite this, the Claimant has escalated the balance owed to an unreasonable and excessive £297.80 through arbitrary and unfair additional charges.

3. In this statement, I will outline the facts of the case and provide evidence to support my defence.

Facts and Sequence of Events

4. On [REDACTED], I parked at the [REDACTED] Station Car Park, managed by National Car Parks Limited. Upon receipt of a PCN, I attempted to pay the fine promptly via the website provided by the Claimant: c2c-parking.co.uk.

5. Following the instructions on the PCN, I entered my PCN number and vehicle registration details on the website. However, instead of allowing me to pay the £100 fine, the website displayed a page stating “Case Stage: Debt Recovery” and provided no option to make payment.

6. I made multiple attempts to pay the fine through the website but was consistently prevented from doing so by this technical failure. Screenshots of the webpage showing “Case Stage: Debt Recovery” are attached as Exhibit 1. These demonstrate the issue that rendered it impossible for me to make payment.

7. Despite my good faith efforts to pay the original £100 fine, I received correspondence from BW Legal, the Claimant’s debt collection agency, demanding an escalating balance. This balance has now reached an unreasonable total of £297.80, which includes arbitrary charges added without explanation or justification.

8. The Claimant’s refusal to address their website’s technical failure and their escalation of costs despite my attempts to resolve the matter are both unfair and disproportionate.

Unenforceable and Excessive Additional Costs

9. The Claimant has added an extra £197.80 to the original £100 PCN, purporting these as “debt recovery costs.” These charges are not clearly detailed or justified in the signage or terms and conditions at the car park.

10. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contract terms must be fair and transparent. The Claimant’s attempt to impose these additional charges is unfair, as they were not disclosed at the time of parking.

11. Furthermore, these charges are excessive and punitive in nature. In the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], the Supreme Court ruled that parking charges must either reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss or be commercially justified. The additional £197.80 cannot be justified under either principle and appears to serve only as a means of penalizing me further.

Failure of the Claimant’s Payment System

12. The Claimant’s own payment system is at the core of this matter. As shown in Exhibit 1, the webpage provided by the Claimant failed to allow me to pay the original PCN of £100. This technical failure left me with no means to resolve the matter within the required timeframe.

13. It is unreasonable for the Claimant to escalate the matter and add significant additional costs when their own system prevented payment. I have acted in good faith throughout and made every effort to settle the original PCN.

Challenge to Claimant’s Evidence

14. The Claimant’s witness statement relies on hearsay evidence, as it is written by a representative from BW Legal who has no direct involvement in the events. Under CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, such hearsay evidence should be given limited weight, as the witness cannot attest to the facts of the case firsthand.

15. The Claimant’s reliance on hearsay evidence, combined with their failure to address the issue of their malfunctioning payment system, weakens their case significantly.

Conclusion and Request for Costs

16. I respectfully request that the court dismiss this claim in its entirety on the grounds that:

• The Claimant’s payment system failure made it impossible for me to pay the original PCN.

• The additional costs of £197.80 are excessive, unfair, and not clearly outlined in the contract terms or signage.

• The Claimant has relied on hearsay evidence, which lacks probative value.

17. In light of the above, I further request that the court considers awarding costs in my favor pursuant to CPR 27.14 and CPR 46.5, as the Claimant has acted unreasonably in escalating this matter despite their own system being at fault.

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: ____________________________

Name: [REDACTED]

Date: [Insert Date]

prowla

BrickwallPap said:

my defence is that I'm happy to pay the fine but they didn't allow me to pay it. the website just said 'debt collection' and didn't allow me to pay. then the letter comes through asking for £170...

It is not a fine.

BrickwallPap

prowla said:

BrickwallPap said:

my defence is that I'm happy to pay the fine but they didn't allow me to pay it. the website just said 'debt collection' and didn't allow me to pay. then the letter comes through asking for £170...

It is not a fine.

I understand that now. Is the WS any good? 

BrickwallPap

Coupon-mad said:

BrickwallPap said:

my defence is that I'm happy to pay the fine but they didn't allow me to pay it. the website just said 'debt collection' and didn't allow me to pay. then the letter comes through asking for £170...

That is not a defence.

Do not write that.

Do not say that.

We advised you back in March about reading hearing orders properly and adhering to your WS deadline.  I said this in March:

Coupon-mad said:

Re the one with the Dec 2024 hearing date, you should be preparing your WS bundle like the NEWBIES thread (and the Hearing Order) tells you. What's your deadline? 

Despite that heads up, you are now late with your bundle. You are grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory and have taken your own path instead of following our advice.

Get it in by tomorrow 3pm at the latest.

Look at the one by @Harry77 (read his thread and find his WS).  That's what it looks like.

Alternatively, reply today to the £150 offer with a counter offer of £60. Given you have no defence and no WS bundle (therefore the Judge would only have THEIR evidence to go on) maybe that's wise.

Is the WS ok? 

Coupon-mad

No.  That is not a defence against the issuance of the £100 PCN.

Remove 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8.

You are not saying: "I tried to pay the scam".

You are meant to be saying what happened to cause the PCN and why you aren't liable.

BrickwallPap

OK understood, thank you so much. How's this now: 

Name of Witness: ****
Witness Statement Number: 1

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [REDACTED]
Claim Number: [REDACTED]

Between
National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)
and
[REDACTED] (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement of [REDACTED]

---

Introduction

1. I, [REDACTED], of [REDACTED], make this Witness Statement in readiness for the hearing listed on [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] County Court and in support of my Defence against the Claimant, National Car Parks Limited.

2. My Defence is based on the following key points:

   • The payment system (RingGo app) was not functioning at the time I attempted to pay, leaving me unable to comply with the alleged terms.
   • The Claimant failed to serve the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012).
   • The additional costs of £197.80 are excessive and disproportionate.
   • The signage at the location was not sufficient to form a binding contract, particularly at night.

---

Facts and Sequence of Events

1. On [insert date], I parked at the Upminster Station Car Park, managed by the Claimant, National Car Parks Limited. I arrived during daylight hours and parked for the purpose of using the station for my commute.

2. As I boarded the train, I attempted to pay for parking using the RingGo app on my phone. However, the app displayed an error message, preventing me from completing payment. Despite multiple attempts, I was unable to resolve the issue.

3. Upon returning to Upminster Station after my commute, it was dark, and I was unable to locate any alternative means of payment. The lighting in the area was inadequate, and the signage was not clearly visible, further preventing me from identifying other methods of payment or instructions on how to proceed.

4. I acted in good faith by attempting to pay as soon as I boarded the train and by looking for payment options upon my return. However, the failure of the Claimant’s payment system and the lack of visible instructions left me unable to comply with the alleged terms.

5. I did not receive the original PCN relating to this matter. Instead, the first communication I received was a Final Reminder from BW Legal, dated [insert date], demanding an escalated charge.

---

Reasons Why I Am Not Liable

1. Failure of the Claimant’s Payment System
8. The Claimant’s payment system (RingGo app) was not functioning at the time I attempted to pay, leaving me unable to comply with their terms. The error was beyond my control, and I cannot be held liable for a failure on the Claimant’s part.

1. Upon my return to the car park, I made reasonable efforts to locate alternative payment methods, but the inadequate lighting and lack of visible instructions made this impossible.

2. A driver cannot be penalized for circumstances beyond their control, particularly when the Claimant failed to provide a functioning payment system or clear alternative methods.

---

2. Failure to Issue a Valid PCN
11. The Claimant did not serve a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the vehicle or by post within 14 days of the alleged contravention, as required by POFA 2012 to establish keeper liability.

1. The only communication I received was a Final Reminder from BW Legal, which does not meet the legal requirements for a Notice to Keeper under POFA 2012.

2. As the registered keeper, I cannot be held liable in the absence of compliance with POFA 2012.

---

3. Inadequate Signage
14. The signage at the car park was insufficient to form a binding contract. The terms and conditions, including payment requirements, were not clearly displayed during daylight hours and were impossible to read after dark due to inadequate lighting.

1. Under the ruling in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], clear and prominent signage is essential for a parking contract to be enforceable. The Claimant has not demonstrated that the signage at this location meets this standard, particularly for drivers returning after dark.

---

4. Excessive and Unfair Additional Costs
16. The Claimant has added £197.80 in “debt recovery costs” to the original £100 charge, which I believe are disproportionate and punitive.

1. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, additional charges must be fair, reasonable, and transparent. The Claimant has failed to justify these costs, which do not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial justification.

2. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] emphasized that parking charges must not exceed what is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the landowner. The Claimant’s excessive costs fail to meet this principle.

---

Conclusion and Request for Costs

1. I respectfully request that the court dismiss this claim in its entirety on the grounds that:

• The Claimant’s payment system was not functioning, making it impossible for me to comply with the alleged terms.
• The Claimant has failed to issue a valid PCN or establish keeper liability under POFA 2012.
• The signage at the location did not meet the standard required to form a binding contract, particularly at night.
• The additional costs of £197.80 are excessive and unfair.

1. I further request that the court considers awarding costs in my favor pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct in escalating this matter despite their own failures.

---

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: ____________________________
Name: [REDACTED]
Date: [Insert Date

Coupon-mad

OMG so much better!

1505grandad

"Facts and Sequence of Events

1. On [insert date], I parked at the Upminster Station Car Park, managed by the Claimant, National Car Parks Limited"

As driver named surely PoFA compliance not appropriate?:-

"2. Failure to Issue a Valid PCN

      2. As the registered keeper, I cannot be held liable in the absence of compliance with POFA 2012"