We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Third Claim by NPM/Gladstones - Got CCJ cleared - WON AT COURT - Case Dismissed
Comments
-
Coupon-mad said:
Incorrect. He lied.AdamBliss said:Coupon-mad said:Double yellows on the public highway are allowed for deliveries, so always stay on-street when unloading to premises. Never enter private land or private roads. If you see the signs don't go in. That's what we all do here!
I said same thing to one of the ticket inspectors, they said its only for vans/trucks delivering goods, They won't allow grace period on double yellow for for fast food delivery drivers.
Anyone can stop on single or DYL to load or unload. It's 'exempt activity' and this is not Council-specific. Not for him to reinvent or lie about.
It's a UK-wide exemption always.
USE DOUBLE YELLOWS CONFIDENTLY. It's what they are there for! Loading bays are different (often signed for commercial vehicles only) but single/double yellow lines are for everyone as long as there are no yellow 'kerb blips' too.
I often stop on them in my car. I seek yellow lines out, never car parks, if loading, unloading or picking up/setting down passengers. And on Sundays a single yellow line (not operating on Sundays) is my go-to when shopping in town.
Thank you for the info, appreciate it1 -
Finished my mediation phone appointment today
Took around 2 minutes, told them I am not willing to negotiate for a settlement with the claimant.
Waiting for update from the court, hearing date, then start my WS
3 -
Received Claimants Witness Statement, its similar to previous one.
I have until 20th March to finish my WS. Here is the first draft:
@Coupon-mad I would appreciate if you can advice me on any improvements.IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: xxxxxxx
Between
NATIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(Claimant)
- and -
xxxxxxxxxx
(Defendant)
WITNESS STATEMENT
I, xxxxxxxx of xxxxxx, xxxxxx will say as follows:
1. 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 knowledge.
2. In this statement, I will refer to Exhibits xxx01 - xx21 provided with this statement. Page and reference numbers are indicated as necessary.
Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out
3. The Defendant respectfully brings to the attention of the allocating Judge that this now marks the third claim filed against me by the same claimant. The Defendant would like to emphasise that the court has struck out the two previous claims pertaining to the same claimant and the same car park, referenced as: xxxxxx (Exhibit xx01) and xxxxxxx (Exhibit xx02) Thus, I believe this "new" duplicated claim warrants dismissal due to the principle of Cause of Action estoppel. As the claimant is legally represented, they are expected to understand that detaching or allowing to remain detached components of alleged debts and issuing separate claims—each relying on essentially duplicative particulars and facts constitutes an abuse of the civil litigation process. In Henderson v. Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, the court articulated several key principles: (i) Once a matter is in litigation, parties are obligated to present their entire case; (ii) The Court shall not allow the same parties to revisit the same subject of litigation regarding matters that could have been raised in earlier proceedings but were not due to negligence, oversight, or error; (iii) This prohibition applies to all matters, including those adjudicated in previous litigation as well as those that could have been advanced with reasonable diligence.
4. 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 on 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 of 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 (Exhibit xx03)
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. (Exhibit xx04)
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. (Exhibit Mxx05)
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 lack of 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. (Exhibit xx06)
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. It remains uncertain whether the claim pertains to my alleged parking outside of a designated bay, failure to remain on the premises, incorrect bay parking, overstaying the allotted time, or perhaps a technicality associated with the entry process at the kiosk. This lack of specificity places me, the defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.
Facts and Sequence of Events
10. I am the registered owner of the vehicle in question; however, I was not operating the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking violations that occurred in the year 2020. (Exhibit xx06)
11. In April 2024, I discovered that I received an automatic CCJ due to a Claim that was issued against me by NPM in March 2024 and as a result of the CCJ my credit score was negatively affected. This was due to the Claimant sending the claim form to my old address despite clearly updating my address with NPM and their Solicitors Gladstones in 2023. (Exhibit xx07)
12. I made NPM and the court aware of this situation and as a result, the court struck out the claim and removed the CCJ.
13. I received the amended claim form in October 2024 at my new address. In this NPM is claiming almost £800 for 3 PCNs from five years ago in 2020. (Exhibit xx08)
14. I was never aware of these PCNs as I was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking contraventions.
15. There were no clear, large and prominent signs at the entrance of the car park, and this is still the case to this day. (Exhibit xx09)
16. There were no large and clear signs in front of where the vehicle was parked. (Exhibit xx10)
17. There were no large and clear signs anywhere on the left half of the car park. Even the Claimants own witness statement admits to this. (Exhibit xx11)
18. The signs at the front and right side of the car park are in very poor condition, not large, not clear and definitely not easily readable from even a short distance aware especially for those that are visually impaired (Exhibit xx12)
19. To this day, there are no illuminated signs to aid visibility for drivers during darker hours, such as evenings and winter afternoons. (Exhibit xx13)
0 -
20. There are no clear boundaries on the site. It is very difficult to determine the boundaries of the site since there are no markings or signs at the entrance indicating any. The land is also in extremely poor condition, as evident in the pictures. The lack of large, visible signs can make it challenging for drivers to notice the terms and conditions, especially since large vehicles can block any signs present. (Exhibit xx14)
21. The evidence above clearly shows that the site lacks sufficient and clear signs, especially large and prominent signs that detail the terms and conditions in a clear and large font. The Claimant’s exhibit demonstrates that the sign is unclear, particularly with regards to the small print terms and conditions which are unreadable.
22. Based on the facts above, it is evident that the Claimant has failed to maintain and improve their signage. Despite years passing, no effort has been made to enhance the visibility of the signs and assist drivers in reading them. One simple solution to this problem could be to set up large, easily readable and illuminated signs at the site's entrance indicating the boundaries. This way, drivers can make an informed decision about whether to enter the site or not. However, no measures have been taken, and given the Claimants' practices, I don't think necessary measures such as this will be implemented anytime soon.
23. On 2020/08/13 the Claimants ticketer took the first picture of my vehicle at 16:43:51 and the last picture was taken at 16:44:06, the incident time on the Notice to Keeper was 16:45.
There was therefore no grace nor consideration period and there is no evidence of this whatsoever. Furthermore On 2020/08/13, the Claimants ticketer did not attach a PCN to the windscreen of the vehicle. The ticketer simply took pictures of the vehicle parked within just a minute. (Exhibit xx15)24. On 2020/08/06 the Claimants ticketer took the first picture of my vehicle at 15:17:20 with no large and visible signs near the vehicle and the last picture at 15:17:56 showing a close up of a sign from across the other side of the car park. The Claimants ticketer yet again did not attach a PCN to the windscreen of the vehicle. The ticketer simply took pictures of the vehicle parked within just a minute. (Exhibit xx16)
25. On 2020/03/05 the Claimants ticketer took the first picture of my vehicle at 17:06:09 and the last picture was taken at 17:07:07. Once again the ticketer did not allow a consideration nor a grace period and there is no evidence of this. (Exhibit xx17)
26. The ticketer did not allow for the 10-minute grace period outlined in section 13 of the International Parking Community (IPC) guidelines that NPM is a part of. (Exhibit xx18) Upon examination of the signage, it has become apparent that there is no explicit information in a clear ‘prominent font’ indicating that a grace period does not apply.
27. There are no statements from the ticketer or attendant who was present during the incident.
28. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to NPM.
a) Whitbread Group PLC, Babers Limited, Kukui Bars (Northampton) Limited and Midland Red (South) Limited are not the lawful occupier/owner of the land and car park.
b) A valid contract with the lawful owner of the land being produced by the Claimant or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful owner of the land is absent. I have the reasonable belief that the Claimant did not have the authority to issue parking charges on this land in their own name and that they therefore have no legal standing to bring this case.
29. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification.
b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC Code of Practice.
c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unethical.
e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.30. The Claimant did not provide all the data they hold on their system as a result this affected my defence and my case in general. I reported this to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and upon review the ICO confirmed my complaint: ‘’We have considered the issues you have raised with us. Based on this information, it is our view that National Parking Management Limited has infringed their data protection obligations’’ (Exhibit xx19) This statement provides additional evidence of the Claimant's unethical and disturbing practices.
Exaggerated Claims and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government
31. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of the additional charges. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £190.61. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
32. In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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."
37. 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
38. 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.
39. 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.
0 -
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of the 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 the pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.
43. 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.
44. 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).
CRA Breaches
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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).
48. Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that the template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson. (Exhibit xx20)
49. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
50. I would like to draw the attention of the honourable judge to the following case that resembled my own: Laura Jopson v Homeguard Securities, case number: 9GF0A9E. This case was also handled by Gladstones Solicitors, and it was determined by His Honour Judge J Harris QC at Oxford Court that loading and unloading is not considered parking. This is an appeal case and this decision is influential on the lower courts. (Exhibit xx21)
51. The claimant has accused me of using the internet for my defence. I fail to see what the issue is, as I am not legally represented and seeking advice online is my only option since I cannot afford legal representation.
52. I would also like to bring attention to the honourable judge, the fact that several other delivery drivers in Northampton, have also faced difficulties with the same Claimant. Many drivers were issued with multiple unfair parking tickets for simply carrying out their jobs and delivering to customers located at the sites managed by this unethical parking company. It is unfortunate that certain entities exist, causing undue inconvenience, stress and financial burden upon drivers who are merely carrying out their jobs.
53. Ultimately the Claimant is claiming a total of £799.27. This is clearly a grossly unfair and exorbitant amount to pay for 3 alleged parking tickets all issued within a 2 minute with none of them allowing a consideration/grace period with zero evidence of this.
54. Based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the claim, especially the mere fact that the Claimant had no permission/authority from the landowner to issue parking charges in 2021 in the first place. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the claim must be rejected.
55. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:
a) The total costs incurred concerning this legal process amount to £1,492. This figure includes the time spent on drafting, researching, completing forms, printing, sending documents and emails etc, which amounts to 78 hours of time spent. The process commenced on April 19, 2023, when the claim form was submitted by the claimant. This total will additionally include the standard witness costs for attendance at Court, day off work, travel costs and costs of parking pursuant to CPR 27.14. The provision to claim £19 per hour is in Practice Directions 46 (3.4) and CPR Rules 45.39 (5)(b) and 46(4)(b). My Schedule of Losses is attached to this statement. (Page 55)
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:
0 -
There are two persuasive judgments now, see here: -
15 August 2024 at 9:33AM <<<<LINK2 -
Just checking:-
"52. I would also like to bring attention to the honourable judge, the fact that several other delivery drivers in Northampton, have also faced difficulties with the same Claimant. Many drivers were issued with multiple unfair parking tickets for simply carrying out their jobs and delivering to customers located at the sites managed by this unethical parking company. It is unfortunate that certain entities exist, causing undue inconvenience, stress and financial burden upon drivers who are merely carrying out their jobs."
Not sure what you eventually filed as your Defence but a draft posted stated:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81079953/#Comment_81079953
"3. The Defendant’s vehicle was parked at Whitbread College Street, Northampton, NN1 2ET. The Defendant does not recall the reasons for the vehicle's parking at that particular location, as he was not the driver during the time of the alleged parking contraventions."
0 -
1505grandad said:Just checking:-
"52. I would also like to bring attention to the honourable judge, the fact that several other delivery drivers in Northampton, have also faced difficulties with the same Claimant. Many drivers were issued with multiple unfair parking tickets for simply carrying out their jobs and delivering to customers located at the sites managed by this unethical parking company. It is unfortunate that certain entities exist, causing undue inconvenience, stress and financial burden upon drivers who are merely carrying out their jobs."
Not sure what you eventually filed as your Defence but a draft posted stated:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81079953/#Comment_81079953
"3. The Defendant’s vehicle was parked at Whitbread College Street, Northampton, NN1 2ET. The Defendant does not recall the reasons for the vehicle's parking at that particular location, as he was not the driver during the time of the alleged parking contraventions."
Thank you for pointing this out. I copy and pasted my witness statement from a previous claim last year.
This new claim im defending as the registered keeper was not the driver, need to update this.0 -
Thank you, will add this.Le_Kirk said:There are two persuasive judgments now, see here: -
15 August 2024 at 9:33AM <<<<LINK0 -
This is from the Claimants WS, not entirely sure if this is proof of the legitimate landowner?
If not I want to use it as evidence against the Claimant in my WS.
Any suggesstions please? @Coupon-mad @1505grandad @Le_Kirk0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards