We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Table of Contents Witness Statement of Defendant 2 Exhibit xx-01 - Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan Judgment 11 Exhibit xx-02 - Parallel Parking v Anon. 15 Exhibit xx-03 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1. 16 Exhibit xx-04 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1. 17 Exhibit xx-05 - Excel v Smith Transcript 27 Exhibit xx-06 - VCS v Edwards Transcript 33 Exhibit xx-07 - Excel v Wilkinson Case Transcript 42 Exhibit xx-08 - The Beavis case sign for comparison. 52 Exhibit xx-09 - ParkingEye Limited v Beavis. 53
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
V
XXX XXX (Defendant)
Witness Statement of Defendant
1. I am XXX, (ADDRESS) 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 1-9) 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. 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.
4. 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 xx-01)
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 xx-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 xx-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 xx-04)
8. 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. 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
9. It is admitted that on the material dates, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXXX. It is unknown who the driver of the vehicle was on the dates of the claimed PCNs, given the PCNs date back to 2019.
10. Multiple individuals were authorised by me to use the vehicle at the times of the alleged contraventions via their own comprehensive insurance policies, which allowed them to use another private vehicle for which they were covered on a third party only basis.
11. I do not recall receiving any pre-claim correspondence relating to the PCNs in question. I would like to point out to the court that I was residing at my partners residence at various times between 2018 – 2019 due to personal circumstances.
12. All post received at my parents house was forwarded on to me, however, I do not recall receiving any correspondence in relation to the PCNs claimed for within this claim.
13. I recognise the site as a car park for a gym which I attended occasionally, however, some of the individuals who were authorised to use my vehicle also attended the same gym.
14. The Claimant has stated in their Witness Statement ‘24. The Defendant does not dispute being the Keeper of the Vehicle but denies driving. My Company reasonably believes that the Defendant was the Driver because they would otherwise have nominated a driver, and therefore the Defendant is pursued on that basis. My Company has complied with POFA and can pursue the Defendant as Keeper in the alternative’. As multiple individuals were authorised by me to use the vehicle at the time, and given the PCNs in question relate back to 2019, I am unable to nominate a driver given the length of time that has surpassed since the alleged contraventions.
15. The Claimant has stated in their Witness Statement ’28 iii. Although the Defendant denies driving, they have not nominated a Driver which was explained on the affixed PCN and Notice to Keeper. The Defendant confirms they were in receipt of the Notice to Keeper, however, the Defendant failed to respond’. I as the Defendant have not confirmed receipt of the Notice to Keeper at any point. I would like to make it clear that I do not recall receiving any pre-claim correspondence in relation to the alleged contraventions.
16. The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, that complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act ('POFA') 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule 4. Outwith the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke 'keeper liability'. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence:
(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA. Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all). HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but dd not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed and Excel's claim was dismissed (See Exhibit xx-05).
(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation. HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed (See Exhibit xx-06).
Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving 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.
(iii). Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if the entire sum was 'overdue' on the day of parking;
20. 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.
21. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7thFebruary 2022, here:
"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. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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).
33. 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 xx-07)
The Beavis case is against this claim
34. 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 xx-08) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.
35. 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 xx-09) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).
36. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There are two main issues that render this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:
(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:
The signage in this case required customers to enter their vehicle registration number at a kiosk inside the store. Unfortunately, this kiosk was inaccessible to me as the store was closed, rendering compliance impossible. I also wish to highlight the presence of a sign in the parking area that mentioned clamping. The use of clamping as a penalty for parking violations was made illegal under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The inclusion of such outdated language on a parking sign raises questions about the relevance and validity of the signage in the parking area. This sign, which suggested that 'Others will be clamped,' directly contradicts current parking regulations and creates further confusion regarding the penalties associated with parking violations. It is reasonable to assume that the parking operators responsible for the signage failed to update their notices to reflect the changes in the law. Given this discrepancy and the fact that clamping is no longer a legally permissible penalty, it further underscores the uncertainty surrounding the parking terms at the location in question. I believe this is another critical factor that should be considered by the court when evaluating the legitimacy of this case.
(ii). 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. 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
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.
42. 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.
"5. The Defendant vaguely remembers the day in question, he and a friend had gone to the public house and parked in the car park attached to the pub for allegedly 23 minutes which he had parked in on previous occasions (Pre Covid) with no issues. The defendant was a paying patron at the establishment, where the defendant parked there wasn't signage in the line of sight."
If so why on earth are you stating (under a SoT) the following in the above WS:-
"3. I recognise the site as a car park for a gym which I attended occasionally, however, some of the individuals who were authorised to use my vehicle also attended the same gym."
If the event was in 2022 then it's irrelevant where you were living in 2018/19. Why does this WS say things like:
"given the PCNs in question relate back to 2019"
You also talk about a gym. Were you even living with your partner? Never received the PCN and other letters?
Is any if that true?
I think you have copied & pasted a pretty old WS without a fact check.
There is no "DLUHC ban" on added £70 costs either.
You need CPMS v Akande (as well as Chan). You need to read far more recent WS examples!
You should also add that the Claim Form is so poor that it doesn't even state which Bricklayer's Arms pub it is, nor the terms, nor the breach, and it is signed off with an initial 'S Wilson' when the CPRs require the full name under a statement of case. Civil Enforcement are among the 'top 10' most prolific Parking litigators with an in-house legal team headed by a barrister, so there is no reasonable explanation for them to carry on churning out such poor POC, ignoring the authority of Chan which went against them a couple of years ago, and should have been a reality check.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland). CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says: Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
1. I, [Insert name ], of [Insert Address], am the Defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim. I make this statement in defence of the claim brought against me, based on my personal knowledge and belief.
2. In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 01) 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:
3. Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, as the maximum charge that can be levied for a PCN is £100;
(f) Claim Form is so poor that it doesn't even state which Bricklayer's Arms pub it is, nor the terms, nor the breach, and it is signed off with an initial 'S Wilson' when the CPRs require the full name under a statement of case.
4. I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim (and he first is about this same Claimant). I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators 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 using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities (I append transcripts of both - plus multiple area court 'strike outs' of parking claims that reflect these authorities - in Exhibit 01)
5. The first 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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'. (See Exhibit 01)
6. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in 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'. (See Exhibit 01)
7. I believe 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.
8. Failure to Comply with POFA 2012 8.1. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate compliance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, which sets out the strict requirements for transferring liability to the registered keeper. 8.2. No compliant Notice to Keeper was issued within the required 14-day timeframe, nor does the notice contain the mandatory wording required under POFA 2012. 8.3. As such, the Claimant has no basis to pursue this claim against me as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
9. Signage and Contract Formation 9.1. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence of clear and legible signage at the site, which is necessary to form a valid contract. 9.2. The signage at the location is sporadic and illegible, with inadequate lettering and no prominent display of terms and conditions, making it difficult for any driver to reasonably form a contract. 9.3. The signage does not meet the requirements set forth in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which mandates that parking terms be clearly displayed and transparent. 9.4. No contract was formed between the driver and the Claimant, and in the absence of a valid contract, the Claimant’s claim must fail.
10. No Loss Suffered 10.1. The parking charge imposed is a disproportionate penalty and does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. 10.2. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of financial loss resulting from the alleged parking contravention, further weakening the validity of the claim.
11. Procedural Irregularities 11.1. The Claimant has failed to comply with pre-action protocol, which is a requirement under the Civil Procedure Rules. 11.2. No Letter Before Claim was issued by the Claimant, and the Claim Form lacks sufficient detail to substantiate the alleged parking violation. It also fails to provide the necessary supporting evidence.
12. Comparison with ParkingEye v Beavis 12.1. The Claimant has attempted to rely on the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67. However, this case is not applicable to the present circumstances. 12.2. The Beavis case was based on clear and prominent signage, a legitimate interest of the landowner, and compliance with the BPA Code of Practice—factors which are absent in this case. 12.3. Unlike in Beavis, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate a legitimate interest in enforcing this parking charge, as required by the judgment.
13. Unrecoverable Additional Costs 13.1. The Claimant has added £50 in purported "debt recovery costs" to the claim. However, these costs are not recoverable under the Civil Procedure Rules for small claims, and I request that this amount be struck out from the claim. 13.2. The Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim as an abuse of process, as the added costs are both unreasonable and unjustified.
14. Lack of Standing 14.1. The Claimant does not own the land in question and is acting solely as an agent. 14.2. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of a valid contract with the landowner that would grant them the authority to issue parking charges or pursue legal action on their behalf.
15. Conclusion
15.1. Based on the above, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss this claim in its entirety as it lacks merit and has no reasonable prospect of success. 15.2. I also request that the Court award costs for the time spent preparing this defense and attending the hearing, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).
15.3. 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))."
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I trust the Court will review this statement and dismiss the claim.
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.
Ignore the one above (22/02) I have now tailored this to suit my case, will this help me win my case? Any help will be much appreciated as my hearing date looms!
Civil Enforcement are among the 'top 10' most prolific Parking litigators with an in-house legal team headed by a barrister, so there is no reasonable explanation for them to carry on churning out such poor POC, ignoring the authority of Chan which went against them a couple of years ago, and should have been a reality check.
Remove para 10 and para 11.
Replace them with some facts that match the facts in your defence, about who was driving and what happened at the pub, and how poor the signage is (not seen? Was it night time?).
Why does para 13 say £50 was added (wrong)? £70 is the an objectionable add-on. Change it back to £70.
Remove this strange added paragraph:
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I trust the Court will review this statement and dismiss the claim.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland). CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says: Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
10. On the day in question, I was unable to see the signage clearly due to the heavy congestion in the car park. The area was overcrowded with multiple vans parked in a way that obstructed the visibility of the few signs. This made it difficult to identify any important information or instructions that were displayed, as the vans were parked in front of key signage, partially or completely covering them. As a result, I was unable to see the apparent signage to read or follow any parking rules or guidelines that may have been indicated by the signs.
