My CCJ was set aside. Have now received a Trial date for Sept. Please help me understand this situ

Bennyharvey

Yeah I have about 20 photos of all the signs from a few angles and from distance 

Johnersh

As the o/p says, as a frequent user of the site, there's less force in the "I didn't read/couldn't read the sign argument."

The regular display of a permit obviously points to an awareness of the need to display one. It might be argued the o/p might not have been aware of the level of fine or any additional terms.

What the obviously poor signs also do, however, is call into question the reliability of everything said in the WS by the individual who isn't even there to attend/answer questions. That is esp the case if they use reproductions of signs that are clearer than the signs themselves.  Get that wrong and what else have they said that is incorrect/inconsistent. It cannot be relied upon etc.... 

Bennyharvey

Hi all, here is a draft of my witness statement for submission on Tuesday. I haven't included my exhibits because I'd need to remove so much identifying info.

Any feedback I'd be so grateful for.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LdL-AyK0TQN15VemelEKqbeApwQnDmWt0bElSIbTaCA/edit?usp=sharing

- I'm worried it's too long. 

- I haven't included Excel v Wilkinson and wondering if I should. 

- Not sure about my conclusion.

- The bullet point numbers are missing but they are correct in the Doc itself

WITNESS STATEMENT OF REDACTED

1. I, REDACTED, 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. 

1. In my statement I shall refer to Exhibits A-O 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

1. I respectfully request that the Court strike out the claim due to non-compliance with Practice Direction 32. The Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant, signed by REDACTED, a Paralegal at Gladstones Solicitors, fails to meet the requirement that a witness statement must be made by someone with direct knowledge of the facts. Gladstones Solicitors, representing Parking Control Management UK Ltd. (PCM), do not have direct involvement in the relevant events, thus breaching paragraph 18.2 of Practice Direction 32, which mandates that the statement be in the witness’s own words and reflect their personal knowledge. Therefore, I request that the claim be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c).
   
   

2. The case of JD Wetherspoon Plc v Harris [2013] EWHC 1088 (Ch.) illustrates the Court's authority to strike out sections of a witness statement made by someone who lacks personal knowledge of the facts. Specifically, paragraphs 33 and 39 (see Exhibit A) emphasise that witness statements must be provided by individuals who have direct involvement in the events at issue, rather than being based on secondhand information or speculation.
   
   

3. The witness statement from REDACTED, a paralegal, is not based on first-hand knowledge and consists largely of speculation. It is a recitation of the defence and lacks factual evidence from the parking attendant employed by PCM, who could provide relevant testimony regarding the permit. Despite the parking attendant being their employee, no effort was made to obtain a statement from this individual. This absence of critical testimony regarding the permit's visibility and the limited photographic evidence raises questions.
   
   

4. Additionally, the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was not affixed to the vehicle. The only reason given for this was "safety reasons," yet no safety issues are visible in the photos of the vehicle, nor was I aware of any. This lack of explanation from either the Parking Attendant or in the Claimant’s Witness Statement further highlights the need for testimony from the Parking Attendant to clarify the circumstances surrounding the permit being overlooked.
   
   

5. I respectfully request that the Court consider drawing an adverse inference from the Claimant's failure to call the parking attendant as a witness, as their testimony could offer crucial insights into these matters.

Facts and Sequence of Events

1. Date and Time of the Incident: On 1st November 2022, at approximately 17:50, my car was parked in the car park located at REDACTED while I was at work. Since this was the car park I used daily for work, I had a parking permit affixed to the offside rear windscreen of my vehicle.

1. Parking Permit Issued Through Employer: From January 2020 until June 2023, I worked full-time for a small business located on REDACTED. In June 2021, my employer issued me a PCM parking permit for REDACTED (see Exhibit

1. Parking Permit Displayed: I parked my car at these premises five days a week, consistently displaying my permit in a plastic pocket affixed to the offside rear windscreen. On 1st November 2022, I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged contravention, which was the first and only PCN I received while parking at these premises. I can only assume that on all previous occasions, the Parking Warden noted the permit affixed to my rear offside windscreen (see Exhibit C), and thus no PCN was issued. 

1. No Breach of the Terms & Conditions: The letter issued with the permit states, "Please always display the attached permit clearly in the windscreen of your vehicle." Additionally, the terms and conditions sign visible in the car park reads, "Vehicles must be parked with a valid green parking permit displayed fully within the windscreen." (see Exhibit D). Neither the letter nor the sign specifies that the permit must be displayed in the front windscreen only. Given that the definition of ‘windscreen’ is "a screen that protects against the wind," it is reasonable to assume that any windscreen on the vehicle would be suitable for displaying the permit.

1. PCN not Affixed for Safety Reasons: The photographic evidence provided by the Attendant consists of limited angles, with multiple photos taken from the same angle rather than capturing different views, resulting in the omission of any photograph showing my parking permit affixed to the rear offside windscreen (see Exhibit E). The Claimant asserts that the Attendant’s notes indicate a PCN was not affixed due to "safety reasons." If the Attendant could not safely affix a PCN to my car, I believe this, combined with the lack of lighting in the car park during nightfall, contributed to my permit being overlooked. I emphasise that my car was parked at this site five days a week for two years, with the permit permanently affixed, and this was the only occasion on which I was issued a PCN.

1. Prompt Appeal: Upon receiving the PCN from PCM on 15th November 2022, I promptly lodged an appeal online on 17th November 2022 (see Exhibit F). In my appeal I stated that I have a valid permit and that this permit was displayed. I explained that I was advised by my MOT provider not to obstruct my front windscreen with the permit to avoid issues in my upcoming MOT. My MOT provider explained that such was the angle of my front windscreen that the placement of the permit affixed here was going to obstruct the view of the driver to the extent that it could affect my MOT test. I had no reason not to accept this advice and I moved the parking permit to the rear offside windscreen.
   
   

2. No Response to Appeal: After submitting my appeal on 17th November 2022, I did not receive a response via postal mail or email. The Claimant alleges that a response to my appeal was posted on 18th November 2022, but they have provided no proof of postage to support this claim. Despite receiving an acknowledgement email of my appeal to my email address, no further attempt was made to contact me via email.

1. Postal Mail Issues: The Claimant has provided no proof of postage to support their claim that they sent a letter rejecting my appeal dated 18th November 2022, or a subsequent letter dated 6th December 2022, which stated that 14 days had passed since their rejection and that they had not heard from me. I did not receive either of these letters. At the time, there were significant and widespread issues with the postal service in my area. These issues were serious enough that on 26th April 2023, the constituency’s MP, Claire Coutinho, wrote to the Chief Executive of Royal Mail to address the postal service problems affecting REDACTED (see Exhibit G). It is peculiar that the Claimant did not contact me via email, despite having my email address and using it to acknowledge my appeal.

1. Additionally, Exhibit H is an article from 'Inside Croydon' discussing the serious issues with the postal services in South London during this same time period. 

1. Finally, Exhibit I details Ofcom's 2023 investigation report into Royal Mail's failure to meet delivery targets.

1. Personal Circumstances: In March 2023, my ex-partner and I planned to move in with his father to save money while searching for our first home. To manage my mail during this transition, I set up a Royal Mail redirection service three weeks before the move to our new address with my partner and his father (see Exhibit J).

1. However, due to escalating abuse in the relationship, I was forced to urgently find a different place to live. As a result, my mail began arriving at my ex-partner's address. Although he initially promised to forward my mail, he later refused to do so. Recognising that I could no longer safely receive my mail through my ex-partner, I arranged a new redirection to my current address (see Exhibit K). After Police involvement, I managed to recover some, but not all, of my missing mail from my ex-partner on 26th July 2023.

Breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

1. Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) requires that any ambiguous terms in a consumer contract be interpreted in the consumer's favour. The terms and conditions provided by PCM state that a valid permit must be displayed "within the windscreen," but do not specify that this refers exclusively to the front windscreen.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/69?view=plain

1. As a consumer, I reasonably interpreted "windscreen" to include the offside rear windscreen, where I displayed my permit. Given this ambiguity, the CRA 2015 supports my interpretation, meaning my display of the permit on the offside rear windscreen was compliant with the terms.

1. Therefore, the PCN issued against me is based on an overly restrictive interpretation of "windscreen." I ask the Court to apply the CRA 2015 and conclude that there was no breach of the terms and conditions.

1. Furthermore, Section 71 of the CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. As a result, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

1. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear. In my case, the Terms and Conditions sign was not lit in the car park.
   
   

2. I argue that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith). 

Bennyharvey

PART 2/2

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

1. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

1. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

1. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action.

1. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022:
   
   https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "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." 

1. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here: 
   
   https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

1. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

1. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the  fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

1. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  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 ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

1. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

1. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.  It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.

1. At last, the DLUHC's analysis overrides plainly wrong findings by Circuit Judges steered by Counsel in weak appeal cases that the parking industry steamrollered through. In Vehicle Control Services v Percy, HHJ Saffman took a diametrically opposed position to that taken by DJ Hickinbottom, DJ Jackson (as Her Honour Judge Jackson then was), and other District Judges on the North Eastern Circuit, including DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds and DJ Wright (Skipton) all of whom have consistently dismissed extortionate added 'fees/damages'. District Judges deal with private parking claims on a daily basis, whereas cases of this nature come before Circuit Judges infrequently. The Judgments of HHJ Parkes in Britannia v Semark-Jullien, and HHJ Simpkiss in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw were flawed. These supposedly persuasive judgments included a universal failure to consider the court's duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 and factual errors. In Wilshaw: a badly outdated reliance on 'ticket cases' which allowed poor signage to escape fair scrutiny and a wrong presumption that landowner authority 'is not required' (DVLA rules make it mandatory). In Percy, HHJ Saffman made an incorrect assumption about pre-action costs and even sought out the wrong Code of Practice of his own volition after the hearing, and used it to inform his judgement.

1. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ( POFA) the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability'.

1. I argue that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis (see Exhibit L) , nor do they meet the signage requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015). 

1. My photographs taken in August 2023 illustrate the poor placement of the signs within the car park. These signs are positioned either very high, above head height, or very low, at knee level, making them difficult for drivers to notice or read. Furthermore, the majority of the signs are in a faded and damaged condition, with some illegible (see Exhibit M).

1. The Claimant’s Witness Statement includes a satellite image of the car park, with blue crosses marking the purported locations of the PCM Terms & Conditions signs. The Claimant asserts that nine signs are displayed in the car park. However, only six signs are actually present, three fewer than the Claimant claims. I have marked the locations of the missing signs with green circles on the same satellite image (see Exhibit N).

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis is distinguished

1. Unlike in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged (see Exhibit O). The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.  

1. The Supreme Court held that 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 alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps').  This Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities 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''. 

1. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the DLUHC Code and these clauses are supported by the BPA & IPC. In the official publication 'Parking Review' the IPC's CEO observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, 

has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t."

Conclusion

1. I respectfully request the Court to strike out this claim due to significant procedural deficiencies and lack of credible evidence. The Claimant's witness statement fails to comply with Practice Direction 32, being based on secondhand information. 

1. My evidence demonstrates that the parking permit was properly displayed, and the claim relies on speculative assertions without direct testimony from the parking attendant. Therefore, I ask the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety.

1. 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.

1. 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 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.

1.  In the matter of costs, I seek:

(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. 

1. I respectfully request that the Court consider my claim for the costs incurred in defending this case. I have attached a detailed Costs Assessment which outlines the lost income, travel expenses, and other costs I have incurred. This assessment demonstrates the financial impact this claim has had on me and I submit this for the Court's consideration in seeking an order for costs against the Claimant.

2. 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))."

Johnersh

Ok, well as a starter for 10.... CPR 32 and the practice direction does not apply to small claims.  Even if it did, the court would normally just exclude/not give weight to that evidence, rather than strike out the claim. You really don't want this type of poor point to be what the judge reads first.

Then go back and deal with *facts* Succinct is fine. 

Strictly speaking a witness statement shouldn't really have legal argument in it at all, but if you are going to do that, get rid of inter alia...

* codes of practice that don't apply/aren't law,
* reference to cases that may not have been cited by the claimant especially where the reference is only to criticise the judgment "plainly wrong" as distinct from explaining why this case differs
* Complaints about discontinuance, where the claim isn't discontinued 
* Guff about consumer harm (this is your hearing not an episode of Watchdog)

Your statement is your own, but don't risk losing the wood for all of the trees. 

H

Coupon-mad

"With the DLUHC's ban" is wrong because it was blocked. There's no ban currently.

I don't understand this phrase:

"It is a recitation of the defence".

Bennyharvey

Thank you. I'll work on my brevity! And address your points made. 

Bennyharvey

I perhaps made the mistake of taking much of the suggested template defence forgetting I'm writing a WS as opposed to a defence. Oops! It's a lot to get one's head around. Really appreciative of the feedback. 

Coupon-mad

That's fine, and understandable.

If you used the Template defence, you can confidently remove any paragraphs from the suggested WS (second half of blurb) that repeat what the defence had in its 2nd half.

Bennyharvey

Is the following shorter Witness Statement more like it? I feel like I'm asking a lot of this forum, apologies!

I've removed mention of Beavis, is this wise? 

I've kept in the info about the CRA breaches. If that's unwise then I'll remove.

I've rewritten my conclusion also but it's not included below.

WITNESS STATEMENT OF REDACTED

1. I, REDACTED, 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. 

1. In my statement I shall refer to Exhibits A-L 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:

Facts and Sequence of Events

1. Date and Time of the Incident: On 1st November 2022, at approximately 17:50, my car was parked in the car park located at REDACTED. This was the car park I used daily for work and I had a parking permit affixed with adhesive to the offside rear windscreen of my vehicle.

1. Parking Permit Issued Through Employer: From January 2020 until June 2023, I worked full-time for a small business and my employer issued me a PCM parking permit in June 2021 for REDACTED (see Exhibit A). 

1. Parking Permit Displayed: I parked my car at this car park five days a week, consistently displaying my permit in a plastic pocket affixed to the offside rear windscreen. On 1st November 2022, I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged contravention, which was the first and only PCN I received in the sixteen months of parking in this car park. I can only assume that on all previous occasions, the Parking Warden noted the permit affixed to my rear offside windscreen (see Exhibit , and thus no PCN was issued. 

1. No Breach of the Terms & Conditions: The letter issued with the permit states, "Please always display the attached permit clearly in the windscreen of your vehicle." Additionally, the terms and conditions sign visible in the car park reads, "Vehicles must be parked with a valid green parking permit displayed fully within the windscreen." (see Exhibit C). Neither the letter nor the sign specifies that the permit must be displayed in the front windscreen only. Given that the definition of ‘windscreen’ is "a screen that protects against the wind," it is reasonable to assume that any windscreen on the vehicle would be suitable for displaying the permit.

1. PCN not Affixed for Safety Reasons: The photographic evidence provided by the Attendant consists of limited angles, with multiple photos taken from the same angle as opposed to capturing different angles (see Exhibit D). The Claimant asserts that the Attendant’s notes indicate a PCN was not affixed due to "safety reasons” but the Claimant does not explain what these reasons are. The Claimant has only provided an image of the phrase “Safety reasons” in black text on a white background with no explanation of this. The car park itself is accessed only by an unadopted lane where there is no street lighting. There is no lighting in the car park and the Terms and Conditions Signs are not lit. It is plausible that the darkness in the area could be the 'safety reason' cited by the Attendant for not affixing the PCN. This lack of visibility may also explain why the Parking Attendant failed to notice my clearly displayed Parking Permit.

1. No First-Hand Account from Parking Attendant: The Claimant's Witness Statement, written by Redacted, a paralegal, is not based on first-hand knowledge of the facts and lacks testimony from the parking attendant employed by PCM. It appears that no effort was made to obtain a statement from the Parking Attendant. This absence of testimony alongside the limited photographs and unspecified “Safety Reasons” for not affixing a PCN to my car raises questions about the accuracy of the claim.
   
   

2. Prompt Appeal: Upon receiving the PCN from PCM on 15th November 2022, I promptly lodged an appeal online on 17th November 2022 (see Exhibit E). In my appeal I stated that I have a valid permit and that this permit was always displayed. I explained that I was advised by my MOT provider not to obstruct my front windscreen with the permit to avoid issues in my upcoming MOT. My MOT provider explained that such was the angle of my front windscreen that the placement of the permit here was going to obstruct the view of the driver to the extent that it would affect my MOT test. I had no reason not to accept this advice and I moved the parking permit to the rear offside windscreen.
   
   

3. No Response to Appeal: After submitting my appeal on 17th November 2022, I did not receive a response via postal mail or email. The Claimant alleges that a response to my appeal was posted but they have provided no proof of postage to support this claim. Despite receiving an acknowledgement email of my appeal to my email address, no further attempt was made to contact me via email.

1. Postal Mail Issues: The Claimant has provided no proof of postage to support their claim that they sent a letter rejecting my appeal dated 18th November 2022, or a subsequent letter dated 6th December 2022. I did not receive either of these letters. At the time, there were significant and widespread issues with the postal service in my area. These issues were serious enough that on 26th April 2023, the constituency’s MP, Claire Coutinho, wrote to the Chief Executive of Royal Mail to address the postal service problems affecting Caterham (see Exhibit F). It is peculiar that the Claimant did not contact me via email, despite having my email address and using it to acknowledge my appeal.

1. Additionally, Exhibit G is an article from 'Inside Croydon' discussing the serious issues with the postal services in South London during this same time period. 

1. Finally, Exhibit H details Ofcom's 2023 investigation report into Royal Mail's failure to meet delivery targets.

1. Personal Circumstances: In March 2023, my ex-partner and I planned to move in with his father to save money while searching for our first home. To manage my mail during this transition, I set up a Royal Mail redirection service three weeks before the move to our new address with my partner and his father (see Exhibit I).

1. However, due to abuse in the relationship, I was forced to urgently find a different place to live. As a result, my mail began arriving at my ex-partner's address. Although he initially promised to forward my mail, he later refused to do so. Recognising that I could no longer safely receive my mail through my ex-partner, I arranged a new redirection to my current address (see Exhibit J). After Police involvement, I managed to recover some, but not all, of my missing mail from my ex-partner on 26th July 2023. It is at this point I became aware that the PCN was still unresolved as a CCJ had been filed against me on the 19th June 2023. I quickly took action by filing a N244 Application Notice.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 & The Car Park Signs

1. Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) requires that any ambiguous terms in a consumer contract be interpreted in the consumer's favour. The terms and conditions provided by PCM state that a valid permit must be displayed "within the windscreen," but do not specify that this refers exclusively to the front windscreen.

(https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/69?view=plain)

1. As a consumer, I reasonably interpreted "windscreen" to include the offside rear windscreen, where I displayed my permit. Given this ambiguity, the CRA 2015 supports my interpretation, meaning my display of the permit on the offside rear windscreen was compliant with the terms.

1. The CRA 2015 introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear. In my case, none of the signs were lit in the car park, nor was there any street type lighting in the car park itself. 

1. Additionally, my photographs, taken in August 2023, illustrate the poor placement of the signs within the car park. These signs are positioned either very high, above head height, or very low, at knee level, making them difficult for drivers to notice or read. Furthermore, the majority of the signs are in a faded and damaged condition, with some illegible (see Exhibit K).

1. Finally, the Claimant’s Witness Statement includes a satellite image of the car park, with blue crosses marking the purported locations of the PCM Terms & Conditions signs. The Claimant asserts that nine signs are displayed in the car park. However, only six signs are actually present, three fewer than the Claimant claims. I have marked the locations of the missing signs with green circles on the same satellite image (see Exhibit N).