private "ticket" from North West Parking Ltd, pursued by DCBL. Won court case.

skuther

Latest update:

Case allocated to Durham County court for hearing on 7th April.

12th Feb (ie. few day away) witness statements due. I been been putting off putting the hours in to complete them as hoping for DCBL discontinuation letter, but that has not happened yet - and don't want to risk it so busy rest of weekend. Obviously not received any witness statements from DCBL either.

21st-28th Feb - our new baby is due!

10th March - deadline for claimant to pay court fee, otherwise will be struck out and claimant liable for defendents costs - is that normal?

Coupon-mad

Yes. Sounds close to discontinuation,  show us your draft WS after reading some recent ones.

skuther

Oh crap. They have forwarded the witness statement - written 4/2/25 - but only sent to us with 1 day to go before the deadline. I will rewrite witness statement to reflect their comments - but any URGENT comments on their statements would be welcome

skuther

I, xxx, of Rutherford House, Warrington Road, Birchwood, Warrington, Cheshire, WA3
6ZH, state as follows: -
1. I am a Director, employed by Northwest Parking Management Ltd (“my Company”). I am duly authorised to make this Statement on my Company’s behalf.
2. I make this Statement in support of the Claimant’s Claim and in response to the Defence.
3. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless I state otherwise.
I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source is identified.
Facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
1
Parties
4. My Company provides private car park management services to private landowners, to manage the way motorists are permitted to park on their private land. My Company does so by issuing parking charge notices to any vehicle parked in a way the landowner does not permit.
5. The Defendant is the recipient of a parking charge notice (“PCN”) issued by my Company. The details are set out herein.
Accreditation
6. At all material times, my Company was accredited by the Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) known as the British Parking Association (“BPA”). The BPA has a Code of Practice (“Code”) that its members are expected to adhere to, or otherwise face potential sanctions. My Company operates in accordance with the Code.
7. In order to obtain Registered Keeper details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (“DVLA”) my Company must be a member of an ATA. It is therefore essential for my Company to comply with the Code.
Background
8. My Company issued a PCN (“Charge”) to the Vehicle (“Vehicle”) with details listed below:
PCN No. Location (“Land”) VRN Issue Date Reason for Issue
136525 Hartlepool Marina Car Park,
Hartlepool, TS24 0RU
xxxxxx 28/12/2023 Parked For Longer Than
The Period For Which
Payment Has Been Made.
9. At the time of issue, my Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to manage parking on the Land. A copy of my Company’s agreement with the Landowner (“Landowner Agreement”) is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 1”.
10. I refer to the decision in One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] (Wilshaw) whereby it was found that it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove the Landowner’s authority to constitute a valid cause of action to recover the PCN, what is required is proof that there is a binding contract
2
between the Claimant and the Defendant. Further, it was found in Wilshaw that the contract between the Claimant and the Freeholder (Landowner) does not affect the validity of any contract between the Claimant and the Defendant.
Contract
11. At the time of issue, my Company was prominently displaying signs on the Land setting out the Terms of parking. A copy of the content of the signs is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 2”.
The signs formed the basis of the Contract with the driver (“Contract”).
12. The following was a term of the Contract: -
“Drivers are required to purchase the correct amount of parking time to cover the full duration of their stay.
Parking shall be for no longer than the period for which payment has been made.”

skuther

13. In parking the Vehicle on the Land, the driver accepted the Contract, with the license to park being the Consideration. It is evident from the photographic evidence exhibited to this Statement at 

“EXHIBIT 3” that the driver entered the Land at 18:43 and exited the Land at 20:59. The Payment

Log at “EXHIBIT 4” confirms that, whilst a payment was made for the Vehicle, this was not valid
for the full duration of their stay, thus breaching the Contract.
14. The Contract provides that a charge is payable by the driver upon breach, with payment falling due
within 28 days.
15. A plan of the Land (“Plan”) showing the positioning of the signs is exhibited to this Statement at
“EXHIBIT 5”.
16. A copy of the Notice to Keeper and Reminder Notices are exhibited to this Witness Statement at
“EXHIBIT 6”.
Defendant’s Liability
17. Pursuant to the Contract; the Driver was liable to pay the Charge within 28 days of issue.
3
18. My Company uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) technology on the Land to manage the parking. Cameras capable of accurately recording vehicle registration numbers are constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the Land. A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it
enters and exits the Land. Any vehicle found to have breached the Terms of parking will be issued with a PCN.
19. In order to issue a PCN, my Company requests the details of the Registered Keeper from the DVLA to send notices compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). Upon receipt of those details, Notice is sent to the Keeper via the post in accordance with paragraph 9 of
POFA. The Notice to Keeper is followed up with other reminder notices. Copies are with “EXHIBIT
6”.
20. The Defendant admits to being the Driver at the time of the contravention, and has been pursued on the same basis. My Company has complied with POFA and can pursue the Defendant as Keeper in the alternative.
Defence
21. The Defendant was afforded a 28-day period in which they could appeal. An appeal was lodged which was unsuccessful. A copy of the appeal and response issued is exhibited at “EXHIBIT 7”. The Defendant was able to submit a second appeal to the ATA’s appeals service, but no successful second
appeal has been made. The potential next step was clearly communicated to the Defendant in notices.
It is respectfully submitted that if the Defendant genuinely believed the Charge had been issued incorrectly, they would have engaged with the appeals process further.
22. The Defendant has filed a widely available templated Defence, rather than dealing with the substantive issues. It is submitted the this is disingenuous and a waste of both the Court’s and my Company’s time.
23. Notwithstanding the above, I respond to the issues raised in the Defence by way of sub-headings as follows (as the defence is quite repetitive, I will only deal with each point once, but for the avoidance of doubt nothing within the defence is accepted unless I specifically state otherwise): -

skuther

4
Defendant’s Disputes
i. The Defendant has alleged that the signage on the Land was not adequate in properly communicating the Terms to the users, given the dark conditions. Respectfully, my Company
submits that the Terms on the signs were adequate in respect of overall size, font size, plain
English, location and content. The Plan demonstrates where the signs were located and it is
submitted they are adequate to constitute notice of the Terms to the Driver. If the Defendant
did not understand the Terms on the signs, they should have exited the land and found
alternative parking.
ii. Further to the above, the signs clearly outlined the Terms of parking and the Defendant was
on notice of the Terms upon entering the Land. By parking on the Land, the Defendant
accepted the Terms. These Terms state that if breached, the Defendant agrees to pay within 28
days of issue;
iii. In respect of the ‘terms’, as per Schedule 2 of the Consumer Right Act 2015, specifically
referred to:
Term 6 – It is submitted the sum is not disproportionate for the reasons set out within the
‘amount claimed’ section of this Statement, nor is it ‘compensation’.
Term 10 – As is evident from the Plan, signs were displayed throughout the Land. The
Driver was aware of the fact that parking was managed from the point of entering the
Land and could leave if they did not agree to the Terms. It is not unreasonable for the
Driver to need to potentially walk no more than 10 meters to fully familiarise themselves
with the full Terms. This would have all happened before the conclusion of the contract.
Term 14 – The price is stated on the sign.
Term 18 – The fact the Driver was able to park means my Company fulfilled its
obligations.
iv. The Terms also clearly stated what would happen if payment was not made following the
issuing of a PCN: -
5
“Failure to pay after 28 days will incur further costs which will be added to the value of
the charge and which the driver will be liable for on an indemnity basis.”
v. With no concession made in this regard, if a Driver ever does not understand the Terms on the
signs, they can exit the land and find alternative parking. They are under no obligation to park
on the Land.
vi. The Defendant also disputes the PCN on the basis that payment had been made following
their visit. As per paragraph 13, and supported by the Payment Log at “EXHIBIT 4”, it is my
Company’s position that a full valid payment had not been made to cover the Vehicle/’s stay
on the Land. The Defendant was parked for 2 hours and 25 minutes, whilst the payment made
was to cover 2 hours on the Land. As the Defendant had stayed 25 minutes over their paid
period, they ought to have left within the paid time frame or purchased a “between 2-3 hours”
parking period. The Defendant purchased a “from 30 mins – 2 hours” parking slot between
18:43 to 20:43, and yet they remained on the Land from 18:34 to 20:59. The PCN has been
issued correctly as a result of the Defendant’s breach of the Terms.
vii. The Defendant alleges that they had been attempting to download the app for a while, and the
signal was not allowing the same to be downloaded for payment. The Defendant also alleges
that there was “no other apparent means to pay”. Respectfully, it is wholly denied that the
PayByPhone was not the only option for users to pay for parking. The signs at “EXHIBIT 2”
clearly state that payment can also be made at the machine using cash or card, and the
Defendant’s allegation is therefore untrue. It is submitted that the Defendant ought to have
been on plenty of notice of the Terms and Conditions, which included all of the options of
payment. In any event, the Defendant had made payment, but this was not for the correct
parking period.
viii. Further to the above, the Defendant has stated that they made a goodwill payment of £11.00
upon receiving the Notice. Whilst it is accepted that this payment was made, the Defendant
had been informed at the time that this was not sufficient for the PCN amount. The early pay
discount of £60.00 was due within the first 14 days following the issue of the Notice to
Keeper, with the £11.00 payment being below this amount. The Defendant was advised that
the remaining amount was outstanding, and yet no further payments were made. It is my
Company’s position that the Defendant having made such a payment, regardless as to whether
it was “goodwill” or not, is them admitting liability in that they had not paid the correct
amount at the time of parking. As such, the Defendant remains liable for the full due amount.

skuther

6
The Contract
ix. The Defendant alleges that there is no contract between them and my Company. It is my
Company’s position that there is and the details of which are set out above. Parking Eye -v-
Beavis established that this form of contract is perfectly workable;
Protection of Freedoms Act
x. My Company applied to the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper and sent Notice to
the Keeper compliant with Section 8 of POFA (see “EXHIBIT 6”). Paragraph 1 of POFA
states that the Registered Keeper is presumed to be the ‘Keeper’ unless proven otherwise.
Paragraph 4 of POFA gives my Company the right to recover from the ‘Keeper’;
CPR Compliance
xi. The Defendant questions whether the Particulars of Claim comply with the Civil Procedure
Rules. I submit that the Claim was issued via the County Court Business Centre and in this
regard, I refer to Practice Direction 7C (“the PD”) which specifically provides the guidelines
for doing so. I respectfully submit that the Particulars of Claim (“the Particulars”) are in
keeping with the PD. The following sections are of relevance: -
5.2(1) provides a limited character count for the Particulars of Claim; and
5.2A stipulates that the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for
documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims
started using an online claim form.
xii. It is my Company’s position that the Particulars were sufficient to allow the Defendant to
identify the subject matter of the Claim. The Defendant could not have submitted a Defence
with the detail it contains if the Particulars were so insufficient as to prevent them from
understanding the claim. Further, with respect, if the Defendant were of the genuine belief
that the Particulars of Claim were insufficient, the correct procedure would have been to make
an Application to the Court. The Defendant has chosen not to do so;
7
xiii. In addition to the above, I also refer to CPR 1 and respectfully remind the Defendant of their
obligation to deal with the case justly and at proportionate cost. Bearing in mind the claim
amount, my Company has taken proportionate steps to recover the debt;
Penalty / Amount Claimed
xiv. In respect of the Defendant’s allegation that the claim is a penalty, my Company is not
seeking more than the original charge as the core debt. The core charge remains the same for
each PCN (i.e. £100.00); however, my Company is now also seeking further costs/damages;
xv. My Company is instructed to manage the Land, the Landowner agreement previously referred
to in this statement confirms this. My Company’s legitimate interest is to fulfil this obligation.
The Landowner’s legitimate interest in managing the Land is because it is a pay and display
car park. Because there is a clear legitimate interest/commercial justification, the same as that
established in ParkingEye -v- Beavis [2015], this case does not fall foul of the penalty rules
established in that case;
xvi. The amount charged is in line with the guidelines given by the ATA. Part 20.5 of the BPA
COP states “We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more
than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance”. It is my Company’s
position there is no requirement for the amount of the charge to bear any relevance to the
actual or potential cost of parking. The PCN is a fee charged by my Company for providing
the service and it stays within the guidelines given by the ATA. As with many other
‘services’; the service provider is entitled to charge as they deem appropriate;
xvii. The PCN was not paid within the prescribed 28 days or indeed at all. In view of this the sum
of £60.00 is also claimed as a contractual cost pursuant to the Contract which states “Failure
to pay after 28 days will incur further costs which will be added to the value of the charge and
for which the driver will be liable for on an indemnity basis.” The Defendant was on notice of
the fact that the outstanding amount may increase as a result of any necessary debt recovery
action. In support I draw the Court’s attention to paragraph 45 of Chaplair Limited v Kumari
[2015] EWCA Civ 798 whereby, when considering contractual indemnity costs, it was stated:
-
“There is nothing … which enable[s] the rules to exclude or override that contractual
entitlement and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the judge had the jurisdiction to
assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14”;

skuther

8
xviii. The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by my Company as a result of
the Defendant’s non-payment. My Company’s employees have spent time and material
attempting to recover the debt. This is not my Company’s usual business and the resources
could have been better spent in other areas of the business, generating profit. Had the
Defendant of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action
so the amount due would not have increased;
xix. With respect of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015], whilst it is accepted the original charge is
designed to include the ‘operational costs’; this was with reference to maintaining the land,
taking payment or sending the relevant POFA compliant notices. It was never intended to
include the need to pursue the debt in Court to recover it. If that were the case, it would
override the Civil Procedure Rules (allowing fixed costs and recovery of court fees) which
of course is not the case. The Defendant has misunderstood the phrasing ‘operational
costs’;
xx. The Defendant alleges my Company has failed to adhere to the Landowner's definitions,
exemptions, grace period, hours of operation and instructions to cancel charges due to
complaints. The Defendant is a third party to the Landowner Agreement. Privity of
contract applies;
Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”)
xxi. The Defendant alleges that my Company has failed to engage in any genuine ADR. This is
denied. My Company’s solicitor provided the Defendant with the opportunity to request
ADR prior to the Claim being issued. It is submitted that the Defendant’s disputes raised
were rejected, and they were given an extended period to make payment of further dispute.
Neither of which were done, and the file progressed accordingly.
Private Parking Code of Practice
xxii. The Defendant refers in detail to the Private Parking Code of Practice in respect of the
additional costs incurred in this matter. I respectfully submit that the Private Parking Code
of Practice has been withdrawn since 07/06/2022. The Defendant also acknowledges that it
is not retrospective guidance. I therefore submit that it does not apply to this matter and I
do not intend to comment on this point any further.
9
Dismissal of Claim
xxiii. The recent successful appeal in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] EW
Misc 12 (CC) (29 July 2020) found that the inclusion of the debt recovery charge in the
claim does not fall foul of the decision of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67,
because that was not the point in discussion in that case. The appeal also concluded that the
inclusion of such a charge in a claim of this type does not constitute an abuse of process
that would allow for the entire claim to be struck out.
Defendant’s Costs
xxiv. Defendant is requesting standard Witness costs for attendance at Court. The Defendant’s
entitlement to the relief claimed is denied in its entirety. The Defendant’s Claim is not
supported by any documentation to evidence the costs incurred. Costs are to be decided
after the determination of liability. Pursuant to CPR 27.14, costs are not ordinarily
applicable to Small Claims. Notwithstanding the above, and without concession, the
Defendant is put to proof that the costs claimed are true.
xxv. The Defendant alleges that my Company should be ordered to pay their costs due to
unreasonable conduct. It is denied that my Company has acted unreasonably in any way.
The Defendant parked in breach of the Terms of the Contract and as such the PCNs were
issued correctly. My Company has taken all of the reasonable and necessary steps in
recovering the debt and has issued legal proceedings only as a last resort.
24. In view of the above, it is my Company’s position that the Defendant breached the Contract as set out
in this Statement and as such the Defendant is liable.

skuther

Conclusion
CPR Costs
25. My Company claims the claim issue fee, fixed costs pursuant to CPR 45, and the hearing fee in any
event.
26. In the alternative to the contractual costs set out above, my Company reserves the right to claim
additional costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). This claim was issued as a last resort, and given the
10
robust appeals procedure in place, should not have been necessary. It is my Company’s position that
this is unreasonable behaviour and it is respectfully requested that the Court considers whether they
conclude the same.
27. It is my respectful submission that the Defence is entirely without merit and as such it is requested
that the Defence is struck out and Judgment awarded in favour of my Company, payable forthwith.
28. I may not be able to attend the hearing. Should this be the case, I will instruct an advocate to attend
on my behalf and ask that the Court accepts this as my written notice given pursuant to CPR 27.9(1).
Should I be unable to attend, I request the Court decides the claim in my absence, taking into account
this Statement and any other evidence I may file. This paragraph demonstrates my compliance with
paragraphs (a) and (b) of CPR 27.9(1).
29. In the event an advocate does attend the hearing, I request their fee be added to the amount sought.

Coupon-mad

"the driver entered the Land at 18:43 and exited the Land at 20:59"

And you struggled with the app but managed to pay from 18.43 for 2 hours, and you had young children with you.

Sounds like you didn't exceed what a reasonable person would consider acceptable time to get the app to work, and pay.

Read the 'News on the 5 Minute Rule' thread.  Print out the news on it once it gets in the papers, which it will very soon.

Convince the Judge that the time parked was paid for, and the C has not allowed a fair consideration (app download) period nor a fair grace period at the end, taking the circumstances into account which they (hopefully) knew at appeal stage months ago.