another court claim from DCB L/euro car parks

Superduke

DQ (N180) completed and emailed to CNBC, email confirming it as arrived also received, copy also sent to DCB legal. now we wait...

Superduke

claim allocated to St Helens county court, hardly local for me...

Gr1pr

Superduke said:

claim allocated to St Helens county court, hardly local for me...

So which local court did you specify  ?  Leeds  ?

You can email  St Helens court with the claim number and ask for them to transfer it to your local civil court 

Superduke

Gr1pr said:

Superduke said:

claim allocated to St Helens county court, hardly local for me...

So which local court did you specify  ?  Leeds  ?

You can email  St Helens court with the claim number and ask for them to transfer it to your local civil court 

no Wakefield but Leeds would be better than St Helens, I'm hoping it will be dropped before court but will email St Helens and ask for a transfer to a nearer court. Cheers

Superduke

allocation to small claims track now received, the hearing will be conducted by telephone 21 May via St Helens Courthouse.. Obviously no parties to attend hearing. So at least there is some progress and hopefully this will bwe concluded switfly and could be over by April 23 if the claime nt fails to pay the trial fee and the case gets struck out. Here's hoping. But until then I need to submit my witness statemnt due before March 31. So with this in mind is the withness statement basically aamended version of the 'facts known to the defendant' section of the defence?

Coupon-mad

No. Read the NEWBIES thread for advice on WS and a list of exhibits.

Superduke

SO I've rewritten my defence into a witness statement basically just restating the facts regarding the claim and how these facts unermine the claim . Do I need to include all the legal examples that are part of the defence? Or does it just require the actual facts? Below is the text in its entirity, I I do need to edit or amend it what needs to stay and what needs to go?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxxxx

Between

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX                    

 (Defendant)

_________________

Witness Statement

 

1.  i deny that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct my was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known:

2. The facts in this case come from my own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. I am unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the I was the registered keeper and driver.

 

3. Despite the time lapsed (approx. 5yrs) I remember very well the particular day in question, and can say with total certainty here that my vehicle was actually parked in said car park. The facts are the I and vehicle travelled through the car park without stopping at all. At approximately 8-45am I visited post office for the purpose of posting time sensitive commercial packages the am post collection is 9.00am, so it is necessary to be there before to that time to ensure collection. I parked my vehicle briefly outside the Euro car parks controlled car park, dropped off my packages then returned to my vehicle and drove off, exiting the area by driving through the Euro car parks controlled car park. The car park controlled by Euro car parks is a one-way system, entry at the top exit at the bottom the I drove through the car park but did not stop, entering and exiting within a few seconds. Entering the car park presumably triggered a number plate recognition system recording the said entry, the immediate exist of the car park should also have been recorded and time stamped proving the brief time present in the car park.

4.I revisited the post office with more packages at approximately 4-30pm to ensure postal collection at 5pm and prompt delivery. Again, I parked briefly outside the Euro car parks controlled car park, and again drove through Towngate carpark without stopping, this second entry /exit should also have been recorded and time stamped. I have driven through car park without stopping on numerous occasions as have hundreds of other drivers every day.

5. On receiving the parking charge notice I immediately knew that an error had been made and wrote to Euro car parks explaining the situation, the communication received no response. In order to resolve the matter the I sent another letter (letter on file) requesting all data including photos held by Euro car parks relating to my vehicle, again this communication was ignored. I believe said data would clearly show the multiple visits and not a prolonged single stay. Thereby proving the vehicle was not in breach of the terms on the signs as it was not parked in the car park merely driving through, so no charges or damages were incurred and as such not payable.  

 

6.I find it utterly bizarre that despite these facts - and their knowledge of the various Codes of Practice ('CoP'), which all include reference to operators' duty to avoid unfair 'double dipping' PCNs - that they are still pursuing this case. The practice known as 'double dipping' is a very common ANPR flaw. Clause 21.3 of the BPA CoP in: says  ''21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.'' 

10. 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:

(a). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(b). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

11.I deny (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

34. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (ref: Annual Report).  This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the Government) should satisfy Judges that a fair appeal was never on offer.

Conclusion

35. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing.  The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be struck out.

36. In the matter of costs, I seek:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

37.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct 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.

Signature: xxx xxxx

Date:  xx xx xxxx

Pls advise on the above.

 

Gr1pr

Study the 2 WS examplars in the coupon mad reply earlier in the link below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6523375/defence-not-acknowledged-ccj-given-can-i-set-aside#latest

Superduke

can the WS be emailed to the court?

Gr1pr

Superduke said:

can the WS be emailed to the court?

Usually,  yes, but check their website first,  plus keep it under 50 pages