Claim Form Received from UK Car Management Limited

mebobby

Is this conclusion any better? I have tried to cut it down as much as I could.

The Particulars of Claim fall short of the requirements under CPR 16.4 and PD16, lacking clarity and specificity. The cut-and-paste format shows a failure to address the facts of this case, and the claim should be struck out.

No parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on the alleged date of contravention, undermining the basis of the claim. 

The Witness Statement is signed by Deanne Never’'s of Gladstones Solicitors, who is not an employee of the Claimant and does not have first-hand knowledge of the events. As such, it fails to comply with CPR 32.4 and PD32.18 and should be given little to no evidential weight.

The Claimant has failed to demonstrate legal standing to bring this claim, including providing evidence of a valid and current agreement with the landowner.

Exhibit GS3 provided by the Claimant shows a vehicle clearly different from the one alleged to be involved, raising serious concerns about the accuracy and relevance of the evidence submitted.

In light of these substantial deficiencies including the lack of a specific alleged breach, the absence of a valid contract, no landowner authority I respectfully request that the Court strike out this claim in its entirety,

mebobby

If this appears from my conclusion that I am going to lose should I just give up now and just pay the fine which I don't want to because I know that there are flaws in the claimants witness statement. This whole thing is really dragging me down.

Gr1pr

There is no fine,  just an outstanding unpaid Invoice 

But no you should not pay the outstanding amount,  because even if you lost in court the total amount to pay is usually less than the amount claimed,  typically £70 less per pcn,  in your pocket,  not theirs,  you were told this back in March

The alleged breach was not pleaded on the claim form,  you were definitely not the driver and have no idea who was driving, if an unknown to you breach had occurred by the unknown driver 

It drags every victim down , but it's litigation,  put your feelings aside, you need a cool head in these matters

The main thing it teaches people is to be more aware of their surroundings and circumstances,  or who they allow to drive their vehicles,  to try to avoid getting a private parking charge invoice in the first place 

The driver was possibly at fault here,  so you could have named the person driving and extracted yourself as keeper from any liability,  meaning that the driver could be doing all this, not you, but presumably you didn't name the driver so they have the legal right to sue you within 6 years of the incident 

If you lose in court,  make the unknown driver pay the outstanding figure given by the judge , typically around £212 , so probably £70 or more, less than the total on the claim form near the bottom 

mebobby

Thank you for your re-assuring words @Gr1pr☺️

Coupon-mad

mebobby said:

Is this conclusion any better? I have tried to cut it down as much as I could.

The Particulars of Claim fall short of the requirements under CPR 16.4 and PD16, lacking clarity and specificity. The cut-and-paste format shows a failure to address the facts of this case, and the claim should be struck out.

No parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on the alleged date of contravention, undermining the basis of the claim. 

The Witness Statement is signed by Deanne Never’'s of Gladstones Solicitors, who is not an employee of the Claimant and does not have first-hand knowledge of the events. As such, it fails to comply with CPR 32.4 and PD32.18 and should be given little to no evidential weight.

The Claimant has failed to demonstrate legal standing to bring this claim, including providing evidence of a valid and current agreement with the landowner.

Exhibit GS3 provided by the Claimant shows a vehicle clearly different from the one alleged to be involved, raising serious concerns about the accuracy and relevance of the evidence submitted.

In light of these substantial deficiencies including the lack of a specific alleged breach, the absence of a valid contract, no landowner authority I respectfully request that the Court strike out this claim in its entirety,

Looks better as long as you remove the bold & lose the double greengrocer's apostrophe!

mebobby

Within the claimant's witness statement bundle, they have not included actual photographs of any signage at the site. Instead, they have only provided a printout showing the text of a sign, without any evidence of its placement, prominence, or visibility at the location. Would it be appropriate to reference the Beavis case in this context, or is there a more relevant authority? 

I have come across this case but I am not sure if anyone has used it before:

Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2000] EWCA Civ 106; [2000] 4 All ER 169; [2000] 1 WLR 2383 – Court of Appeal decision delivered 5 April 2000

Coupon-mad

Don't mention that at all in your WS or they'll realise & might send a supplementary WS!

Raise it at the hearing. No evidence of the contract on the day! No need for case law.

mebobby

I understood that I needed to present all my points first and submit Exhibits: Could the Judge penalise me for raising issues such as the absence of a contract and the lack of actual photographs of signs on the relevant day at this stage? I was going to say the following in my WS

The Claimant acknowledges in paragraph 31 their Witness Statement that no Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on 5th March 2024, the date of the alleged contravention. Furthermore, I confirm that I did not receive any PCN from the Claimant on or after 15th March 2024. As such, the Claimant has failed to issue a notice within the statutory timeframes required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that a notice was properly issued and served by post in compliance with POFA.

The claimant has submitted an order form which purports to show that a contract was formed with an entity named Speedwell Properties Limited. However, upon investigation, Speedwell Properties Limited appears to be a provider of General Medical Practice Activities and there is no indication that it holds any ownership or management rights over Findlay Road Retail Park. 

The claimant has provided no evidence, such as a land registry document, lease agreement, or written authorisation from the landowner confirming that Speedwell Properties Limited is entitled to enter into a parking management agreement for that location. As such, the claimant has failed to demonstrate that it has the necessary authority to operate on or enforce parking terms at Findlay Road Retail Park. (Exhibit 10- Companies House search of Redacted)

The audit report provided by the claimant cannot be considered a valid parking agreement. An audit report merely serves as a review or internal document and does not establish or evidence the existence of a legally binding contract between the landowner and the claimant. (Exhibit 11- Audit report submitted by the Claimant)

The alleged agreement submitted by the claimant is dated 15/02/2020. Clause 6 of the key terms for UK Car Park Management Limited explicitly states that the agreement runs for an initial period of three years from the 'go-live' date. (Exhibit 12- UK Car Park Management Key Terms) Assuming the contract commenced around the date specified, it would have expired in or around February 2023, and no renewal or extension has been evidenced by the claimant.

The claimant cannot rely on an expired agreement to pursue claims, nor can they lawfully issue PCNs in their own name without an active, binding contract with the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof with regards to the renewal of the contract.

In the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), it was held that a parking company must have a proprietary interest in the land or be able to demonstrate that it has been properly authorised by the landholder to manage parking and enforce terms. Failure to provide such evidence renders any enforcement action invalid. (Exhibit 13- Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC).

The claimant has failed to prove that it has legal standing or the necessary authority to bring this claim, and the claim should be dismissed on that basis.

There is no photographic evidence of the Signage on site: The claimant’s printout of an alleged sign does not prove that clear, visible signage is or was present at the site. The lack of photographs or evidence of the sign as actually displayed on the premises, is crucial to substantiate the Claimant’s assertion of proper notification of terms. Merely providing a printout of what the signage is alleged to state does not meet the standard of proof required.

The claimant has not provided any actual photographic evidence showing the presence, location, or visibility of signage at the site. Instead, they rely on a bare printout of the sign’s wording. This fails to demonstrate that the defendant was given adequate notice of the terms, as required under Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971]. (Exhibit 14). Without clear evidence of visible and prominent signage, no contract can be said to have been formed.

Exhibit (Redacted) provided by the Claimant shows a different vehicle: The vehicle shown in the photos entering and exiting differs from the one involved in the alleged offence, which raises serious doubts about the accuracy and relevance of the evidence provided by the Claimant. As such, this exhibit serves no legitimate purpose in supporting the claim and casts significant doubt on the reliability of the rest of the evidence presented.  Therefore, I respectfully submit that the Claimant’s evidence, particularly Exhibit --- and ----, are inadequate and unreliable. Without photographic evidence of the actual signage, and with questions raised about the accuracy of the vehicle identification, the case lacks sufficient foundation to proceed.

Coupon-mad

No! Do not tip them off in your WS about the holes in their evidence.

This is the whole point of your turn to speak at the hearing: THAT is when you point out the holes in their WS & evidence.

Use your prepared paragraphs above as your crib sheet on the day but DON'T put that in your WS in advance. 

mebobby

Ok thanks.. what about all the exhibits which support all the holes in their WS do I just take them along on the day? I was under the impression I have to submit them? Sorry @Coupon-mad I just want to be sure. I will definitely take all of the above out.