PARKING ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES ON PRIVATE LAND

ballooncowgirl

Hi , I am a newbie , but have used this forum in dealing with my own parking issue.  Following all your advice from writing to the Landowner in Dec 22, which received no response.  There was a delay from the DCB Legal on behalf of the Claimant (Capital CAr Park Control Ltd) and I then received an N1SDT Claim on 18 Oct 2024.
I filled in the MCOL defence and submitted this.  The claim is to be heard on the 12 August 2025.  I have checked with the court and DCB Legal have paid their fee.

My case is based on me parking on double yellow lines on private land on 3 seperate occasions over a 2 week period.  CCPC used ANPR to capture this.  Times were 2 minutes, 10 minutes and 3 minutes.  Each were £60 and have now escalated to £764. There was no signage anywhere to say i had entered onto a private parking area which i have video and photographic evidence. There was a very small sign on the wall to avoid parking in marked bays used by Costa Coffee Staff.  CCPC also covered an area at the very rear for the COOP that allowed 45mins free.  This area was poorly lit and considered unsafe for female users.  I have recently returned to the area and all signs and cameras are now gone??

I have taken a video of the area and also wondered  how i submit this as evidence?

I am trying to put my witness statement together using your recommended template and have also copied a couple of your templates across for extra help. If you could help me with any points that I should add.  Just to say i am not overly confident in legal dialogue so would appreciate any help you can offer.

Thank you.

Nellymoser

Could be difficult for others to advise what should go in your witness statement when they don't know what you put in your defence or know the Particulars of Claim DBC Legal stated on the claim form.

Coupon-mad

There isn't a template witness statement. But here's a decent one as an example:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81456539/#Comment_81456539

ONLY that post. Not the next post repeating the old news about the 2022/2023 DLUHC actions.

Car1980

Remember double yellow lines have no specific meaning on private land and they need to make it exceptionally clear if their meaning differs from those on the public highway (Google Denning's red hand) Obviously you need a sign adjacent. 

If they intend for nobody to park on them ever, even for loading/alighting/blue badge use etc. they should be using double red clearways lines.

It is their responsibility to make the restrictions clear.

And of course, no signage = no contract.

ballooncowgirl

Coupon-mad said:

There isn't a template witness statement. But here's a decent one as an example:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81456539/#Comment_81456539

ONLY that post. Not the next post repeating the old news about the 2022/2023 DLUHC actions.

With the cases that are mentioned in your example template, in each paragraph there mentions exhibits by numbers.  Do i need to add the exhibits seperately? Can you tell me where i find the exhibits? and do i have to print it off to send to the courts or can i just look it up and attach a link.

Sorry if this sounds a bit thick.

Also, can i put my draft witness statement on here for you to give advice on?

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

The usual exhibits are where you'd expect them to be, in the WS and evidence section of the Second post of the NEWBIES thread.

  

ballooncowgirl

Coupon-mad said:

The usual exhibits are where you'd expect them to be, in the WS and evidence section of the Second post of the NEWBIES thread.

  

My WS, nya help would be gratefully received.  I have taken out my personal information, initial preliminary matters, 2 paras of standard conclusion which you sent details of and SOF. I have started with Facts. Hope this makes sense.

 

 Facts and Sequence of events

 7.    I had lived in the area for 25 years and regularly use the COOP store, which is next to this parking area.  There is also a small parking area to the very rear of the COOP which although it was always free of charge, is quite secluded and considered unsafe by women in this area.  Due to this fact, most women park near to the main, well lite street.  

On the following three separate occasions respectively (5th, 8th and 18th Feburary 2022) my car was photographed parked in this space, as I would have done over the last 25 years prior to receiving the 3 Parking Charge Notice Refs: xxxxxx, xxxxxxx and xxxxxx.   I disputed the claims with the Claimant that at this time there was no clear signage on the area to give me reason to believe anything had change and I was therefore unaware of any parking restrictions. 

8.     I had inadvertently parked on an area that had changed to double yellow lines that were not highways or local authority controlled, and there were no warning signs that I had entered a private parking area. There was no signage near the area to inform me that I was on camera or a clear no parking sign area.  Having received the invoices I enquired with the local authority and was informed that these are not yellow lines under their jurisdiction, and they have no meaning unless near an emergency exit, which they were not, and even then, do not have any major authority. The camera on the wall, which had taken the image of my vehicle, was not hi-lighted with any signage to inform that a CCTV was in operation in this area, which is against personal GDPR.  There was a small hard to read sign on the front wall by Costa Coffee, which only instructed customers not to park in Costa Coffee Staff Bays at the side, which I was not.  I have photo evidence clearly showing that the area which I was entering, was not visibly signed to inform me I was on private property. After disputing this claim with the company and receiving a bombardment of debt letters with the claim now being greatly inflated, I contacted the landowner in December 2022 to ask them to cease the employment of this unscrupulous car parking company.  I then heard nothing from either the claimant nor the landowner until November 2024.

 Lack of Signage:

 9.     The Claimant alleges that the vehicle xxxxxxx was in “contravention of parking in an area contravening the displayed parking conditions”, as there was no signage to inform me of the conditions of the double yellow lines there is no contract. (Exhibit 3) There were no signs at the entrance to the area informing me that I had entered private land nor signs informing me that I was under parking restrictions. (Exhibit 4) There were also, no signs for the CCTV operation as per our video evidence (Exhibit 5) on or around the area where the double yellow lines were to inform me of the parking restrictions. (Exhibit 6). Using ANPR cameras to obtain timed images when the Defendant is unaware of any prohibited restrictions is entrapment.  The only small sign that was barely seen from the road was the information to not park in Costa Staff parking Bays. (Exhibit 7)

 No indication of grace period or observation period despite BPA Code of Practice requirements: 

10.    Clause 13.3 of the latest British Parking Association (“BPA”) Code of Practice (version 8 – January 2020) (“the BPA CoP”) states that “a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. Note the use of the word “must”; the Claimant has issued three separate images of me parking in the same area over a period of 2 weeks with the following respective timestamps: on 5/2/22 @  21:13:22 – 21:14:59 a total of 1minute and 37 secs, on 8/2/22 @ 12:57:22 – 13:07: 40 a total of 10minutes 28 secs and finally 18/2/22 @ 8th February 2022 @ 16:30:48 – 16:33:33 a total of 2minutes 45 secs. This implies that these mandatory guidelines were never considered by the Claimant. When applying the absolute barest minimum interpretation of these mandatory guidelines, the extent of any overstay would amount to a mere 28 seconds when correctly rounded, which is no basis for a Claim of this proportion nor timescale. This is not the only mitigating factor: Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA explicitly states that there remains a clear difference between “grace periods” and “observation periods” – that being time taken to review any rules in place – in private parking situations, and that good practice allows for this: “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to find the space, park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket. No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person ten minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability”. The miniscule discrepancy afforded by a needlessly strict application of these guidelines to any motorist would be considered unfair by any reasonable individual, notwithstanding any further points made in this Witness Statement. Note, again, the use of the word “must” by Mr. Reynolds in reference to the guidelines outlined in the BPA CoP. A fair and proportionate application of either a reasonable grace period, observation period, or both, would have certainly impacted upon the Claimant’s ability to make an unreasonable and spurious Claim such as this one. It is heavily implied that the basis for this Claim is not because of any genuine infraction, intentional or otherwise, by myself, but because these serial litigators have a vested interest in making as many Claims towards as many unsuspecting motorists as possible. This is not how any reasonable firm outside of the unregulated private parking industry would apply its own guidelines, yet the Claimant to this day continues to waste the time of the Courts with spurious, punitive, disproportionate, and needlessly-time-consuming Claims such as this one. Even if this were my sole reasoning – which it is not – I believe that this point alone should be enough for any Court in the country to strike out this Claim in its entirety.

Excessive Charges and Distinguishing Beavis 

11.     The £764.20 sum is excessive, disproportionate and punitive. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the charge (£85) was upheld because it was prominent, and the court found a "legitimate interest". That is not the case here. There was no compelling interest served by this charge.

 12.    Lack of Legitimate Interest - The parking operator must demonstrate a legitimate interest in enforcing the charge beyond mere compensation. Given being a genuine member of the gym with approval to park without charge the operator's legitimate interest could be questioned.​

 13.     In ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), a charge inflated to £135 for admin costs was found to be penal. The £764.20 in this claim exceeds any reasonable pre-estimate of loss and duplicates costs contrary to CPR rules.

 14.     The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) Impact Assessment (2023) states that the actual pre-action costs per case are estimated at just £8.42. The additional £70–£100 "debt recovery" fee is not a genuine cost and should be struck out.

 15.     The Competition & Markets Authority’s guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3) also condemns inflated default charges and hidden terms as unfair contract terms. Despite legal challenges delay the Code’s implementation (marking it as temporarily, “withdrawn” as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was published on the 30th of July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed “debt fees”. This is revealed in the Government’s analysis, found here: link to attach

16.     The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains 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 their debt firms who stood to gain from it.

 17.     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 Beavis. Also, ParkingEye Ltd. v Somerfield Stores Ltd. ChD [2011] EWHC4023(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”.

 18.     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 b 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.

 19.  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 2024 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one. 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 (the CRA).

 CRA Breaches

20.    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.

21.    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.

 22.    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).

 23.    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

24.    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.

 25.    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).

 26.    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 lack of signage in this case does not give the motorists the information required to make the adequate decision to park in a well lit area on the main street supported by highways parking or to park elsewhere. For elderly motorists who have poor visibility to read small writing at a distance there is no care or consideration. It is reasonable to assume that the parking operators responsible for the signage failed to install or update their notices to reflect the changes in the law.  Given this discrepancy, 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.

 Conclusion 

27.  In conclusion, the Claimant has failed to provide clear evidence that a contract was formed, nor has it shown that the parking charge notices were validly issued. The use of the incorrect/no signage to inflate a ‘contravention’  and the unlawful nature of the additional charges further invalidate the claimant’s claim. The claimant’s attempt to impose liability for these inflated charges is unsupported by both statutory law and leading case precedents. The Claimant’s attempt to impose liability for these inflated charges is unsupported by both statutory law and leading case precedents. I ask the court to dismiss the Claim and award appropriate costs for the time and effort expended in defending against these unjust claims.

 28.  I ask the Judge to read the persuasive Judgement from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement Ltd. v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC. It is worth noting that in that case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the 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 Ltd. v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist, and the claim was struck out.

 

 

 

Thank you 

ballooncowgirl

Also, I need to sort exhibits out , and know how to attach video footage, please?  Do I also mention that on recent inspection, the camera and DY lines are virtually gone along with the Costa Bay parking sign?  Do I send hard copies to the court or email copies?