Euro Parking Services/Gladstones Solicitors - Court Claim (Defence help required)

palegreenghost

I've been away so I've only just been able to read through everything, in the defence submitted it says "The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver".

I just spoke to him and I think he'd be okay with sending a WS and excusing himself in January, although he is anxious about it. Thanks again for all the advice and encouragement. 

-----

In regards to the witness statement should I include that there is no evidence of the 7 signs/compliant entrance sign? I believe it does have an entrance sign even though I can't see where it is in that photo, I could go and have a look/take some photos if it'd help.

Should I mention in the WS that there is no contract on offer at all? The same for the covert filming? I don't remember seeing any signs to say there's surveillance.

palegreenghost

This is what we have so far, leaving out my dad's address and the opening paragraph
 

2.         In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account.  My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.         I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities.

4.      The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. (See Exhibit XX01)

5.      The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande(Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. (See Exhibit XX02)

6.      I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The PoCs lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. In fact, the present PoCs are even less detailed than those struck out in Chan and Akande, offering no factual basis for a cause of action.

7.        The image of the sign provided by the Claimant shows there is no contract on offer at all to all-comers. There has to be both (a) something of value offered, a licence to park, like in ParkingEye v Beavis, and (b) a chance to read the terms and reject them and leave if you do not accept the offer. According to the sign provided by the Claimant there was no contract to enter into so I could not have breached any terms of the alleged contract. This is also borne out by the fact that the landowner authority says there is a zero minutes observation period on offer for unauthorised vehicles. Zero minutes to read terms is impossible in contract law and the 2023 landowner agreement also breached the IPC CoP that existed then, and stressed the importance of entrance signs and allowing drivers a chance to learn that they are on privately managed land and drive out again. This set up is just the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court identified would be unfair, in the Beavis case.

8.         Also, despite UKGDPR updating the Data Protection Act in 2018 and despite the ICO Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, this Claimant seems to think they can covertly film all people on foot, and all vehicles (including on the streets outside the site boundary) 24/7 without warning them, and charging "unauthorised" cars (driven by unsuspecting people who cross an unknown threshold, having passed no alerts that there are cameras and why) £100 per instance in one second flat. This is not only entrapment but the set up is illegal. Covert surveillance is illegal and the Claimant's own evidence shows there isn't even a (mandatory under both UKGDPR and the ICO's camera code principles) data warning notice.

-----
Then I'll help him write the "facts and sequence of events" 

Coupon-mad

palegreenghost said:

I've been away so I've only just been able to read through everything, in the defence submitted it says "The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver".

I just spoke to him and I think he'd be okay with sending a WS and excusing himself in January, although he is anxious about it. Thanks again for all the advice and encouragement. 

-----

In regards to the witness statement should I include that there is no evidence of the 7 signs/compliant entrance sign? I believe it does have an entrance sign even though I can't see where it is in that photo, I could go and have a look/take some photos if it'd help.

Should I mention in the WS that there is no contract on offer at all? The same for the covert filming? I don't remember seeing any signs to say there's surveillance.

I am SO PLEASED he is fighting back!

Use my words*. I wrote them to be copied. Didn't look back but I'm sure I covered both those points? It's about exposing the lack of evidence in their photos.

*EDIT: I see you did!

palegreenghost

Is the onus on the claimant to provide photos of the entrance signs at the actual time of the incident or can they just provide photos taken at a later date? I'm worried that this could be easily be proven otherwise when we talk about the fact that there are no entrance signs shown in the evidence.

-----

As we're referencing Chan and Akande, how do I submit that as evidence? I have the 8 page PDF which is linked here https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v2lrfnk408u2qavuokcej/Chan_Akande.pdf?rlkey=o92ljo06yf0ehhyg1j9ayxla2&e=1&st=um09mews&dl=0 do you put this at the end of the witness statement with some reference numbers next to each part that I've referenced?

palegreenghost

This is what we have so far, I've attached the Chan and Akande rulings on the pages that follow this, then on a separate page I have included paragraphs 98, 193 and 198 from Parking Eye v Beavis.

1.       I am XXXXX at XXXXXXX, the defendant in these proceedings. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based on my own personal understanding and recollection of the facts.

2.       In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account.  My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.       I  draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities.

4.      The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. (See Exhibit XX01)

5.      The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande(Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. (See Exhibit XX02)

6.      I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The PoCs lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. In fact, the present PoCs are even less detailed than those struck out in Chan and Akande, offering no factual basis for a cause of action.

Facts and sequence of events:

7.       I confirm that I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged incident.

8.        I passed no entrance signs to alert me that I was entering private land, and passed no signs alerting me to the CCTV surveillance. The bay was right beside the shop used, and looked like it served the shop, so it would require very conspicuous entrance signs indeed to alert a driver turning into the bay, that they had somehow crossed a completely different site boundary.

9.       There is no actual photo evidence of seven signs in place and in particular there's no evidence of compliant entrance signs actually being there at all. The Claimant's Witness Statement has a mocked up map, that is not evidence. It says there are two entrance signs, but in the footage neither of them are shown. The only sign we see in reality is against a fence. Whilst it is arguable that a driver might have seen it if they had approached it, the fact is I did not see it which is understandable because without a mandatory PRIVATE LAND large 'P' entrance sign, arriving drivers are not on alert to look for terms & conditions.

10.      The image of the sign provided by the Claimant shows there is no contract on offer at all to all-comers. There has to be both (a) something of value offered, a licence to park, like in ParkingEye v Beavis, and (b) a chance to read the terms and reject them and leave if you do not accept the offer. According to the sign provided by the Claimant there was no contract to enter into, so I could not have breached any terms of the alleged contract. This is also borne out by the fact that the landowner authority says there is a zero minutes observation period on offer for unauthorised vehicles. Zero minutes to read terms is impossible in contract law and the 2023 landowner agreement also breached the IPC CoP that existed then, and stressed the importance of entrance signs and allowing drivers a chance to learn that they are on privately managed land and drive out again. This set up is just the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court identified would be unfair, in the Beavis case.

11.       Also, despite UKGDPR updating the Data Protection Act in 2018 and despite the ICO Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, this Claimant seems to think they can covertly film all people on foot, and all vehicles (including on the streets outside the site boundary) 24/7 without warning them, and charging "unauthorised" cars (driven by unsuspecting people who cross an unknown threshold, having passed no alerts that there are cameras and why) £100 per instance in one second flat. This is not only entrapment but the set up is illegal. Covert surveillance is illegal and the Claimant's own evidence shows there isn't even a (mandatory under both UKGDPR and the ICO's camera code principles) data warning notice.

Are there any other changes I should make or anything I've missed out?

ChirpyChicken

Can anyone not spot an error in their Witness Statement
Come on @Coupon-mad i thought you had 20:20 vision 

Coupon-mad

Oooh - I will look!

@1505grandad is the best error spotter though.

Coupon-mad

Nope can't see it except:

- they say at 18 and 22 that they are pursuing him only as registered keeper. EPS don't comply with POFA so that won't be possible.

What else?

The OP must replace this:

"I briefly parked my car, I walked around the corner to visit the chip shop next door, I returned to my car and left."

with this:

I passed no entrance signs to alert me that I was entering private land, and passed no signs alerting me to the CCTV surveillance. The bay was right beside the shop used and looked like it served the shop, so it would require very conspicuous entrance signs indeed to alert a driver turning into the bay, that they had somehow crossed a completely different site boundary.

Coupon-mad

Please show us the PCN. Both sides.

ChirpyChicken

@Coupon-mad well both of the first two parts of the witness statement cannot possibly be true