claim from Euro car park , HM court claiming £170

Coupon-mad

The email address of the local court is never on an order. Everyone simply looks it up.

Giggs

Hi Le_Kirk

Can I email my witness statement address to the Judge at

Or post them to the postal address provided on the websites.

Many thanks

Giggs

Gr1pr

Phone the court and find out the correct advice

(You cannot expect us to know the workings and requirements for a couple of hundred courts)

Coupon-mad

You email it.

Le_Kirk

If that address came via the court finder, it should be right but, as @Gr1pr writes, you could phone to check and. as @Coupon-mad writes, email not post.

Giggs

Name: xxxxx

Claim number : xxxx

Adress : xxxxx

I, XXXX, residence at xxxxxx . I am the Defendant in this matter. I make this witness statement from matters within my own knowledge and belief in support of my defence to the claim brought by Euro Car parks Ltd.

Where facts are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

1. I am the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle referred to in these proceedings.
2. This witness statement addresses the circumstances surrounding the alleged parking charges issued at Hanworth Road - Hounslow Car Park and explains why the claim is without merit.
3. Any alleged breach occurred solely because of failures in the Claimant’s equipment and payment systems, not working properly issuing ticket while inputting the VRM.
4. The Claimant has themselves confirmed that payment was made for the relevant period.Proof of this payment is attached as Exhibit A.
5. The Claimant is therefore fully aware that the correct parking fee was paid and that no payment was avoided.

The Parking Events

23 July 2024

1. On this date I entered the Hanworth Road Car park - Hounslow park and purchased a parking ticket using the payment machine located on site (Exhibit B).
2. Upon parking, I used the payment machine on site to purchase a valid parking session. I paid for the appropriate period of parking and exited the car park within the time that had been paid for.
3. While entering my vehicle registration number (VRM), the machine issued a ticket before I had completed entering the full registration details. However, the Claimant’s machine appears to have malfunctioned and issued me a ticket even though I was still in the process of entering the full VRM number and a ticket was issued which I displayed in my car.
4. As a result, the ticket issued did not contain my full and correct vehicle registration number.
5. The Claimant has themselves confirmed that payment was made for the relevant period. (Exhibit B)
6. The alleged breach arises solely due to incomplete or incorrect registration details
7. Reason for contravention: No valid pay and Display permit was purchase. The claimant has accepted payment and confirmed, hence make the contravention void.
8. At the time of purchase there was no indication that the machine had failed to correctly record my full registration number. I had made every effort to ensure that a full and accurate VRM was provided when making payment as per the terms and conditions.
9. Nowhere within the terms and conditions does it state what action should be taken in the event that a full VRM is not displayed on the parking tariff receipt after payment due to machine malfunction.
10. I therefore reasonably believed that I had fully complied with the parking requirements.
11. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (June 2024) (Exhibit 3) addresses issues relating to vehicle registration errors. Clause 6.3 states that operators should have documented procedures in place to avoid issuing or enforcing parking charges in cases of accidental keying errors and should adopt technologies that reduce such errors.
12. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that the Claimant’s system would include basic validation checks to identify such an anomaly and prevent the taking of payment and the issue of a parking tariff receipt when the machine has failed to record the vehicle registration. The issue of a parking charge in these circumstances suggests a failure to apply appropriate safeguards against obvious keying machine errors.

1. The partial recording of my vehicle registration on 23 July 2024 is therefore consistent with the malfunctioning equipment present at the site at that time.
2. These articles are not relied upon as proof of the specific events in my case but are provided to demonstrate that such faults are known to occur and have been publicly reported. This supports the plausibility of my account that the machine malfunctioned and recorded my vehicle registration incorrectly despite payment being made.
3. Without accepting fault for any keying error occurred and maintaining that the machine malfunctioned when recording my vehicle registration number, I note that the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (June 2024) provides clear guidance on how operators should deal with situations where payment has been made but the vehicle registration number has been entered incorrectly.
4. Annex F.3 of the Code states that where a motorist has paid the parking tariff but made a major keying error when registering their vehicle, this should be treated as a mitigating circumstance.
5. The Code specifically lists examples of such keying errors, including where letters are wrong or missing or where characters are incorrectly entered. In my case a ticket was successfully purchased but the machine recorded only two characters of the vehicle registration. This is consistent with either a machine malfunction or a keying error of the type anticipated by the Code.
6. Despite clear evidence that payment had been made, the Claimant did not apply this mitigation. Instead, the charge was maintained at £170. Higher than the level recommended by the Code for such circumstances.
7. Even if the Court were to conclude that the issue arose from a keying error rather than a machine malfunction, the Claimant’s failure to apply the mitigation recommended by the Code demonstrates that the charge being pursued is disproportionate and inconsistent with the standards expected of parking operators.

1. The Claimant has acted unreasonably by:

(a) Acknowledging that payment was made.

(b) Ignoring the issue with their payment machine.

(c) Continuing to pursue a claim despite no financial loss.

I have at all times acted reasonably and have attempted to resolve this matter.

1. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (June 2024) at Clause 6.1.1 requires that where on-site payment machines are installed, the signage must clearly state the consequences if a payment machine is not working properly. This includes explaining whether alternative payment methods exist, where they can be found, and whether a motorist must leave the site if payment cannot be made.
2. The signage does not state that motorists must leave the site if payment cannot be made due to equipment failure, nor does it state that payment cannot be retrospectively after a system fault has been reported.
3. In the absence of clear instructions explaining the consequence of machine failure, the signage fails to meet the transparency and clarity requirements set out in the Code and does not provide motorists with a clear understanding of their obligations.
4. Despite making genuine attempts to comply with the parking terms, I was prevented from doing so due to failures in the Claimant’s systems.

Inadequate and Confusing Signage

1. The signage at the site consists of large amounts of dense and confusing text .
2. The signs contain numerous terms and conditions presented in a cluttered and contradictory manner.

1. The signage at the site does not comply with the standards set out in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (June 2024), which requires that parking signs be “visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers”.
2. The Code further states that signage must be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the land may be accessed. The signs at this site are difficult to read in low lighting conditions.
3. Annex A.3 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that signage must have sufficient colour contrast between text and background in order to be legible to drivers. The guidance notes that the best practice is dark text, preferably black, on a white background, and warns that the use of corporate colours may create visibility problems.

Lack of Legitimate Interest

1. The Supreme Court in Beavis held that parking charges may only be enforceable where they protect a legitimate interest and where the terms are clearly communicated.
2. In this case there can be no legitimate interest in penalising a motorist who made genuine a payment but was prevented from inputting the right VRM due to equipment failures.
3. The facts of this case are therefore materially distinguishable from Beavis.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

1. The signage is heavily worded and cluttered, making it difficult to identify the key contractual terms. In these circumstances the additional charge cannot reasonably be considered a transparent or prominent contractual term. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that consumer contract terms must be both transparent and prominent. A term is prominent only if it is brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that an average consumer would be aware of it.
2. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'
3. The binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.
4. The addition of a further £170 parking charge therefore represents an attempt to recover operational costs that are already incorporated within the parking charge itself. Such additional sums amount to double recovery and were not part of the charging model considered acceptable in Beavis.
5. In these circumstances the additional sum claimed appears to be an after-the-event addition rather than a contractual term that was clearly communicated to motorists at the time of parking.

Impact on the Defendant

1. The ongoing issues surrounding these parking charges have caused considerable stress and disruption to my work and family .
2. I have been getting numerous calls from DCBL threatening me about the consequence of not paying the £170 demanded.
3. DCBL has even threatened to come to my place to collect the money
4. This situation has caused significant personal distress to my family .

Conclusion

1. I have complied fully with the parking requirements.
2. Any alleged breach occurred solely because of failures in the Claimant’s equipment.The issue arose due to the machine issuing a ticket prematurely.
3. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the terms were clearly communicated or that the charge protects any legitimate interest.
4. There was no financial loss to the Claimant
5. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claim.

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 brough 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.

Report

Giggs

Hi

Would you be able to look at my Witness statement that I am planning to sent to DCBL and the court please.

Many thanks

Kind regards

Giggsy

Le_Kirk

The first part seems to cover the facts (provided that is what you submitted in your defence) so I am not sure why you have added all the signage stuff etc!

Coupon-mad

Looks pretty good but there are no 'articles' adduced as an exhibit, as far as I can see? Yet out of the blue it says:

"These articles are not relied upon as proof of the specific events in my case"