IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Getting Ready for the Hearing
Options
NorfolkBOI
Posts: 38 Forumite
Firstly let me state my thanks to all of you on this forum.
It has become very apparent to me the nasty practices of these parking companies over the weeks I have been dealing/defending my own claim.
My claim refers to a site near a school (i will try and keep details out of postings but it will probably be obvious as a well known cash cow site). It has been staggering to see the number of people with claims going back years being issued claims as what must be part of a historic PCN monetisation exercise.
Sadly people have been giving up and rolling over and I can see why it is worth spamming people with these claims as i would be 75% fold, default or quit.
I have with the help of the forum submitted my defence and the case has now been allocated to my local court with an oral hearing.
I am now at the Witness Statement Stage with the hearing in Feb 2020.
Strangely some of my contemporary defendants have hearings in December despite putting their defences etc in later than mine.
The background.
I then visited the site and it was such a !!!! show I am struggling to keep my WS concise it is like the site is designed to generate PCNs.
Anyhow here goes apologies in advance for this rough 1st draft.
Witness statement of MR/MRS X
I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked XX1, XX2 etc., to which I will refer.
1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned,
2. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts National Parking Enforcement limited to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.
3. Before I describe the claim regarding xx car park (“the car park”), I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
a. I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking and have never had a contract with National Parking Enforcement.
b. The Claimants signage is unfit for purpose and incapable of forming a contract under the consumer rights act 2005 (XX 1). I assert the location of the pertinent signage is also inadequate given the onerous terms applied to specific parking bays buried in small text on signs that are not near in front of them.
C. It also forbids the action claimed for “NO PARKING IN PARENT AND CHILD BAY UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OUT OF THE VEHICLE BY A CHILD 12 YEARS OLD OR LESS”, and then on the other hand seeks a contractual charge for the forbidden activity.
d. Even if the driver did breach the terms the Claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own accredited trade association to apply separate reasonable grace periods at the start and end of each period of parking to allow for potential delays in finding a space, exiting the car park and to allow time for drivers to find and read the terms and conditions offered a period of under five minutes is well below what is considered reasonable under IPC 15.1 (XX2).
Adherence to a code of practice is compulsory to gain drivers information from the DVLA and is an important factor when considering “fairness” under the consumer rights act 2015.
e. This claim is a clear abuse of process I have met a number of fellow defendants with identical particulars of claim all with the same date and the same costs despite different legal arguments/complexities. It is with not creditable that so many robotic claims have resulted in substantial legal advice.
4. On the x of x 2018 I received a Notice to Keeper by the claimant National Parking Enforcement LTD. This document (XX3) stated that I owed them £100.
a. Reason for issue: “Parked in A Child and Parent Bay Whilst Unaccompanied by a Child 12 years or Less”.
b. This notice had two photos of my car but no images of the driver, signage and showed a rounded parking time period of 14:14 > 14:45 4 minutes (with no seconds).
5. As I had no knowledge of the incident, I thought it reasonable to request some further information as I would never enter into a contract for 4 minutes parking for circa £60.00 (£25 per minute).
a. I attach my letter dated (XX4a) regarding the invoice they sent. This letter asked what the charge was for, their loss, proof they had contractual authority from the owner of the land, why was there no grace period as per 15.1 of the IPC code of practice. I also asked for full CCTV footage to see if I was driving, if that times added up and how they could see into the rear of the vehicle with privacy glass as I had 3 children under 12 at the time
b I then received a letter from the claimant dated x of x 2018 (xx4b) with the following answers to my questions. That the charge was contractual, they refused to provide ownership details or contractual authority. They did provide some photos of signage and that they decreed the notice period null and void based on driver behaviour from CCTV and that CCTV footage was not provided.
c. I subsequently replied with another letter (xx4c) clearly stating my goodwill in the matter but highlighting the problems I had with the information provided. I stated I considered their Notice to Keeper as a speculative invoice based on their rationale and asserted that it would not be paid without the information requested in my earlier letter. I formally requested the CCTV footage as is my right.
6. I did not receive any further replies from the claimant themselves leaving my reasonable and obligatory requests for information under the Data Protection Act outstanding.
7. I felt it prudent to visit the site of the car park and took my own photos of the main entrance sign (XX 5) and the signs used in the car park itself (XX 6).
8. When entering the car park, you are met with a clear primary sign (XX 5) forbidding all but “shoppers” during shopping hours. There is also a smaller secondary sign (XX 5) which I had to read on foot as too small, it has both the IPC and BPA logos presumably to indicate that if you choose to use this car park both the IPC and BPA codes of practice would apply. There is also a tiny CCTV logo and small text that terms and conditions apply.
9. Once parked in the parent (XX 6) bay there is no sign in front of the bay either with the customer notice or directing you to the customer notice. If you exit a vehicle parked front on you have a difficult side on view and given the small text upon entry its entirely plausible that users could miss the main terms and conditions on customer notices entirely. This is contrary to the precedent set by the Vine v Waltham Forest 2000 judgement paragraph 19 (XX7) “to show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk” of their action. “That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable”
10. Some 4m from the driver side (XX 6) the signs containing the customer notice/terms and conditions where not illuminated and contained over 40 lines of text with over 7 different font and text sizes. I have attached a photo of the sign (XX 7), the sign only has the IPC logo and not the BPA logo the entrance sign would lead you to believe.
a. The signage is difficult to read contrary to the judgement in ParkingEye v Bevis. The relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. I have attached a copy of the sign in that case (XX 8)
b. The signage breaches section 64(4) (XX 9) of the consumer rights act 2005 “A term is prominent for the purposes of this section if it is brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that an average consumer would be aware of the term.” (XX1).
c. I saw that the most onerous term on the sign (XX 7) is in smaller font. This is contradiction with the ruling in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] (XX 11). In which the most onerous term should be the most prominent “the red hand rule”. On the claimant’s signage the most onerous terms are in a smaller less prominent font. The ParkingEye sign (XX 8) show just how inadequate this signage is compared with more compliant operators.
d. On the sign the parent and child bay has unique onerous terms and a specific charge for breeching them, I assert that this necessitates the installation of a clear notice in front of the parent and child bay. In the signage provided it does not meet the standard set by Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] (XX 12). In which terms forming a contract should be brought to the attention before or at the time of making a contract. it is impossible to read the signs without leaving the car, searching for the relevant sign and reading it.
e. The wording on the sign was prohibitive “NO PARKING IN PARENT AND CHILD BAY UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OUT OF THE VEHICLE BY A CHILD 12 YEARS OLD OR LESS”. Unlike in the ParkingEye ltd v Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if not accompanied out of the vehicle with a child 12 years old or less. A purported licence to stop without a permit or in this case a child under 12 exiting with the driver, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract. In PCM-UK v Bull B4GF26K6 [2016] (XX 13), residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.
f. The Notice to keeper states the reason for issue
“Parked in A Child and Parent Bay Whilst Unaccompanied by a Child 12 years or Less”
The terms and conditions NO PARKING IN PARENT AND CHILD BAY UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OUT OF THE VEHICLE BY A CHILD 12 YEARS OLD OR LESS”. The terms do not match.
11. I then referred to the IPC code of practice as this was both on the entrance sign, customer notice and the Notice to Keeper Sent to me. Even if there was a contract it must be “fair’: s. 62 of the consumer rights act 2015. As the Supreme Court held in ParkingEye ltd v Beavis the concept of fairness in claims such as this require that a parking firm complies in full with the requirements of the applicable code of practice, being either the British Parking Association code or that of the International Parking Committee. After considering the applicable document (XX 14) I assert the following non-compliance issues.
a. The photos provided in the claimant’s letters cover a period well under 5 minutes (4m 20 sec). The Parking Charge Notice appears to be in contravention of the IPC Code of Practice (XX 15) which states. “15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.”. This does not state that it is voided by a specific action. The BPA and council give 10 minutes at the start and end of parking as reasonable. In the event the claimant had grounds to void the said grace period (which I dispute) it would still require the claimant to disclose full CCTV covering the period of arrival to departure.
b. The IPC code of practice part E (XX 13), state that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.
c. The IPC guidelines 14 (XX 14) state “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance”. The fact that there is no signage around this area allied to the tiny secondly entrance sign, leads me to conclude that the Claimant is deliberately obfuscating. The aim to generate Parking Charge Notices for financial gain as opposed to preventing undesirable parking.
d. I additionally assert that this makes the obtaining of my private information from the DVLA invalid as adherence to the codes of practice is a pre requisite of making requests from the DVLA Keeper at Date of Event system.
12. I work away from home and I asked my partner to save any letters from National Parking Enforcement. I did not receive anything until a claim form came in x 2019 (XX15) I had no response to my request for CCTV nor had I received any pre action correspondence from x Solicitors. Thankfully I had the original Notice to Keeper pending a reply from National Parking Enforcement otherwise the sparse particulars of claim would not have given me a clue as to what the claim entailed.
13. After responding to the claim I lodged a formal Subject Access Request via mail and email to make sure that I could have all the requisite information before submitting my defence (XX 16). This was not responded to and I subsequently complained to the information commissioner’s office ICO whom responded in October 2019 (XX 17) in which they themselves have emailed the claimant and asked them to send the information. As of xx of xx this request from the ICO has not been honoured and I intend to follow the matter to conclusion.
14. During this time, I became aware of a number of defendants with the same particulars of claim with the same signature on the same date. No doubt the court will be inundated with such requests and I doubt I am the first of these you will have seen.
15. This unwarranted harassment and baseless automated litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to escalate my complaint to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2018.
16. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing for a year then suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay over £251 including the legal insult of interest, for what was apparently an unproven £100 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.
17. It is not credible that so many robotic claims have resulted in any substantial legal advice and I assert that the claimant has chosen to for want of a better term monetise old claims en-masse regardless of merit. These claims for often trivial incidents should be considered de minimis and a waste of the court and defendants time.
18. On the website of the claimant’s legal representative (XX 17) they offer a service to bulk- process such claims for a fee of £25 -£70 including administration yet on the claim form N1 I have a fee listed of £50 for “legal representatives’ costs”. I put to the claimant to proof that their debt collection agents did not work on a “no win no fee basis” (XX 18) with regard to this claim. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine, it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
19. I also put to the claimant to proof that they have not taken the option of a “percentage-based pricing structure” and that the charge has been inflated to maximise the % fee. I note this fee is the same for particulars or claim sent to other defendants regardless of the incident be it bay issues, overstaying, non-customer parking or even having a tyre over a line.
20. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge against a registered keeper who was not driving, was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6). (XX 19)
21. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
22. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the signs did not specify a sum for this 'debt collection' vague add-on, is void for uncertainty, in breach of the POFA para 9 (due to not 'specifying' the parking charges payable) and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the grey list of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. (XX20).
a. The Court has a duty to consider the test of fairness for consumer notices and terms (Part 2 para 71) whether or not a party has raised it before.
b. Consumer notices are not exempt from the test of fairness (XX21) part 3.2 guidance.
23. I refer to some example claims where the District Judges have run out of patience with these robotic claims which sadly have become a lucrative business due to the percentage that go undefended.
a. F0DP201T Southampton 10th June 2019 District Judge Taylor
"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to”
b. F4DP5264 & F4DP5279 Southampton Court DJ Judge Giddins
"This court is now systematically strikes out claims for those costs" and also said to rep to refer back to the instructors if they wanted to appeal this decision that this is the position its going continue to be adopted"
24. Declaration
I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14 contained within the attached defendants schedule of costs.
I have also attached Further costs pursuant to civil procedure rule 27.14(2)(g) given the claimants unreasonable behaviour.
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Defendant
Signed
It has become very apparent to me the nasty practices of these parking companies over the weeks I have been dealing/defending my own claim.
My claim refers to a site near a school (i will try and keep details out of postings but it will probably be obvious as a well known cash cow site). It has been staggering to see the number of people with claims going back years being issued claims as what must be part of a historic PCN monetisation exercise.
Sadly people have been giving up and rolling over and I can see why it is worth spamming people with these claims as i would be 75% fold, default or quit.
I have with the help of the forum submitted my defence and the case has now been allocated to my local court with an oral hearing.
I am now at the Witness Statement Stage with the hearing in Feb 2020.
Strangely some of my contemporary defendants have hearings in December despite putting their defences etc in later than mine.
The background.
- driver parked car in parent and child bay
- driver was there under 5 mins
- driver has no recollection they have 3 kids under 12 (which may have been in the back) and they visit the site every day often multiple times.
- Got the NTK for £100 reason parking without kids under 12 in parent and child bay.
- disputed the charge
- NPE said grace period null and void due to driver action witnessed on CCTV e.g not read the signs.
- asked for cctv not given SAR > ICO complaint > ICO now asked them > still not given
I then visited the site and it was such a !!!! show I am struggling to keep my WS concise it is like the site is designed to generate PCNs.
Anyhow here goes apologies in advance for this rough 1st draft.
Witness statement of MR/MRS X
I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked XX1, XX2 etc., to which I will refer.
1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned,
2. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts National Parking Enforcement limited to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.
3. Before I describe the claim regarding xx car park (“the car park”), I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
a. I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking and have never had a contract with National Parking Enforcement.
b. The Claimants signage is unfit for purpose and incapable of forming a contract under the consumer rights act 2005 (XX 1). I assert the location of the pertinent signage is also inadequate given the onerous terms applied to specific parking bays buried in small text on signs that are not near in front of them.
C. It also forbids the action claimed for “NO PARKING IN PARENT AND CHILD BAY UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OUT OF THE VEHICLE BY A CHILD 12 YEARS OLD OR LESS”, and then on the other hand seeks a contractual charge for the forbidden activity.
d. Even if the driver did breach the terms the Claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own accredited trade association to apply separate reasonable grace periods at the start and end of each period of parking to allow for potential delays in finding a space, exiting the car park and to allow time for drivers to find and read the terms and conditions offered a period of under five minutes is well below what is considered reasonable under IPC 15.1 (XX2).
Adherence to a code of practice is compulsory to gain drivers information from the DVLA and is an important factor when considering “fairness” under the consumer rights act 2015.
e. This claim is a clear abuse of process I have met a number of fellow defendants with identical particulars of claim all with the same date and the same costs despite different legal arguments/complexities. It is with not creditable that so many robotic claims have resulted in substantial legal advice.
4. On the x of x 2018 I received a Notice to Keeper by the claimant National Parking Enforcement LTD. This document (XX3) stated that I owed them £100.
a. Reason for issue: “Parked in A Child and Parent Bay Whilst Unaccompanied by a Child 12 years or Less”.
b. This notice had two photos of my car but no images of the driver, signage and showed a rounded parking time period of 14:14 > 14:45 4 minutes (with no seconds).
5. As I had no knowledge of the incident, I thought it reasonable to request some further information as I would never enter into a contract for 4 minutes parking for circa £60.00 (£25 per minute).
a. I attach my letter dated (XX4a) regarding the invoice they sent. This letter asked what the charge was for, their loss, proof they had contractual authority from the owner of the land, why was there no grace period as per 15.1 of the IPC code of practice. I also asked for full CCTV footage to see if I was driving, if that times added up and how they could see into the rear of the vehicle with privacy glass as I had 3 children under 12 at the time
b I then received a letter from the claimant dated x of x 2018 (xx4b) with the following answers to my questions. That the charge was contractual, they refused to provide ownership details or contractual authority. They did provide some photos of signage and that they decreed the notice period null and void based on driver behaviour from CCTV and that CCTV footage was not provided.
c. I subsequently replied with another letter (xx4c) clearly stating my goodwill in the matter but highlighting the problems I had with the information provided. I stated I considered their Notice to Keeper as a speculative invoice based on their rationale and asserted that it would not be paid without the information requested in my earlier letter. I formally requested the CCTV footage as is my right.
6. I did not receive any further replies from the claimant themselves leaving my reasonable and obligatory requests for information under the Data Protection Act outstanding.
7. I felt it prudent to visit the site of the car park and took my own photos of the main entrance sign (XX 5) and the signs used in the car park itself (XX 6).
8. When entering the car park, you are met with a clear primary sign (XX 5) forbidding all but “shoppers” during shopping hours. There is also a smaller secondary sign (XX 5) which I had to read on foot as too small, it has both the IPC and BPA logos presumably to indicate that if you choose to use this car park both the IPC and BPA codes of practice would apply. There is also a tiny CCTV logo and small text that terms and conditions apply.
9. Once parked in the parent (XX 6) bay there is no sign in front of the bay either with the customer notice or directing you to the customer notice. If you exit a vehicle parked front on you have a difficult side on view and given the small text upon entry its entirely plausible that users could miss the main terms and conditions on customer notices entirely. This is contrary to the precedent set by the Vine v Waltham Forest 2000 judgement paragraph 19 (XX7) “to show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk” of their action. “That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable”
10. Some 4m from the driver side (XX 6) the signs containing the customer notice/terms and conditions where not illuminated and contained over 40 lines of text with over 7 different font and text sizes. I have attached a photo of the sign (XX 7), the sign only has the IPC logo and not the BPA logo the entrance sign would lead you to believe.
a. The signage is difficult to read contrary to the judgement in ParkingEye v Bevis. The relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. I have attached a copy of the sign in that case (XX 8)
b. The signage breaches section 64(4) (XX 9) of the consumer rights act 2005 “A term is prominent for the purposes of this section if it is brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that an average consumer would be aware of the term.” (XX1).
c. I saw that the most onerous term on the sign (XX 7) is in smaller font. This is contradiction with the ruling in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] (XX 11). In which the most onerous term should be the most prominent “the red hand rule”. On the claimant’s signage the most onerous terms are in a smaller less prominent font. The ParkingEye sign (XX 8) show just how inadequate this signage is compared with more compliant operators.
d. On the sign the parent and child bay has unique onerous terms and a specific charge for breeching them, I assert that this necessitates the installation of a clear notice in front of the parent and child bay. In the signage provided it does not meet the standard set by Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] (XX 12). In which terms forming a contract should be brought to the attention before or at the time of making a contract. it is impossible to read the signs without leaving the car, searching for the relevant sign and reading it.
e. The wording on the sign was prohibitive “NO PARKING IN PARENT AND CHILD BAY UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OUT OF THE VEHICLE BY A CHILD 12 YEARS OLD OR LESS”. Unlike in the ParkingEye ltd v Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if not accompanied out of the vehicle with a child 12 years old or less. A purported licence to stop without a permit or in this case a child under 12 exiting with the driver, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract. In PCM-UK v Bull B4GF26K6 [2016] (XX 13), residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.
f. The Notice to keeper states the reason for issue
“Parked in A Child and Parent Bay Whilst Unaccompanied by a Child 12 years or Less”
The terms and conditions NO PARKING IN PARENT AND CHILD BAY UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OUT OF THE VEHICLE BY A CHILD 12 YEARS OLD OR LESS”. The terms do not match.
11. I then referred to the IPC code of practice as this was both on the entrance sign, customer notice and the Notice to Keeper Sent to me. Even if there was a contract it must be “fair’: s. 62 of the consumer rights act 2015. As the Supreme Court held in ParkingEye ltd v Beavis the concept of fairness in claims such as this require that a parking firm complies in full with the requirements of the applicable code of practice, being either the British Parking Association code or that of the International Parking Committee. After considering the applicable document (XX 14) I assert the following non-compliance issues.
a. The photos provided in the claimant’s letters cover a period well under 5 minutes (4m 20 sec). The Parking Charge Notice appears to be in contravention of the IPC Code of Practice (XX 15) which states. “15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.”. This does not state that it is voided by a specific action. The BPA and council give 10 minutes at the start and end of parking as reasonable. In the event the claimant had grounds to void the said grace period (which I dispute) it would still require the claimant to disclose full CCTV covering the period of arrival to departure.
b. The IPC code of practice part E (XX 13), state that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.
c. The IPC guidelines 14 (XX 14) state “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance”. The fact that there is no signage around this area allied to the tiny secondly entrance sign, leads me to conclude that the Claimant is deliberately obfuscating. The aim to generate Parking Charge Notices for financial gain as opposed to preventing undesirable parking.
d. I additionally assert that this makes the obtaining of my private information from the DVLA invalid as adherence to the codes of practice is a pre requisite of making requests from the DVLA Keeper at Date of Event system.
12. I work away from home and I asked my partner to save any letters from National Parking Enforcement. I did not receive anything until a claim form came in x 2019 (XX15) I had no response to my request for CCTV nor had I received any pre action correspondence from x Solicitors. Thankfully I had the original Notice to Keeper pending a reply from National Parking Enforcement otherwise the sparse particulars of claim would not have given me a clue as to what the claim entailed.
13. After responding to the claim I lodged a formal Subject Access Request via mail and email to make sure that I could have all the requisite information before submitting my defence (XX 16). This was not responded to and I subsequently complained to the information commissioner’s office ICO whom responded in October 2019 (XX 17) in which they themselves have emailed the claimant and asked them to send the information. As of xx of xx this request from the ICO has not been honoured and I intend to follow the matter to conclusion.
14. During this time, I became aware of a number of defendants with the same particulars of claim with the same signature on the same date. No doubt the court will be inundated with such requests and I doubt I am the first of these you will have seen.
15. This unwarranted harassment and baseless automated litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to escalate my complaint to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2018.
16. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing for a year then suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay over £251 including the legal insult of interest, for what was apparently an unproven £100 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.
17. It is not credible that so many robotic claims have resulted in any substantial legal advice and I assert that the claimant has chosen to for want of a better term monetise old claims en-masse regardless of merit. These claims for often trivial incidents should be considered de minimis and a waste of the court and defendants time.
18. On the website of the claimant’s legal representative (XX 17) they offer a service to bulk- process such claims for a fee of £25 -£70 including administration yet on the claim form N1 I have a fee listed of £50 for “legal representatives’ costs”. I put to the claimant to proof that their debt collection agents did not work on a “no win no fee basis” (XX 18) with regard to this claim. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine, it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
19. I also put to the claimant to proof that they have not taken the option of a “percentage-based pricing structure” and that the charge has been inflated to maximise the % fee. I note this fee is the same for particulars or claim sent to other defendants regardless of the incident be it bay issues, overstaying, non-customer parking or even having a tyre over a line.
20. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge against a registered keeper who was not driving, was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6). (XX 19)
21. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
22. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the signs did not specify a sum for this 'debt collection' vague add-on, is void for uncertainty, in breach of the POFA para 9 (due to not 'specifying' the parking charges payable) and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the grey list of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. (XX20).
a. The Court has a duty to consider the test of fairness for consumer notices and terms (Part 2 para 71) whether or not a party has raised it before.
b. Consumer notices are not exempt from the test of fairness (XX21) part 3.2 guidance.
23. I refer to some example claims where the District Judges have run out of patience with these robotic claims which sadly have become a lucrative business due to the percentage that go undefended.
a. F0DP201T Southampton 10th June 2019 District Judge Taylor
"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to”
b. F4DP5264 & F4DP5279 Southampton Court DJ Judge Giddins
"This court is now systematically strikes out claims for those costs" and also said to rep to refer back to the instructors if they wanted to appeal this decision that this is the position its going continue to be adopted"
24. Declaration
I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14 contained within the attached defendants schedule of costs.
I have also attached Further costs pursuant to civil procedure rule 27.14(2)(g) given the claimants unreasonable behaviour.
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Defendant
Signed
0
Comments
-
Earlham site then? Where kids who stay sat in the car don't count (I agree with NPE on that actually!). But it is an absolute scam site in every way, other than that.
Please tell them to read the NEWBIES thread for examples of a Witness Statement and EVIDENCE to file, and to read CEC16's thread as they need to use the Consumer Rights Act, the Beavis case and the POFA.Strangely some of my contemporary defendants have hearings in December despite putting their defences etc in later than mine.
Have you read it? Seems you have as you have the words in your WS draft!
Haha, just spotted a typo, though:
19. I also put to the claimant to !!!!!!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
To be fair I hate people parking in such bays also.
But unfortunately in life when you have kids sometimes you park in and then realise your errors and return to move if that was the case ( was not there at all).
They sent the invoice to me and I dont think the charge meets the alleged indiscretion.
I have no idea if the driver got kids out or not as they wont give me CCTV and the driver has no recollection.
Cest la vie0 -
I know, I have 4, all born in a seven year stint! (now at Universities).But unfortunately in life when you have kids sometimes you park in and then realise your errors and return to move if that was the case
Your WS is a brilliant example of good research, you have so much in it. I hope the other people are appreciating your efforts and copying and getting their own heads around the exhibit and case law?
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »I know, I have 4, all born in a seven year stint! (now at Universities).
Your WS is a brilliant example of good research, you have so much in it. I hope the other people are appreciating your efforts and copying and getting their own heads around the exhibit and case law?
:A MOre like a brilliant example of copy paste, following your good self about and others on this forum!
I have no idea most of the parents at school are making excuses as to why they cannot do it and their lives are too hard etc etc.
But a few are hunkering down I am actually a bit upset I am not the first one in there as I will be 100% open win or loose.
Just like the Southhampton cases if the first few from a certain time have the signs deemed unfair or the claimant can be held to abuse of process it makes it so much easier for the others that follow.
Some of the claims are really immoral for example people dropping items at the rear of charity shop and getting £100 PCN for not having livered vehicles etc etc
My hope is that the D Judges will get !!!!ed off having so much of this spam clogging up their court rooms they start striking claims out earlier.0 -
Some observations:-
para 3b - should be ".................Consumer Rights Act 2015..." There are other references to this in the WS that should be amended
para 3 - "e. This claim is a clear abuse of process I have met at a number of fellow defendants with identical particulars of claim all with the same date and the same costs despite different legal arguments/complexities. It is (with) not creditable that so many robotic claims have resulted in substantial legal advice."
delete (with)
para 11 - IPC = International Parking Community
"2. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event...................."
BUT:-
para 5a - "I also asked for full CCTV footage to see if I was driving, if that times added up and how they could see into the rear of the vehicle with privacy glass as I had 3 children under 12 at the time"
You emphatically deny being driver but then ask to see if you were0 -
1505grandad wrote: »
You emphatically deny being driver but then ask to see if you were
Many thanks
To explain the original NTK only had photos of the car and both me and other family members drive it.
So at the start after that first NTK I did want to see if it was me as we frequent the shops so often.
When they then sent me further CCTV images it was then immediately obvious the driver was not me
Does that make sense?
I will edit0 -
Dear NorfolkBOI,
I'm preparing my own Witness Statement and was referred to this page by Coupon-mad. Having just read it, may I just say bravo - I actually want to stand up and applaud!
This is a wonderful argument - the bit I find most difficult is referencing case law as I don't really know how to search for and through cases, and then sift out the most useful arguments. But it was incredibly useful reading how you've used yours, and I may reference some of these cases myself, as you've drawn arguments that are applicable to many PPC charges, I think, certainly some of which are applicable to my own.
Thank-you so much for posting this - it's really extremely helpful. Many thanks indeed.0 -
A few minor suggestions: -
Para 1, remove the word, "Whilst".
I believe sub paras should be numbered 3, 3.1, 3,2 etcetera, not 3, a, b, C, etcetera.
Your defence should be in the third person, the Defendant. The WS should be in the first person, I. You have a mixture of both in your WS.
3 d, obtain "keeper" information, not driver.
3 b and 3 d have different years for the consumer rights act.
4 b, the times quoted are much greater than the 4 minutes mentioned straight afterwards.
5, £25/min does equate to £60 for 4 minutes.
5 a, see "who" was driving, not see if "I" was driving. Alternatively, prove I was driving.
10 a, needs clarifying to show the second sentence refers to the Beavis case, not your case. Beavis is spelt wrong. "The relevant signs in the Beavis case were “large, prominent and legible … "
10 c, mention Lord Denning and what sort of judge he is when referring to the Red Hand Rule to add weight (persuasive).
There are also a few typos. Don't rely on spill chocker to do this for you.
As for the CCTV evidence, they have a problem since they presumably don't know what you look like.
If they show footage of someone else, they may be in breach of DPA/CCTV regulations. If the footage is of the defendant then they are in trouble for not producing it when requested by you and the ICO.
All in all a good effort by you.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
A few minor suggestions: -
Para 1, remove the word, "Whilst".
I believe sub paras should be numbered 3, 3.1, 3,2 etcetera, not 3, a, b, C, etcetera.
Your defence should be in the third person, the Defendant. The WS should be in the first person, I. You have a mixture of both in your WS.
3 d, obtain "keeper" information, not driver.
3 b and 3 d have different years for the consumer rights act.
4 b, the times quoted are much greater than the 4 minutes mentioned straight afterwards.
5, £25/min does equate to £60 for 4 minutes.
5 a, see "who" was driving, not see if "I" was driving. Alternatively, prove I was driving.
10 a, needs clarifying to show the second sentence refers to the Beavis case, not your case. Beavis is spelt wrong. "The relevant signs in the Beavis case were “large, prominent and legible … "
10 c, mention Lord Denning and what sort of judge he is when referring to the Red Hand Rule to add weight (persuasive).
There are also a few typos. Don't rely on spill chocker to do this for you.
As for the CCTV evidence, they have a problem since they presumably don't know what you look like.
If they show footage of someone else, they may be in breach of DPA/CCTV regulations. If the footage is of the defendant then they are in trouble for not producing it when requested by you and the ICO.
All in all a good effort by you.
Many thanks for this will get this edited asap.
I had another visit to the car park the other night and I missed a critical point
The only clear sign is at the top section of the car park the bottom section of the car park done not even have a decent sign.
So the poor !!!!!!s who either park from the main road or whom go in the much easier "wrong way off recreation road" do not even get a decent sign.
You can come off the road and park in the bay without seeing any sign at all.
I will now update...
Images attached of the site showing what I mean.
When you park in the bottom section of the car park you can only use entrances 2 and 3 not the one at the top which is the only one with a sign.
broken line as too new imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/7996/TaMXxX.jpg0 -
A few minor suggestions: -
Para 1, remove the word, "Whilst".
I believe sub paras should be numbered 3, 3.1, 3,2 etcetera, not 3, a, b, C, etcetera.
Your defence should be in the third person, the Defendant. The WS should be in the first person, I. You have a mixture of both in your WS.
3 d, obtain "keeper" information, not driver.
3 b and 3 d have different years for the consumer rights act.
4 b, the times quoted are much greater than the 4 minutes mentioned straight afterwards.
5, £25/min does equate to £60 for 4 minutes.
5 a, see "who" was driving, not see if "I" was driving. Alternatively, prove I was driving.
10 a, needs clarifying to show the second sentence refers to the Beavis case, not your case. Beavis is spelt wrong. "The relevant signs in the Beavis case were “large, prominent and legible … "
10 c, mention Lord Denning and what sort of judge he is when referring to the Red Hand Rule to add weight (persuasive).
There are also a few typos. Don't rely on spill chocker to do this for you.
As for the CCTV evidence, they have a problem since they presumably don't know what you look like.
If they show footage of someone else, they may be in breach of DPA/CCTV regulations. If the footage is of the defendant then they are in trouble for not producing it when requested by you and the ICO.
All in all a good effort by you.
Notes so far implemented to WS.
Witness statement of MR/MRS X
I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked XX1, XX2 etc., to which I will refer.
1. I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned,
2. I deny being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore put National Parking Enforcement limited to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and myself as defendant.
3. Before I describe the claim regarding xx car park (“the car park”), I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
3.1. I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking and have never had a contract with National Parking Enforcement.
3.2. The Claimants signage is unfit for purpose and incapable of forming a contract under Consumer Rights Act 2015 (XX 1). I assert the location of the pertinent signage is also inadequate given the onerous terms applied to specific parking bays buried in small text on signs that are not near in front of them.
3.3. It also forbids the action claimed for “NO PARKING IN PARENT AND CHILD BAY UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OUT OF THE VEHICLE BY A CHILD 12 YEARS OLD OR LESS”, and then on the other hand seeks a contractual charge for the forbidden activity.
3.4. Even if the driver did breach the terms the Claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own accredited trade association to apply separate reasonable grace periods at the start and end of each period of parking to allow for potential delays in finding a space, exiting the car park and to allow time for drivers to find and read the terms and conditions offered a period of under five minutes is well below what is considered reasonable under International Parking Community 15.1 (XX2).
Adherence to a code of practice is compulsory to gain keeper information from the DVLA and is an important factor when considering “fairness” under Consumer Rights Act 2015.
3.5. This claim is a clear abuse of process I have met a number of fellow defendants with identical particulars of claim all with the same date and the same costs despite different legal arguments/complexities. It is not creditable that so many robotic claims have resulted in substantial legal advice.
4. On the x of x 2018 I received a Notice to Keeper by the claimant National Parking Enforcement LTD. This document (XX3) stated that I owed them £100.
4.1. Reason for issue: “Parked in A Child and Parent Bay Whilst Unaccompanied by a Child 12 years or Less”.
4.2. This notice had two photos of my car but no images of the driver, signage and showed a rounded parking time period of 14:41 > 14:45 4 minutes (with no seconds).
5. As I had no knowledge of the incident, I thought it reasonable to request some further information as I would never enter into a contract for 4 minutes parking for £100 (£25 per minute).
5.1. I attach my letter dated (XX4a) regarding the invoice they sent. This letter asked what the charge was for, their loss, proof they had contractual authority from the owner of the land, why was there no grace period as per 15.1 of the International Parking Community code of practice. I also asked for full CCTV footage to see who the driver was, if the times added up and how they could see into the rear of the vehicle with privacy glass as our family had 3 children under 12 at the time.
5.2. I then received a letter from the claimant dated x of x 2018 (xx4b) with the following answers to my questions. That the charge was contractual, they refused to provide ownership details or contractual authority. They did provide some photos, images of the signage and that they decreed the notice period null and void based on driver behaviour from CCTV and that CCTV footage was not provided.
5.3. I subsequently replied with another letter (xx4c) clearly stating my goodwill in the matter but highlighting the problems I had with the information provided. I stated that their Notice to Keeper was a speculative invoice based on their rationale and asserted that it would not be paid without the information requested in my earlier letter. I formally requested the CCTV footage as is my right under the data protection act [1998] and later general Data Protection Regulation legislation [2018].
6. I did not receive any further replies from the claimant themselves leaving my reasonable and obligatory requests for information under the Data Protection Act outstanding.
7. I felt it prudent to visit the site of the car park and took my own photos of the main entrance sign (XX 5) and the signs used in the car park itself (XX 6).
8. When entering the car park top level (entrance one on map xx 21) near co-op, you are met with a clear primary sign (XX 5) forbidding all but “shoppers” during shopping hours. There is also a smaller secondary sign (XX 5) which I had to read on foot as too small to read from a vehicle, it has both the International Parking Community and British Parking Association logos, presumably to indicate that if you choose to use this car park both the International Parking Community and British Parking Association codes of practice would apply. There is also a tiny CCTV logo and small text that terms and conditions apply.
8.1. However, this signage is pointless to this claim as drivers cannot access by car the lower parking area near the parent and child bay via the entrance 1. The two sections are separated by a pedestrian zone.
8.2 To access the parent and parking bay in question you have to either enter via entrance 2 off Recreation Road which is “NO ENTRY” only adjacent to a Salvation Army deposit point. It is common on this site to use this entrance especially if you live that side of it CCTV footage would be able to confirm this route. If the driver did, they would not have known about any terms and conditions at all.
8.3 Alternatively drivers need to enter via Earlham Road which again does not have the same signage as provided at entrance 1 and the information provided by the claimant. This signage is in poor condition.
9. Once parked in the parent (XX 6) bay there is no sign in front of the bay either with the customer notice or directing you to the customer notice. If you exit a vehicle parked front on you have a difficult side on view and given the small text upon entry its entirely plausible that users could miss the main terms and conditions on customer notices entirely. This is contrary to the precedent set by the Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] judgement paragraph 19 (XX7) “to show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk” of their action. “That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable”
10. Some 4m from the driver side (XX 6) the signs containing the customer notice/terms and conditions where not illuminated and contained over 40 lines of text with over 7 different font and text sizes. I have attached a photo of the sign (XX 7), the sign only has the International Parking Community logo and not the British Parking Association logo the entrance sign would lead you to believe.
10.1. The signage is difficult to read contrary to the judgement in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]. The relevant signs in the ParkingEye v Beavis case were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. I have attached a copy of the sign in that case (XX 8) this is both entrance signage and the signage containing the customer notice and terms.
10.2. The signage breaches section 64(4) (XX 9) of Consumer Rights Act 2015 “A term is prominent for the purposes of this section if it is brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that an average consumer would be aware of the term.” (XX1). Again this is both entrance signage and the signage containing the customer notice and terms.
10.3. I saw that the most onerous term on the sign (XX 7) is in smaller font. This is contradiction with the ruling in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] (XX 11) In the Supreme Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Denning ruling set the precedent that a contracts most onerous term should be the most prominent “the red hand rule”. On the claimant’s signage the most onerous terms are in a smaller less prominent font. The ParkingEye sign (XX 8) show just how inadequate this signage is compared with more compliant operators.
10.4. On the sign the parent and child bay is subject to unique onerous terms and a specific charge for breeching them, I assert that this necessitates the installation of a clear notice in front of the parent and child bay. In the signage provided it does not meet the standard set by Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] (XX 12). In which terms forming a contract should be brought to the attention before or at the time of making a contract. it is impossible to read the signs without leaving the car, searching for the relevant sign and reading it.
10.5. The wording on the sign was prohibitive “NO PARKING IN PARENT AND CHILD BAY UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OUT OF THE VEHICLE BY A CHILD 12 YEARS OLD OR LESS”. Unlike in the ParkingEye ltd v Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if not accompanied out of the vehicle with a child 12 years old or less. A purported licence to stop without a permit or in this case a child under 12 exiting with the driver, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract. In PCM-UK v Bull B4GF26K6 [2016] (XX 13), residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.
10.6. The Notice to keeper states the reason for issue
“Parked in A Child and Parent Bay Whilst Unaccompanied by a Child 12 years or Less”
The terms and conditions NO PARKING IN PARENT AND CHILD BAY UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OUT OF THE VEHICLE BY A CHILD 12 YEARS OLD OR LESS”. The terms do not match.
11. I then referred to the International Parking Community code of practice as this was both on the entrance sign, customer notice and the Notice to Keeper Sent to me. Even if there was a contract it must be “fair’: s. 62 of Consumer Rights Act 2015. As the Supreme Court held in ParkingEye ltd v Beavis the concept of fairness in claims such as this require that a parking firm complies in full with the requirements of the applicable code of practice, being either the British Parking Association code or that of the International Parking Committee. After considering the applicable document (XX 14) I assert the following non-compliance issues.
11.1. The photos provided in the claimant’s letters cover a period well under 5 minutes (4m 20 sec). The Parking Charge Notice appears to be in contravention of the International Parking Community Code of Practice (XX 15) which states. “15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.”. This does not state that it is voided by a specific action. The British Parking Association and council give 10 minutes at the start and end of parking as reasonable. In the event the claimant had grounds to void the said grace period (which I dispute) it would still require the claimant to disclose full CCTV covering the period of arrival to departure.
11.2. The International Parking Community code of practice part E (XX 13), state that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.
11.3. The International Parking Community guidelines 14 (XX 14) state “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance”. The fact that there is no signage around this area allied to the tiny secondly entrance sign, leads me to conclude that the Claimant is deliberately obfuscating. The aim to generate Parking Charge Notices for financial gain as opposed to preventing undesirable parking.
11.4. I additionally assert that this makes the obtaining of my private information from the DVLA invalid as adherence to the codes of practice is a pre requisite of making requests from the DVLA Keeper at Date of Event system.
12. I work away from home and I asked my partner to save any letters from National Parking Enforcement. I did not receive anything until a claim form came in x 2019 (XX15) I had no response to my request for CCTV nor had I received any pre action correspondence from x Solicitors. Thankfully I had the original Notice to Keeper pending a reply from National Parking Enforcement otherwise the sparse particulars of claim would not have given me a clue as to what the claim entailed.
13. After responding to the claim, I lodged a formal Subject Access Request via mail and email to make sure that I could have all the requisite information before submitting my defence (XX 16). This was not responded to and I subsequently complained to the information commissioner’s office ICO whom responded in October 2019 (XX 17) in which they themselves have emailed the claimant and asked them to send the information. As of xx of xx this request from the ICO has not been honoured and I intend to follow the matter to conclusion.
14. During this time, I became aware of a number of defendants with the same particulars of claim with the same signature on the same date. No doubt the court will be inundated with such requests and I doubt I am the first of these you will have seen.
15. This unwarranted harassment and baseless automated litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to escalate my complaint to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2018.
16. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing for a year then suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay over £251 including the legal insult of interest, for what was apparently an unproven £100 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.
17. It is not credible that so many robotic claims have resulted in any substantial legal advice and I assert that the claimant has chosen to for want of a better term monetise old claims en-masse regardless of merit. These claims for often trivial incidents should be considered de minimis and a waste of the court and defendants time.
18. On the website of the claimant’s legal representative (XX 17) they offer a service to bulk- process such claims for a fee of £25 -£70 including administration yet on the claim form N1 I have a fee listed of £50 for “legal representatives’ costs”. I put to the claimant to proof that their debt collection agents did not work on a “no win no fee basis” (XX 18) with regard to this claim. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine, it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
19. I also put to the claimant to proof that they have not taken the option of a “percentage-based pricing structure” and that the charge has been inflated to maximise the % fee. I note this fee is the same for particulars or claim sent to other defendants regardless of the incident be it bay issues, overstaying, non-customer parking or even having a tyre over a line.
20. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge against a registered keeper who was not driving, was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6). (XX 19)
21. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
22. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the signs did not specify a sum for this 'debt collection' vague add-on, is void for uncertainty, in breach of the POFA para 9 (due to not 'specifying' the parking charges payable) and in breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the grey list of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. (XX20).
22.1. The Court has a duty to consider the test of fairness for consumer notices and terms (Part 2 para 71) whether or not a party has raised it before.
22.2. Consumer notices are not exempt from the test of fairness (XX21) part 3.2 guidance.
23. I refer to some example claims where the District Judges have run out of patience with these robotic claims which sadly have become a lucrative business due to the percentage that go undefended.
23.1. F0DP201T Southampton 10th June 2019 District Judge Taylor
"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to”
23.2. F4DP5264 & F4DP5279 Southampton Court DJ Judge Giddins
"This court is now systematically strikes out claims for those costs" and also said to rep to refer back to the instructors if they wanted to appeal this decision that this is the position its going continue to be adopted"
24. Declaration
I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14 contained within the attached defendants schedule of costs.
I have also attached Further costs pursuant to civil procedure rule 27.14(2)(g) given the claimants unreasonable behaviour.
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Defendant
Signed0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards