FINAL REMINDER - SIP LIMITED - Manchester

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Be aware you don't have to file the entire Beavis judgement, only the page(s) or paragraphs that suit your case; e.g. in another current SIP case I've just listed for mlang88 all the points from the judgment that I could find which throw out SIP's attempt at double recovery, because £100 already undoubtedly comprises a huge majority in profit, even allowing for a few cases costing a little more in terms of 'robo-claim' territory (minor costs to an IPC member).

Defendants need to debunk the myth from Gladstones, that added and unsubstantiated 'costs' can be somehow plucked out of thin air and bolted onto the claim ad infinitum when £100 is already huge.

I'm a little confused by this but I'll read some other threads to see what they say! Can you recommend any in particular? I'll cracking on finding the latest either way

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Oh, and like every other court statement, the WS needs to have all paragraphs numbered.

It's weirdly all numbered in my document but only when you mentioned it did I realise it hasn't pasted it, how strange!

THanks

Okay CM, I have added in your points from the other thread but just wondering if this is a wise way to do it?

I am XXXX XXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

1. This matter relates to a pay & display car park and on the material day, XX/XX/XXXX, where the driver bought a ticket on land at Cable Street without realising they were entering into valid contract due to poor signage at the site.

2. As suggested with Exhibit number 1, I have not received proper contact from The Claimant to identify the driver nor received any evidence of a Notice to Keeper (NTK) - See defence point 1c. alongside Exhibit number 2 and 3 to further back up points in section 1 of the defence.

3. Section 2 in the defence shows how The Claimant has no right to relief from the keeper of the vehicle as they have failed to comply with the requirements of the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (Exhibit number 2).

4. Section 3 - there are a number of cases which support my defence point, that a keeper cannot be held liable for a parking charge issued out-with the POFA (Exhibit number 14, pages 12 and 13), these include a persuasive Appeal case in Excel v Smith (exhibit number 4) and also recent decisions on the same fact of law, in Excel v Lamoureux (exhibit number 5) and VCS v Quayle (exhibit number 6).

5. The main points in this defence case is in relation to the lack of signage and fencing around the site to clearly inform about the intentions of the land as explained in Section 4 of the defence.

6. The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case (Exhibit number 15) relates directly to part of this case regarding the signs. It was ruled in the Supreme Court that signs had to be clearly displayed with all text visible as shown in Exhibit number 8. However, The Claimant has a sign displayed as Exhibit number 7. A defiance of the IPC Code of Practice (Exhibit number 13).

7 . The driver had entered the car parking space directly from the road, and there were no readable signs in either directions to state any abiding contracts or or to suggest indeed it was a private car park at all. See Exhibit number 10 to see the space that the car in question was parked (bottom of the picture is the space). The driver was parked facing out towards the road and had reversed into the space. The only visible sign spotted via photographs and after the date in question is on the side of the wall to the left of Exhibit number 10. When parking the car is virtually impossible to notice when there are cars filling up that car park opposite and it is not even clear whether that car park is the same company owned. The spaces are poorly organised as shown in Exhibit number 11 and there is complete lack of fencing and entrance signs to suggest the land is private. Exhibit number 11 also shows how scarce the amount of signs at the site are, and the ones that are there are poorly positioned.

8. Exhibit number 9 shows a potential entrance to the car park which is merely a guess even when revisiting the site. The fact that cars look invited by concrete lines on the floor identical to all other spaces laid out, to park in what would also appear to be an entrance (Exhibit number 11) creates confusion with any drivers attempting to use the site.

9. Argument 4c. in the defence argues that the location has no entry signs is contrary to the IPC Code of Practice which can be seen in Exhibit number 13.

10. Exhibit number 7 - The size of the font for the vital information on the signs, as mentioned in 4b. is unclear and all that seems large enough to read is how much the parking is. The information certainly cannot be seen anywhere near the vast majority of vehicles. Further to this point, the additional costs added above the fine appear to have been plucked from thin air as they are not stated in clear terms on the sign, nor have any costs been incurred from debt collectors services. There was conclusion on this exact matter in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case as shown in Exhibit number 15 where I have collected highlighted points relevant to this case:

“97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying. On the contrary, at least if the £85 is payable, it gains by the unauthorised use, since its revenues are wholly derived from the charges for breach of the terms.

98. Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main
objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...

193. Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.

198. The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.

286. ParkingEye imposed the parking charge in order to encourage the prompt turnover of car parking spaces and also to fund its own business activities and make a profit.

287. That legitimate interest would not justify the parking charge if it were out of all proportion to that interest, or, in other words, exorbitant. In deciding whether the charge was exorbitant, I think that the court can look at the statutorily authorised practice of local authorities in England and Wales and also the recommendations of the accredited trade association, the BPA.

11. I was the will of Parliament when introducing the POFA Schedule 4 in 2012, that parking firms could not make hay by ‘double recovery’, which is why the only sum stated as recoverable in cases where the registered keeper is being pursued, is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. Both Trade Associations set a securing of £100 which is over and above the ‘healthy profit’ model used in ParkingEye vs Beavis.

12. After complying with the claimants Letter Before Country Court Claim which stated that The Keeper did not believe the letter was fully compliant with the Practice Direction (Exhibit Number 1), I sent a response on the 16/04/17 (See exhibit number 12) I received no reply and The Claimant has failed to supply any evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed:

Date:

I have a reply from Gladstones with their witness statement! And it's early... Unusual for them. Shall I scan it and add to this document so I can add some defence into the witness statement?

Sorry, just want to bump this before I submit today and to get some feedback on the Exhibits