Gladstones County Court Claim Form

WBM · 23 April 2018 at 12:23AM

I see.. okay thanks guys! I'll read more and try to create my witness statement and will post it here for critique.

nosferatu1001 · 23 April 2018 at 9:37AM

EDIT YOUR POST!
Do not talk about the identity of the Driver, for crying out loud thats clear in every thread.

WBM · 29 April 2018 at 10:40PM

Hi Guys,

Here is my first draft of my witness statement. If you can please critique it so I can improve upon it.

Thank you!

IN THE COUNTY COURT - Claim No.:

Between

WY Parking Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

-and-

*********** (Defendant)
____________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
__________________________

I, ************ of **************************************** am the defendant in this case. 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.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from two years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.

4. The Claimant has not proved that Defendant was the driver at the time of the supposed event therefore the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and Defendant.

5. At the time in 2016, the insurance had full comprehensive cover so any other person such as a family member could have driven the vehicle at the time, who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

6. There was no requirement upon me as keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail, in 2016. No adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter, impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law.

7. I have researched and discovered that WY Parking Enforcement Limited (WYPE Ltd) are issuing robo-claims for archive 'parking charges' in their thousands.

8. This unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report WYPE Ltd to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2016.

9. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing for a period of time 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 £413.30 including the legal insult of interest, for what was apparently an unproven £90 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.

10. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this Claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties - and has obtained default CCJs in the hundreds, despite never complying with the POFA 2012 and even bringing pre-POFA cases to the Courts, as here.

11. The claimant has failed to properly respond to my request made on 08/06/17 by royal mail postal service, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner!!!8217;s behalf. My request was not actioned appropriately (I received 4 questionable colour photos of the car park & the original PCN only, without further information).

12. The Claimant is stating that they had a legitimate interest to set the charge. However, the time of the alleged contravention was 10pm on a Saturday as is shown from the pictures provided by the Claimant. There is no legitimate interest that is being protected as there are no businesses operating at the parking area at that time, so it is unclear what legitimate interest is being protected at that time.

13. The Claimant is also double charging for the same alleged contravention, as in their Letter Before Claim they have listed the same PCN Number on the same date with two separate charge amounts of £150 each. The Claim Form then is claiming 8% on a £300 charge. This is clearly an attempt at dishonestly doubling their claim.

14. The pictures that the Claimant has provided themselves shows that the parking sign is shrouded by the larger signs around it. Additionally, the sign itself is so small in size that it would be impossible to read it to be able to agree to its terms.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!65533;
!!!65533;!!!8230;. (add name and sign)
!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;
(add Date)

KeithP · 29 April 2018 at 11:10PM

There are two paragraphs numbered 2. and 3.

The second para 2. seems to be a bit of a muddle.

Perhaps it should look like:

2. The Claimant has not proved that Defendant was the driver at the time of the supposed event therefore the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and Defendant.

You don't appear to have explained why no Keeper Liability exists.

WBM · 30 April 2018 at 8:55PM

Hey Keith, thank you for your comment I have amended the post. regarding the Keeper liability I am already stating this in my defence, would I need to say it again in my witness statement?

KeithP · 30 April 2018 at 9:11PM

WBM wrote: »

Regarding the Keeper liability I am already stating this in my defence, would I need to say it again in my witness statement?

In your Defence you state:

5.1 If seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA, the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.1.1. there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.1.2. that this Claimant has established itself as the offeror and creditor; and
5.1.3. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

Maybe your Witness Statement should explain how the Claimant has failed to meet those obligations.

I have not re-read the rest of your thread, but for example if the NtK arrived with you too late to hold the keeper liable then perhaps you should say so and quote which para of POFA Sch4 they have missed. Another example, if the wording is non-compliant then perhaps that should be spelled out in your WS.

But then again, it is for them to prove their case, not for you to disprove it.
Maybe wait for others to comment.

WBM · 7 May 2018 at 7:09PM

Hi Guys,

I have added to the witness statement. Can someone please help me review it as I will need to send it off soon. My court date is the 5th of June. Thanks in advance!

IN THE COUNTY COURT - Claim No.:

Between

WY Parking Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

-and-

*********** (Defendant)
____________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
__________________________

I, ************ of **************************************** am the defendant in this case. 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.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from two years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.

4. I have no liability, as I am the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. (Exhibit A) in order to hold me responsible for the driver!!!8217;s alleged breach. Schedule 4 relies upon not just a Notice To Keeper being served but these pre-requisites which are absent from the evidence:
a) A relevant contract (with the driver, i.e. there MUST be a contract capable of being read and agreed, from clear signs)
b) A relevant obligation giving rise to a parking charge (i.e. there MUST be evidence that the driver had a clear obligation and didn't comply with it and so a charge arose)
c) Adequate notice of the parking charge itself (the actual charge must be in large lettering on clear signs as shown in (Exhibit

5. PoFA Schedule 4 (S4): 9.2(f) states !!!8220;the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid!!!8221;
a) This makes it absolutely clear that if the claimant fails to meet any one of the
conditions under S4 !!!8211; no matter how minor or trivial that failing is !!!8211; then the act cannot be relied upon to invoke keeper liability.
b) I submit that the claimant!!!8217;s Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not comply with PoFA S4, 9.2 (d), (e) and (f).

6. PoFA 2012 was enacted to provide private parking company!!!8217;s (PPC!!!8217;s) a legal process for them to follow which would allow them to transfer liability for parking contraventions on private land from the driver to the keeper, if the driver was not known, and the keeper did not provide the driver details when invited to do so by the PPC. (d) The claimant, through their own deliberate action chooses not to comply with PoFA. They cannot dispense with the statute then still ask the court to allow them to invoke keeper liability as if they had complied with it. If the court allowed this to happen then it would mean there was no need to enact PoFA in the first place.
(e) I enclose PoFA 2012 S4, (Exhibit A) as evidence to support these points.

7. I submit that there is no reasonable presumption in law that the keeper was the driver. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, 'There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort'(2015).!!!8221; I enclose this statement from the POPLA annual report 2015 as (Exhibit C).
8. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton. The Judge was critical of the claimant!!!8217;s attempts to hold the keeper liable without being able to rely on PoFA. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated !!!8220;I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012!!!8221;. I enclose the transcript of the judgement in this case as (Exhibit D).

9. At the time in 2016, the insurance had full comprehensive cover so any other person such as a family member could have driven the vehicle at the time, who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

10. I have researched and discovered that WY Parking Enforcement Limited (WYPE Ltd) are issuing robo-claims for archive 'parking charges' in their thousands.

11. This unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report WYPE Ltd to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2016.

12. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing for a period of time 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 £413.30 including the legal insult of interest, for what was apparently an unproven £90 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.

13. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this Claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties - and has obtained default CCJs in the hundreds, despite never complying with the POFA 2012 and even bringing pre-POFA cases to the Courts, as here.

14. The claimant has failed to properly respond to my request made on 08/06/17 by royal mail postal service, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner!!!8217;s behalf. My request was not actioned appropriately (I received 4 questionable colour photos of the car park & the original PCN only, without further information).

15. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service has identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

16. I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £50 Legal representative!!!8217;s costs to pursue an alleged £90 debt, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable.

17. The claimant described the charge of £50 as !!!8216;legal fees!!!8217; not !!!8216;contractual costs!!!8217;, CPR.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.

18. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £90 to over £300.

19. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

20. WY Parking Enforcement Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.

21. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

22. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

23. I would like to point out that according to their parking sign this parking area does not offer a free parking period, so the ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply in this case.

24. The Claimant is stating that they had a legitimate interest to set the charge. However, the time of the alleged contravention was 10pm on a Saturday as is shown from the pictures provided by the Claimant. There is no legitimate interest that is being protected as there are no businesses operating at the parking area at that time, so it is unclear what legitimate interest is being protected at that time.

25. The Claimant has also duplicated the claim and is charging for the same alleged contravention. In the Claimant!!!8217;s Letter Before Claim they have listed the same PCN Number on the same date with two separate charge amounts of £150 each. The Claim Form then is claiming 8% on a £300 charge. This is clearly an attempt at dishonestly duplicating their claim.

26. The pictures that the Claimant has provided themselves shows that the parking sign is shrouded by the larger signs around it. Additionally, the sign itself is so small in size that it would be impossible to read it to be able to agree to its terms.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Coupon-mad · 7 May 2018 at 11:56PM

£413.30 and 'over £300' are very different sums, and your WS mentions both. Which is right?

10. I have researched and discovered that WY Parking Enforcement Limited (WYPE Ltd) are issuing robo-claims for archive 'parking charges' in their thousands.

Not sure they even issue that many PCNs per month, let alone that many claims per annum! A few dozen, claims, max, IMHO.

Remove anything in your WS that is just restating your defence, surely a lot of what you say there is in your defence already? You can just write at the start: 'my defence is repeated' and then carry on. That should cut it down.

WBM · 8 May 2018 at 7:03AM

Hey Coupon-mad

The £300 is the pcn charge. The £413.30 is the total cost including interest, their legal fees and the court cost etc..

Sorry when you say state 'My defence is repeated ' would that mean everything i say in my defence i also want to use in my witness statement. Although i tried to remove things that were in my defence other than the keepers liability but elaborated on it more. Do you think i should remove it?

I'll tale your points on regarding the amount of PCNs they issue and remove it. Does everything else look fine?

Thanks for your help.

nosferatu1001 · 8 May 2018 at 8:15AM

So use the exact amount, as £300 is not over £300 and £413.30 is a long way from £300. It is confusing, unless you state precisely the difference and is mostly unecedssary.

When you say "my defence is repeated" it menas just that. Your defence is given here as well, but you dont actually state ANY pf it again - because of course on the day your defence woul dbe there, in front of you and the judge.

Only include facts to support your defence. if they failed to make the keeper liable, then your WS hsould include the evidence of this.

Gladstones County Court Claim Form

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free