Multiple PCN's when permit displayed

I mentioned in this earlier chain that i have another case currently against me. I have to supply a witness statement by Friday and am getting in a bit of a pickle. Could someone advise whether this is ok?

1. I, xxx am the Defendant in this matter and litigant in person. I request some leniency from the Court as I am representing myself and have no legal training.

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

3. I moved into this property as a Leaseholder in March 2012. Tenancy agreement attached as proof of residence. Clause xxx confirms who party to the Lease is. I have never received any variation to this document from the Landlord. (Exhibit A- Tenancy agreement)

4. I submitted appeals for two of the parking charges (xxx & xxx), both times citing that I wasn’t the driver via PPC’s web appeal service drop down menu ‘ Are you the owner of the vehicle?’ Yes “Where you the driver of the vehicle?” No. I would add that the alleged contravention happened almost a year ago and it is impossible for me to remember who stopped/parked the vehicle at the time and I’m not at liberty to disclose who the driver was. I am defending this claim as the Registered Keeper. It is a fact I have another named driver on my insurance and family members have used my car in the past. (Exhibit B- Vehicle Insurance)

5. Within the Schedules and Covenants of the Lease, it grants permission to park a private vehicle in the parking space where this alleged contravention has occurred. These covenants are also shared by my visitors. There is not agreement in the lease, which states a parking permit must be on display/valid or pay penalties to a third party for the non-display of any type of permit. (Exhibit A-Schedule 1-3 & Exhibit C- Pace V Mr N)

6. I have rights to ‘Quiet Enjoyment’ on the Lease. (Exhibit A- Clause 5.1) The Claimant has no legal right to unlawfully issue parking charges or issue a claim in their name. The legal definition of Quiet Enjoyment is as follows;
“A Covenant that promises that the grantee or tenant of an estate in real property will be able to possess the premises in peace, without disturbance by hostile claimants”
“Quiet enjoyment is a right to the undisturbed use and enjoyment of real property by a tenant or Landowner. The right to quiet enjoyment is contained in covenants concerning real estate. Generally a covenant is an agreement between two parties to do or refrain from doing something”

7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. (Exhibit C- Pace V Mr N & Exhibit D-Saeed V Plustrade)

8. Quoted from the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

‘A person who is not a party to the Contract shall have no right to enforce any of its provisions which, expressly or by implication, confer a benefit on him, without the prior written agreement of both Parties. This clause does not affect any right or remedy of any person which exists or is available apart from the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and does not apply to the Crown.’


IPC Failures


9. There is a concerning number of failures incurred by the Claimant. I will highlight some examples which demonstrates their non-compliance with the IPC Code of Practice (Exhibit E- IPC Code of Practice)

10. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1:

“If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions”

The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.

11. The Claimant has so far failed to prove a sufficient grace period was given to enable the driver to make an informed decision on whether to park. i.e. The driver may have been reading the signs and no evidence has been p. As no grace period was given, there can therefore be no contract (15. Grace periods)
12. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout (Exhibit F- Signage for Beavis Case & Exhibit G- Signage for Claimant)
13. The defendant avers that the signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:

“Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way’

14. Essentially, this case is not supported by any similarity in the circumstances or signage. Mr Beavis refused to pay a charge of £85 for overstaying a permitted period of free parking in a car park at a retail park. The signs displaying this information were accepted to be large, prominent and legible. The notice stated ‘2 hour max stay… Failure to comply … will result in a Parking Charge of £85.’ Mr Beavis exceeded the time limit by one hour but declined to pay the charge and maintained the term which sought to impose the charge was an unfair term. The Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence.

POFA 2012
15. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with (Exhibit H- PoFA 2012 Schedule 4)

a) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under PoFA, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.

b) The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. 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).
c) The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time and with mandatory wording.

d) Paragraph 4, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, makes it clear the keeper can only be liable for the amount on the original notice. The original notice stated the charge was "£100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

Data Protection Breach
13. I would like to highlight to the court that the processes within the KADOE (Keeper of Vehicle at the Date of an Event) agreement between Parking & Property Management & DVLA has not been adhered to. In turn they have breached Data Protections Act 1998 by not obeying the basic principles.
a) I contacted the DVLA for a Subject Access Request via email dated 06th September 2017. I asked ‘How often and when the DVLA sent the keeper details out and to provide the information with regards to events between xx/xx/17 and xx/xx/17.
b) The Claimant failed to request the keeper details for the parking charge on xx/xx/17. (Exhibit I-Subject Access Request)
This confirmed they have not conformed to the KADOE agreement and breached the Data Protections Act 1998. Parking & Property Management have demonstrated pure disregard for the all Codes of Conduct and the handling of data respectively.
In the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.
I have since contacted the DVLA in regards to the use of my personal data. I’m awaiting a response.
I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed:

Help greatly appreciated.