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.

PCN in Poole, UK CPM, DRP Ltd, Gladstones, County Court Papers received

1…34689…12

Comments

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,404 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Strictly speaking the WS should only state the points that you can confirm as fact and refer to evidence you also enclose (case law, CoP, photos). So, things like:

    - admitting that the defendant was the rk (and the driver if she admitted that already - I can't recall?)
    - setting out the facts about no sign being seen and the road appeared to be public highway, not private land (ref evidence #1 - any photos or a Google Streetview screenshot).
    - stating that the client was disabled (ref evidence #2 Blue Badge)
    - stating how quickly the PCN was issued in a predatory way that you have now discovered contravenes the CoP (ref evidence #3 - IPC Code of Practice on predatory practices)
    - stating that the sign on the door was finally found and how woeful it was (ref evidence #3 - IPC Code of Practice on signage, and evidence #4 any photos taken)
    - stating what happened on appeal if applicable (ref #5 a copy of the appeal or any exchange of emails/letters with the parking firm, etc.)
    - stating what was then obtained from the Council and that there is a formal complaint in hand with the DVLA regarding the fact the Council have confirmed...blah blah...(ref evidence #6 those emails)

    Finish that WS with a statement of truth, as explained by the BMPA here:
    http://www.bmpa.eu/court_wizard/NOA_Witness_Statement.html



    Then separately, set out a 'skeleton argument' which is a summary of your legal arguments from your defence and the evidence that supports it. So look at your defence and what was argued and dig out the actual cases and transcripts that support it and write bullet points which then refer to each piece of evidence to support the legal arguments.

    Which would include that the sign is incapable of forming a contract and is forbidding even if seen (cite the PCM x3 cases the transcript for which is found in the Parking Prankster's case law).

    And would then state that any allegation could only fall under the tort of trespass (quote the Beavis decision on trespass which ParkingEye could not have recovered a charge for) quoted here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71565092#post71565092

    So then your numbered evidence will need to include the Beavis decision...and so on. Yes you are effectively writing out your defence legal arguments but this time with evidence referred to by number. There are some examples of Witness Statements around, e.g. Gin and Milk's thread, spaceman8's thread, hopsfield's thread and AB Express' case (which he won).

    There is more info and another linked example or two under the heading:

    IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO AND BY WHEN!

    in the section of the NEWBIES thread headed 'Small Claim?'
    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 THREAD
  • Brain$torm
    Brain$torm Posts: 66 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    The forecourt isn't covered on the council's map. The DVLA will just send the same response as last time.
  • Brain$torm
    Brain$torm Posts: 66 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Here's the first draft of the Witness Statement:

    [FONT=&quot]I, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, am the defendant in this matter, and will say as follows.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]The Defendant intends to rely upon the following Exhibits:[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]1a. Image of shop front and road.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1b. Image of shop front and road 2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1c. Image of shop front and road 3.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1d. Image of shop front and sign.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1e. Image of shop front and sign 2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1f. Image of shop front and sign 3.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1g. Image of shop front and sign 4.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1h. Image of sign.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1i. Image of shop front with door open.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1j. Image of shop front with door open 2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1k. Image of signage relating to Parking Eye v Beavis 2015[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2. Image of client’s blue badge.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3a. Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice, Predatory tactics, page 12[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3b. Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice, Schedule 1 – Signage, pages 22-24[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]4. Emails from council.[/FONT]



    [FONT=&quot]1.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The sign wasn’t seen at all by the driver. The road itself, including the forecourt, appeared to be public highway, and not ‘private’ land, as there was no barrier between Ashley Road and the forecourt in question (ex. 1a & 2).[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]3.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The driver had to park as close to number 236 as possible, as the client is registered disabled (ex. 2) and had an appointment to attend. There was a car parked outside number 236, so the nearest space was outside number 234.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]4.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]A shop worker wearing plain clothes, not a Claimant employee, sneaked out of the shop at 234 Ashley Road, took a photo of the parked car with his own camera, and sent the image off to the Claimant. This took place within approximately 10 minutes of parking the car. I have since discovered that issuing a ‘parking charge notice’ is this manner, contravenes the Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice on predatory practices (ex. 4).[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]5.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The signage was finally found; it had to be pointed out by the shop keeper of 234, as the driver didn’t see it, even on their return. The sign is hidden at the bottom of the shop door, not at eye level, making it hard to see and utterly unreadable, being surrounded by other signage also makes it hard to see (ex. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h). It faces inwards every time the shop door is opened (ex. 1i & 1j) and is nothing like the clear, prominent terms in the Beavis case (ex. 1k). This signage contravenes the IPCs Code of Practice on signage (ex. 3b) and predatory tactics (ex. 3a)[/FONT]


    [FONT=&quot]6.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The local authority has confirmed that they enforce Ashley Road under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and that it enforces a Traffic Regulation Order. There is a no-loading, un-loading zone directly outside number 234 (ex. 4). There is a formal complaint in hand with the DVLA, in regards to whether the claimant has the right to issue ‘parking charges’ on this land.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]


    [FONT=&quot]I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.' and be signed by the witness and dated.




    [FONT=&quot]I referred to lots of cases and legal stuff in the defence statement, so the skeleton arguement will be long. I am now working on this.[/FONT]
    [/FONT]
  • Brain$torm
    Brain$torm Posts: 66 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    I've added this to the statement, please let me know if you think it's okay.

    [FONT=&quot]The driver and client returned to the car approximately 20 minutes after parking. They both went into the shop at 234, to find out why a man took a photo of the car. The same man explained that the forecourt was ‘private property’ and pointed to the sign, saying that parking is forbidden. It was explained that the client or driver had seen the sign, and that the client is registered disabled, so cannot walk far. He rebutted that there wasn’t anything he could do, as he had already sent the photo off to the Claimant.[/FONT]


    The client will write a statement confirming what happened.
  • Brain$torm
    Brain$torm Posts: 66 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Defendant witness statement:

    [FONT=&quot]The Defendant intends to rely upon the following Exhibits:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1a. Image of shop front and road.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1b. Image of shop front and road 2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1c. Image of shop front and road 3.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1d. Image of shop front and sign.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1e. Image of shop front and sign 2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1f. Image of shop front and sign 3.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1g. Image of shop front and sign 4.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1h. Image of sign.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1i. Image of shop front with door open.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1j. Image of shop front with door open 2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1k. Parking sign in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2. Image of client’s blue badge.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3a. Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice, Predatory tactics, page 12[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3b. Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice, Schedule 1 – Signage, pages 22-24[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]4. Emails from council.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The sign wasn’t seen at all by the driver. The road itself, including the forecourt, appeared to be public highway, and not ‘private’ land, as there was no barrier between Ashley Road and the forecourt in question (ex. 1a, 1b, 1c).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The driver had to park as close to number 236 as possible, as the client is registered disabled (ex. 2) and had an appointment to attend. There were not any spaces along the road and a car was parked outside number 236, so the nearest space was outside number 234.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]4.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]A shop worker wearing plain clothes, not a Claimant employee, sneaked out of the shop at 234 Ashley Road, took a photo of the parked car with his own camera, and sent the image off to the Claimant. This took place within approximately 15 minutes of parking the car. I have since discovered that issuing a ‘parking charge notice’ is this manner, contravenes the Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice on predatory practices (ex. 4).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]5.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The signage was finally found; it had to be pointed out by the shop keeper of 234, as the driver didn’t see it, even on their return. The sign is hidden at the bottom of the shop door, not at eye level, making it hard to see and utterly unreadable, being surrounded by other signage also makes it hard to see (ex. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h). It faces inwards every time the shop door is opened, which hides it totally (ex. 1i & 1j) and is nothing like the clear, prominent terms in the Beavis case (ex. 1k). This signage contravenes the IPCs Code of Practice on signage (ex. 3b) and predatory tactics (ex. 3a).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]6.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The driver and client returned to the car approximately 20 minutes after parking. They both went into the shop at 234, to find out why a man took a photo of the car. The same man explained that the forecourt was ‘private property’ and pointed to the sign, saying that parking is forbidden. It was explained that the client or driver had not seen the sign, and that the client is registered disabled, so cannot walk far. He replied that there wasn’t anything he could do, as he had already sent the photo off, he didn’t explain where it was sent.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]7.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The local authority has confirmed that they enforce Ashley Road under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and that it enforces a Traffic Regulation Order. There is a no-loading, un-loading zone directly outside number 234 (ex. 4). There is a formal complaint in hand with the DVLA, in regards to whether the claimant has the right to issue ‘parking charges’ on this land.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.' and be signed by the witness and dated.



    Client witness statement:

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The Witness intends to rely upon the following Exhibits:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1a. Image of shop front and road.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1b. Image of shop front and road 2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1c. Image of shop front and road 3.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1d. Image of shop front and sign.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1e. Image of shop front and sign 2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1f. Image of shop front and sign 3.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1g. Image of shop front and sign 4.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1h. Image of sign.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1i. Image of shop front with door open.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1j. Image of shop front with door open 2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2. Image of client’s blue badge.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The Witness is a client of the driver, and was a passenger in vehicle during the incident in question.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The sign wasn’t seen at all by either client, or driver. The road itself, including the forecourt, appeared to be public highway, and not ‘private’ land, as there was no barrier between Ashley Road and the forecourt in question (ex. 1a, 1b, 1c).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The driver had to park as close to number 236 as possible, as the client is registered disabled (ex. 2) and had an appointment to attend. There were no spaces along the road and a car was parked outside number 236, so the nearest space was the forecourt of number 234.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]4.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]A shop worker wearing plain clothes, not a Claimant employee, sneaked out of the shop at 234 Ashley Road, took a photo of the parked car with his own camera, and sent the image off to the Claimant. This took place within approximately 15 minutes of parking the car. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]5.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The signage was finally found; it had to be pointed out by the shop keeper of 234, as the driver, or client didn’t see it, even on their return. The sign is hidden at the bottom of the shop door, not at eye level, making it hard to see and utterly unreadable, being surrounded by other signage also makes it hard to see (ex. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h). It faces inwards every time the shop door is opened, which hides it totally (ex. 1i & 1j).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]6.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The driver and client returned to the car approximately 20 minutes after parking. They both went into the shop at 234, to find out why a man took a photo of the car. The same man explained that the forecourt was ‘private property’ and pointed to the sign, saying that parking is forbidden. It was explained that neither the client, or driver had not seen the sign, and that the client is registered disabled, so cannot walk far. He replied that there wasn’t anything he could do, as he had already sent the photo off, he didn’t explain where it was sent.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.' and be signed by the witness and dated.[/FONT]



    Still working on the skeleton arguement.........
    [/FONT]
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,404 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Looks good so far.
    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 THREAD
  • Brain$torm
    Brain$torm Posts: 66 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    edited 3 February 2017 at 12:23PM
    What pieces of legislation do [FONT=&quot]Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A) come from??

    [FONT=&quot]Got it, it's part of the Court Pro[FONT=&quot]cedure Rules.

    [FONT=&quot]Do I have to reference the CPRs or sha[FONT=&quot]ll I just mention the specifics in the [FONT=&quot]arguement itself.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
  • Brain$torm
    Brain$torm Posts: 66 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    edited 6 February 2017 at 9:28PM
    Here's the first draft of the Skeleton Argument:


    [FONT=&quot]The defendant intends to rely on the following exhibits:[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and road[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and road[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and road[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and sign[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and sign[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and sign[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and sign[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of sign[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front with door open[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front with door open[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]11. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Parking sign in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]12. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of client’s blue badge[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]13. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice, Predatory tactics, page 12[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]14. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice, Schedule 1 – Signage, pages 22-24[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]15. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Emails from council[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]16. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][2009] EWCA Civ 1411 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (HIS HONOUR JUDGE OLIVER-JONES QC)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]17. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 142.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]18. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]White v City of Westminster [2000] Appeals Nos. 201008881A, 2010110497, 2010107798 2010079240[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]19. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice, B 1, page 10[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]20. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Excerpt from Barrister Henry Greenslade on ‘Keeper Liability’ POLPA annual report, 2015[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]21. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]22. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 4 (5)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]23. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Letter from UK Car Park Management Ltd[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]24. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, 25/01/2016[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]25. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, 24/02/2016[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]26. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Letter from Gladstones Solicitors, 22/03/2016[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]27. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Letter from Gladstones Solicitors, undated[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]28. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Claim Form, C2GF3X6K, page 1[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]29. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and sign[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]30. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and sign 2[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]31. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and sign 3[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]32. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front and sign 4[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]33. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front with door open[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]34. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Image of shop front with door open 2[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]35. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]UK Parking Control LTD v Masterson [2016] B6QZ4H3R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]36. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CPR Practice Direction 16 7.3(1)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]37. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CPR Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]38. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Independent Parking Committee (IPC)’s Code of Practice, B 1, Establishing Yourself as the ‘Creditor’, page 10[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]39. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CPR Practice Direction 16 7.5[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]40. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CPR Practice Direction 3A[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]41. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CPR 3.4[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]42. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CPR 27.14[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]1.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The claimant doesn’t have the authority to issue tickets on this land. In Dawood vs Camden Council 2009, the judge ruled that Dawood owned the subsoil marked on the deeds, but the Tarmac surface above was subject to public access, and as there was no physical barrier between the road and the tarmac strip, parking restrictions controlled by the local authority did apply, this judgement was upheld on appeal (ex. 16, 17). [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]A similar ruling was made in White v City of Westminster 2000 (ex. 18). [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]2[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) (ex. 36) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A) (ex. 37). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice (ex. 38).[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]3[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 (ex. 39) as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. The Claimant is known to be a serial issuer 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.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.4 illustrates this point (ex. 40, 41).[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]3.1 [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot](1) Those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed’ £5000’.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot](2) Those which are incoherent and make no sense.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot](3) Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]4[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]a) The Claimant did not identify the driver.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage (ex. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]In the 2015 Annual POPLA report (ex. 20), Barrister Henry Greenslade, refers to ‘Keeper Liability’ where he states: ‘However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.’[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]5[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]b) The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action (ex. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27).[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]e) On the 20th September 2016, another relevant, poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones, was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court, without a hearing, due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]f) On the 19th August 2016, District Judge Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]6[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]UK Car Park Management Limited is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the 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.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]a) 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.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]b) The Claimant is put to prove 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 the 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.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]7[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]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 PCN charge climbed from £100 to £150, £160.96 including interest. £50 ‘solicitor’s costs’ and £25 ‘court issue fee’, £25 ‘judgment costs’, £100 ‘warrant issue fee’, £2.25 ‘solicitor’s costs for issuing warrant’ have also been added to the claim (ex. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28). The claimant's solicitor should be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims court (ex. 42). I have the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid, and due to the sparse particulars, the £25 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]This appears to be an added cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4 specifically disallows (ex. 21 ).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]a). The Protection of Freedoms 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 (ex. 22).[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]8[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The signage was hidden and inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]a). The sign is hidden at the bottom of the shop door, not at eye level, making it hard to see and utterly unreadable (ex. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). It is also facing inwards every time the shop door is opened (ex. 9 & 10). The sign wasn’t seen at all by the driver and is nothing like the clear, prominent terms in the Beavis case (ex. 11). This matter has all the hallmarks of ‘rogue ticketing’, contrary to their Code of Practice in all respects (ex 13, 14).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]b) The sign mentions a permit, but does not contain an obligation as to how to validly display the permit, or what kind of permit is required, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA (ex. 21).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]In UK Parking Control Ltd v Masterson 2016, Deputy Destrict Judge Ellington ruled that the signage displayed clearly only made an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders could be bound by the contractual terms conveyed. The circumstances of this were different from Beavis, and therefore that ruling did not assist the claimant in this case. Any remedy for parking without a permit could only lie with the freeholder, under a tort of trespass (ex. 35).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]c) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA (ex. 21).[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]9[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Predatory tactics were used.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]a). A shop worker wearing plain clothes, not a Claimant employee, sneaked out of the shop at 234 Ashley Road, took a photo of the parked car with his own camera, and sent the image off. The sign itself is hidden at the bottom of the shop door, in a totally unreadable position. These actions are contrary to the IPC’s Code of Practice in all respects (ex. 13 & 14).[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]10[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]11[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]12[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]£100 is not a conscionable or fair charge for approximately 20 minutes of parking.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]13[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot](a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs), adding further unexplained charges of £49 to the original £100, with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated (ex. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27). No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    d) Notwithstanding, the Defendant's belief is that the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    e) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
    CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court (ex. 42).[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]14[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. The Defendant contends that the driver didn’t see any signs on the site whatsoever. The sign on the site is hidden at the bottom of a door, utterly unreadable and nothing like the clear and prominent terms in the Beavis case. [/FONT]


    [FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this statement are true.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,404 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Nice evidence, good statement too.
    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 THREAD
  • Brain$torm
    Brain$torm Posts: 66 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Nice evidence, good statement too.

    Thanks.

    What title do I put on the skeleton argument?

    Is it still called 'Witness Statement?'
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards