County court claim..defence?

Apologies, I didn't notice. Have switched off.

Yes! I mean witness statement. Not defence. I had already drafted my witness statement. I was awaiting claimants WS to see photographic evidence etc.
Started out by mirroring my defence but adding Coupons a-i. Now I have received claimants WS I'm tweaking my own WS.
The court has confirmed the claimant has paid the fee.

Docs to be sent to court by next Friday (14 days before hearing date). I plan to send them early next week.

I already had pictures of the signs but I have taken more this evening as the ones they have provided have been resized giving a false illusion.

I'll try to upload the photo

Don’t be silly coupon, I appreciate every single piece of advice and help.

I’ve just tried to upload a photo via tiny pic. I have the web address but I am unable to post here as I am new.
I changed the h t t p to h x x p and it still won’t allow me to post.
It would be great if you could see the pic. Especially the ones of the way they have squished the signs.

Still tweaking and tidying up.

When previously researching I noted it’s good to have a contents but I didn’t note where I saw it. I have included one. Is this the right thing to do?
Have included a copy of my defence, WS and my photographic evidence

I,(name) of (address) WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:


It is acknowledged that the defendant, (name) was the registered keeper of the vehicle. 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.

The claim is denied in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

Presumption of the Registered Keeper as the Driver

1. It is admitted that I was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in
question at the time of the alleged incident. I was not the driver of the vehicle
so have no knowledge of the events, or signage terms on the date in
question and the Claimant did not identify the driver.

2. The Claimant states that they are pursuing me as the driver. They presume I am the driver because I was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

i. As quoted on pages 12 & 13 in the POPLA annual report 2015 by PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and Barrister Henry Michael Greenslade;
Exhibit 1 – page 14.



“Keeper Liability
The person who may be liable for a charge arising out of the presence of a vehicle on private land is the person who last caused the vehicle to be at rest in that position, that is the ‘driver’.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper is the driver.”

3. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 6, Exhibit 2 – page 15, states;
6 (1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
This only allows the Claimant to pursue the registered keeper for parking charges where they serve a Notice to Driver AND Notice to Keeper.


Signage and Contracts

4. The signs are unclear and unreadable from inside a vehicle. They are also placed too high to be able to read the small print. The parking charge is hidden within the small print, it is not a clear and prominent charge.

i. The claimant has provided photographic evidence of the signage in their bundle on pages 12, 13, 14 & 15. These photographs have been resized which gives false illusions.
Exhibit’s 3-13 - pages 16-26 are full, unsized versions of the signage.

ii. No prominent signage is displayed at the entrance of the area.
Please see Exhibit’s 3 & 4 - pages 16 & 17.

iii. Although there are numerous signs present they are mounted too high and are difficult to read from a vehicle or standing height due to their height and text size.
Exhibit 5 - page 18 is a photograph of a sign taken from sitting in the driver’s seat.
Exhibit 6 - page 19 is a photograph of a sign taken after exiting the vehicle.

iv. The claimant relies on the case of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] stating it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein.
The Defendant argues that;
A. Parking Eye and Horizon have very different signage.
Exhibit 14 - page 27 is a copy of the sign Parking Eye submitted to the Supreme Court regarding the Beavis case.
Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practise of the Independent Parking Committee, Exhibit 18 – pages 31-33, clearly states that;
“Text should be of such a size and in a font that can easily be read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”
I have included three more Parking Eye signs from various sites, Exhibit 15 - page 28, for comparison.

B. As outlined in points i-iii clear signage was not displayed for any driver to view and agree to and therefore a contract has not been formed.

v. The Consumer Rights Act 2015.
A. Section 68 outlines a requirement for transparency for contracts. Exhibit 19 – pages 34-35.
68 Requirement for transparency
(1)A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2)A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

B. Section 62, Exhibit 20 – pages 35-36, states;
62 Requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair
(1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer.
(2) An unfair consumer notice is not binding on the consumer.
The defendant argues that as the signs are too high and text too small, they are not adequate nor legible. Therefore, they do not meet the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirements for transparency and as such are an unfair consumer notice.
vi. The claimant states that in the unlikely event the Defendant did not see the signs they ought to have done so. The Claimant uses the case Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000 to assert that once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice.
The Defendant argues that;
A. The Defendant has not been established as the driver, so it is irrelevant whether the Claimant feels the defendant has seen the signs or not.
B. The Defendant has already demonstrated in points i-v that sufficient and adequate warning notices were not in place. Therefore, the observation that Lord Justice Roch made in the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000 supports the Defendant’s Case that the driver may not have seen the signage.
As the claimant has not displayed clear signage no contract can be formed with the driver of the vehicle.
5. In relation to charges; xx,xx,xx&xx the Claimant has stated that their signs have made it clear that a valid permit must be displayed. As shown in Exhibit 17 – page 30 this area is predominantly controlled by Euro Car Parks who also issue permits.
The Defendant argues that the signage is ambiguous and does not clarify whether it is a permit bay for the land controlled by Horizon or the land controlled by Euro Car Parks.
This sign can be seen in Exhibit 13 - page 26.

6. Page 17 of the claimant’s bundle is a birds-eye view of the whole car park. Exhibits 16 – page 29.
Page 18 is a clearer birds-eye view of the car park indicating the section that is not controlled by Horizon themselves but is controlled by Euro Car Parks.
Exhibits 17 – page 30.
The Defendant argues that the Claimant has not provided any evidence of where, specifically, in the car park the vehicle was parked at the times of the alleged incidents.

Excessive Charges

7. The Claimant states that as the Defendant has not paid the charge within 28 days they have breached the contract. They state that the breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages in addition to the charges.
The Defendant argues that;
i. The Defendant has no contract with the Claimant as they are not the driver.
ii. The Defendant has shown how no contract could have been formed with the driver due to inadequate and improper signage.
iii. As no contract has been breached the Claimant cannot be due damages for breaching a contract.

8. It does not state on any sign, PCN or Reminder Notice that the charge will increase to £120. It is suggested that this is nothing but a means of artificially inflating the value of the claim.

9. The Claimant argues that the charge sought is in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practise who prescribe a maximum charge of £100. The Claimant then states that the company’s charges are within this level and are therefore not excessive.
The Defendant argues that;
i. The charge sought here is £120 per invoice which is higher than the ATA prescription.
ii. The charge of £120 per invoice is excessive and has not been ruled otherwise in any case including Parking Eye -v- Beavis 2015 and therefore should not be allowed.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Dated; Tuesday 19th June 2018
To the court and
to the Claimant
..........................
(name)
Defendant