Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • U414830
    • By U414830 28th Feb 19, 9:33 AM
    • 34Posts
    • 7Thanks
    U414830
    Albert street car park birmingham
    • #1
    • 28th Feb 19, 9:33 AM
    Albert street car park birmingham 28th Feb 19 at 9:33 AM
    Defence
    under section 21 of the CoP, AOS members are only allowed to use ANPR if theya) Use it to enforce parking in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.
    (b) Have clear signs which tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for.
    21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) General principles.
    21.1 ''You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''The facts are that a ticket was bought, sent as proof and it was clear early on, that the driver had paid in good faith but had simply keyed in the wrong registration number. This is not mitigation, this is a fact that I submit cannot give rise to a PCN because it is not 'transparent' in the terms on signs/the P&D machine, that a correct VRN is an 'obligation' which runs such a risk and will be compared to the ANPR data for the purpose of imposing a charge.The fact is, a BPA AOS operator is required to have transparent, fair and professional procedures including manual checks to identify such minor infringements. I require that the operator provides the Court with a copy of their policy and proof that those checks were made in this instance. Further, I require proof that ''wrong VRN' is in fact incorporated into the contract from the landowner as a penalty-generating 'contravention' since I find it highly unlikely that the retailer/landowner allows this unfair fining of paying customers.If it is not in the contract it is not a contravention that can give rise to a penalty.In your rejection letter, vcs have failed to explain what manual checks were made or why they consider that enforcement is appropriate, nor whether the contract even allows a charge for 'wrong VRN'. Nor do they show in what terms it is made clear to the payee standing at the machine, that when making payment they have an obligation to input a correct vehicle VRN and run the risk of a punitive so-called 'parking charge' (unfairly set as a fixed sum at the same level as a non-payer) for that action alone.This is an inappropriate parking charge which should have been cancelled on appeal. I remind vcs that operation and enforcement is not just about issuing PCNs and collecting money from hapless victims, regardless of any legitimate interest, reasonableness or appropriateness. In fact the BPA CoP mentions in the Introduction 'minimum standards'(suggesting they are set low) as well as the importance of 'acting in a professional, reasonable and diligent way' in issuing 'appropriate' parking charges:2.6 By creating the Code the parking industry has set out the minimum standards by which you will be judged by anyone coming into professional contact with you. Members of the public should be able to expect that you will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way.
    2.9 The Code and its appendices cover the operation of parking on private, unregulated land. This includes:• designing and using signs• using ANPR and associated systems• appropriate parking charges.And in the ANPR section:21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.To any right-minded person's viewing, refusing an appeal from a genuine parking customer who did pay and display is neither 'professional and reasonable' nor 'diligent'.Their own ANPR records show that there was no vehicle on site with the VRN I accidentally keyed in and as evidence, I was able to produce the ticket as proof that I paid but made an inadvertent error with the VRN, thereby showing that THIS ticket did relate to THIS vehicle and no other in the car park.I submit that it was clear that it was not 'appropriate to take action' so the Pcn should have been cancelled. I submit that to pursue a genuine customer who paid & displayed is contrary to the wishes of the landowners and this PCN is unauthorised. As such, the parking charge cannot be considered 'properly given' at the point of inappropriately refusing my appeal.3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner to evidence the definition of the services provided. This includes a list of grace periods, charges and all restrictions authorised where a parking charge can arise, as I do not believe they are authorised by the landowner to charge a paying customer for a mere VRN error.The contract and any 'Manual' setting out details including restrictions, charges and exemptions - such as any site occupier's
    'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with visiting drivers and/or enforce the charge in court in thier own name. if the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding charges they must ensure they have the written authority of the land owner.I have not been treated in a fair manner as explained it was an innocent mistake, i have been pursued as a criminal who tried to cheat the system and not pay for parking, i have been led down an opaque appeals process with exorbitant fines. This so called contract has unreasonable terms and is not transparent, bad practices and lack of fairness have been displayed by vehicle control services. If the landowner paid vcs then maybe innocent drivers wouldn't have to pay unjust pcn's.This is a deliberate intention to levy fines and trap innocent drivers. Vcs were not out of pocket as i proved payment and still have the ticket issued as explained via appeal and phone call. To pursue me further in the hope i'd pay up to have you off my back is wrong. I have been subject to invasive, threatening and intimidating behaviour by debt collection agencies. How many innocent drivers will/are/have experianced this and surely it can't be backed and tolerated by a court of law.This is clearly an outrageous scam. My privacy has been invaded and this has caused unnecesssary stress and i wont park on private land again or any other carpark operated by vcs. I have been threatened with a beavis case statement to intimidate further when this case has entirely different circumstances to mine, a clear tactic to add further stress and receive a payment.i didn't overstay and paid and displayed a ticket so how can 60 pounds be fair, then up to 100 pounds now 185. the ticket issued is not fit for purpose and under the consumer rights act 2015 any goods purchased should be fit for purpose and i paid in good faith. vcs took my money then issued an invalid ticket. if the payment machine was linked to the anpr then a ticket would not of been issued unless it matched forcing a driver to input correctly, if a barrier was in place and all paid for tickets to a vehicle could only operate it to leave this would not allow unjust pcn's. all british number plates have letters and numbers. this claim should be dropped and appoligies should be made to myself. vcs has zero loss incurred.
    Last edited by U414830; 16-04-2019 at 1:59 PM.
Page 2
    • U414830
    • By U414830 28th Feb 19, 11:18 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Burton-upon-Trent derbyshire
    • U414830
    • By U414830 28th Feb 19, 11:20 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Not in defence about ticket logo
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 19, 11:23 AM
    • 70,385 Posts
    • 82,950 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK, so you can work that into your WS, no worries.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • U414830
    • By U414830 28th Feb 19, 12:00 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Thanks for your help thus far, I asked vcs for proof of contract from the landowner. At this stage said contract I don't even know who it's with so that's a transparency argument
    • U414830
    • By U414830 28th Feb 19, 12:02 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    My disadvantage is that the carpark no longer exists or is that a problem for vcs as proving signage logo.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 19, 12:12 PM
    • 70,385 Posts
    • 82,950 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, there are loads of pics of it on the Parking Prankster's blogs about Albert St!

    Also with Google Street View, you can wind the clock back...do that too, and take screenshots.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • U414830
    • By U414830 28th Feb 19, 12:22 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Good tip thanks as I didn't realise that, I also stated on the DQ that I want to attend the hearing to deliver my own defence.
    • U414830
    • By U414830 28th Feb 19, 12:35 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Did you mean I won't be disadvantaged as there are lots of images on Google? , all signs have excel but one which has excel and vcs in smaller print. My ticket as stated is only excel and I know from the government website that both companies are separate.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Mar 19, 10:45 AM
    • 70,385 Posts
    • 82,950 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, and some pics and Blogs by the Parking Prankster, you can use it will with your WS.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • U414830
    • By U414830 1st Mar 19, 4:37 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    On my money claim account it states DQ filed for claimant, but I haven't received one from vcs yet. Should they have sent a copy to myself as I did to them?
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 1st Mar 19, 4:47 PM
    • 4,616 Posts
    • 3,990 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    YOUR DQ should come from the court, if you mean the one that you fill in. Then you go on to say "as I did to them" what does that mean, have you had a DQ and sent it to VCS?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 1st Mar 19, 5:14 PM
    • 14,317 Posts
    • 16,303 Thanks
    KeithP
    On my money claim account it states DQ filed for claimant, but I haven't received one from vcs yet. Should they have sent a copy to myself as I did to them?
    Originally posted by U414830
    Yes they should.
    .
    • U414830
    • By U414830 1st Mar 19, 8:06 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Thanks, I'll wait for vcs to send me a copy. As stated I posted my DQ back to Northampton and sent a copy to vcs as instructed. My money claim account at the moment doesn't show they've received mine yet so I'll wait a couple of days then phone to check.
    • ShakeItOff
    • By ShakeItOff 1st Mar 19, 9:07 PM
    • 370 Posts
    • 449 Thanks
    ShakeItOff
    Are you making sure to get proof of posting every time you have to send something to the court and the claimant?
    • U414830
    • By U414830 2nd Mar 19, 5:46 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Yes I've got receipts to prove posting and printed and kept emails of sar sent to both vcs and excel to which no response from either, although they are still within the given deadline.
    • U414830
    • By U414830 2nd Mar 19, 5:52 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Maybe a silly question but how long from now would you think the court hearing will be, DQ asked for any dates within the next six months when I'm not available. Probably different courts process quicker but trying to gauge when I need to prepare my witnesses statement.
    • U414830
    • By U414830 5th Mar 19, 10:00 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Coupon-mad my case has today been transferred to my local court so I'm going to draft together a witness statement soon, how long from now would you think a hearing would be?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Mar 19, 10:14 AM
    • 70,385 Posts
    • 82,950 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Maybe 2 months.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • U414830
    • By U414830 16th Apr 19, 12:15 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    witness statement
    below is a draft of my witness statement to gauge if I'm heading in the right direction please comment and feel free to advise.


    in the XXXXXXXX Court at
    Claim No. XXXXXXXX
    Between
    XXXXXXXX (Claimant)
    and
    XXXXXXXX(Defendant)

    -------------------------
    Witness Statement
    -------------------------

    My defence is repeated.

    1. I am,XXXXXX ofXXXXXXXXXX, the Defendant in this matter. I assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, on the grounds the claimant suffered no loss as a ticket was purchased and displayed on the date and time in question. The partial registration number was entered purely in error and in no way by the defendant to avoid making payment. As no loss was incurred there can be no reason to pursue this matter other than to make excessive money out of people who have complied and purchased a ticket.

    2. On XXXXXXXX, I parked my vehicle, registration number XXXXXX, in the car park of Albert Street Birmingham during a family day out to shop in the city. I made payment in full of the amount due. Payment for parking was made using the pay and display ticket (PDT) machine and a ticket obtained. Exhibit 1 parking ticket obtained showing amount paid.

    3. Car parks I’m familiar with, require the entering of the numerical of a VRN to prevent the passing on of any residual parking time to other motorists, this allows the operator to maximise revenue. The two numbers 08 correlated to my vehicle and could be identified through the windscreen during a patrol and visual check by a warden checking for any non-payments, obstructive parking or overstays. The fact I received a payment ticket led me to believe I’d so far adhered to the instructions and so I displayed my ticket within the vehicle, parked without obstruction and used the car park for the tariff paid without overstay. I returned to my vehicle confident I’d followed all the instructions and unaware of any said contravention.


    4. A PCN was later received via the post from the claimant for an alleged breach of their terms and conditions for a non-payment; I felt confused as to why and challenged this with evidence.
    The PCN allowed me to dispute the charge directly with VCS through the use of www.myparkingcharge.co.uk. I did this immediately after receiving the PCN and my appeal was rejected by VCS who said that no ticket was purchased on the day in question for the VRM: xx08 xxx. VCS insisted payment had not been received for my vehicle and that the penalty payment had now increased from the initial discounted early payment of £60 to £100.
    Realising a full VRN may have been required I still felt that this innocent misdemeanour would be accepted given the fact I had proof of payment. The claimant continued to reject my appeal refusing to accept any explanation or proof.
    VCS offered further instructions to appeal independently or pay up and that failure to do either would lead to means of litigation to recover the penalty which would incur further costs. Any alleged breach of contract was de Minimis. Parking was paid for the entire duration of the stay by the defendant. The Claimant has been made aware of this and evidence has been provided but the Claimant has chosen to ignore it to pursue an unnecessary and inflated claim.

    5. During the appeals process to IAS I again provided an explanation and a copy of PDT. My appeal was rejected by IAS and now I felt trapped in a system designed to fail, to pursue further made it clear the claimants main objective was to take cash. I made a phone call to -------- to reason and to resolve the issue in the hope that a reasonable solution could be met, the only offer put forward was that the six pounds I paid to park could be deducted from the £100 penalty charge and to be aware that it would only cost the claimant a £25 fee to apply for a CCJ, this clear unreasonable behaviour and threat left me with no other option other than to pay or to challenge this in court.
    Exhibit of SAR proof of phone call.


    6.
    The payment channel did not indicate any failure to make payment, nor prompt to also enter letters as well as the vehicle numbers, a ticket was provided so the defendant concludes that the contract de facto granted a parking session based on the numbers only. By entering an incomplete VRN into the ticket vending machine I made a mistake, however the Claimant, via his ANPRS’s software, knew that a mistake had been made and rather than inform me and give me an opportunity to correct it he chose to exploit that mistake by using it to claim breach of contract and thereby attempt to obtain money from me by threatening court action. By engaging in this act of active concealment of a fact the Claimant clearly acted without good faith and hence rendered the contract unenforceable. If a contract was entered into by action of remaining on site then as I inputted a partial VRN I had offered a variation on the contractual terms and that by issuing a ticket the claimant by action had accepted the renewed terms. If I had not put the full amount of money into the machine a ticket would not have been issued which is in effect the claimant rejecting revised terms offered by the defendant.


    7. Payment was clearly made and the Claimant had sufficient details to allow them to check that, and then they should have rectified their data to match the payment. Whilst it may not have been unreasonable to issue the ticket, this should have gone away pre-issue, once payment was clarified. Indeed, that is the purpose of the protocol to resolve simple points like that without the need to involve the Court. The Claimant pressing on with this is both disproportionate and arguably unreasonable. The PCN stated that the contravention as 'Parked without payment' and this contravention is denied. The Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge (penalty), not least because it has been shown in the SAR that the correct parking charge (tariff) had already been paid. Exhibit



    8. I performed a vehicle search via the gov.uk website to check if indeed as stated in the appeal rejection that it was possible for a vehicles registration to be 08, I entered 08 and the website failed to recognise it and displayed the following instructions “you must enter your registration number in a valid format” thus preventing further use of the site until a valid entry was made. If this simple message had been displayed during payment thus preventing an incorrect/invalid entry as cross referenced via the ANPR then this matter would not be wasting court time. Exhibit gov.uk website



    9.The ANPR wouldn’t have recorded a vehicle with the registration 08 so the pay and display ticket should not have been issued. Failure to make a full payment (inputting of coins into the pay and display machine) would have prevented an issue of a payment ticket so why allow an incomplete VRN entry to issue a payment ticket other than entrapment.
    The claimant is alleging that the driver formed a contract with them by reading the terms and conditions on the sign and accepting them by remaining on site (as opposed to rejecting them and leaving). This is called acceptance by performance. However, the defendant could only form a contract with Excel Parking LTD, not the claimant, by virtue of the signs being in the name of Excel. This is further confirmed by the email correspondence by Excel Parking. The claimant is clearly a stranger to any contract and has no legal capacity to issue a claim.


    10. VCS are members of the International Parking Community (IPC). It states in the IPC code of Practice (Appendix 12) the following• (14.1) you must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring a parking charge. Such instances will be dealt with as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system described in sche
    dule 2 to the code.



    11. I have been honest and transparent in admitting to my Human error and to being the driver even though I was not obliged to give out this information; I certainly have not attempted to avoid payment or to conceal the fact I was the driver in an attempt to gain any advantage. This honesty and transparency hasn’t been reciprocated or displayed by both Excel parking and Vehicle control services for the following reasons.



    12. The entrance and exit signs both have the Excel parking logos and the payment ticket from the pay and display machine has the same logo so alleged contract is with Excel not VCS. Email received refusing my initial appeal was from excel parking. If the occupant is Excel and the signs and tickets are Excel then VCS must as requested provide proof that the deed has been assigned and VCS have legal standing.



    13. I have requested a SAR from both Excel parking and VCS to provide proof of their contract with the landowner that authorises the issuing of penalty notices to customers who have paid to use their car park/land. I’ve sought clarification as to whom I entered said contract with as even at this late stage it is ambiguous, unclear and in breach of being a contract because of the lack of transparency. This information has not been received and is in breach of data protection act.



    14. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner or Excel parking to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation as a third party. This information has been requested via SAR but has not been supplied.

    15. Should the claimant provide evidence to substantiate their claim then the signage at the entrance to the car park and in and around the car park must have been unclear, insufficient and/or confusing to the vehicle driver. Excel parking and Vehicle control services are two different legal entities see exhibits vat details.

    16. Sign at the entrance to the Albert Street car park said that Excel Parking Services Ltd managed and controlled that car park, this is a 24 hour Pay Car Park, not pay and display, and it contained a lot of information about the consequences of drivers non-compliance. Clearly, Excel Parking Service Ltd claim to be a landholder of Albert Street car park, not the Claimant, Vehicle Control Services Ltd. The car park is no longer operational and hasn’t been since approximately July 2018 putting the Defendant at a disadvantage to recover further evidence.

    17. According to Deputy District Judge in the Judgment in Excel Parking Services v Cutts (2011), the key information that needs to be conveyed to the drivers is that it is a pay and display car park, not the consequences of failing to comply.

    18. Any contract, in a private car park, can only be formed by signage, and it is therefore clear that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel and the motorist.

    19. Terms and Conditions display by the ticket machine was with a large logo of Excel Parking Services Ltd.

    20. Terms and Conditions display contained information that by remaining at this car park the driver was entering in to a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd;

    21. Terms and Conditions display contained information that the only valid Pay and Display tickets were with Excel logo;

    22. Terms and Conditions display contained information in small font that in case of breaching those terms and conditions, Vehicle Control Services would collect the registered keeper's details data from DVLA;

    23. Terms and Conditions display contained information that Excel Parking Services Ltd and/or its agents and servants did not accept any liability for loss of or any damage to the vehicles or personal possessions and vehicles are left and driver's/keeper's risk.

    24. Deputy District Judge in the Judgment in Excel Parking Services v Cutts (2011) said that defendant (the driver in that case) had to be able to see the offer so that he can choose whether or not to accept it, and thereby enter in to a contractual relationship. Therefore, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage at the entry and in and around that site was capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    25. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment £185 is an unenforceable penalty clause consisting of company costs. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover as it is a cost to the business, therefore, cannot be reclaimed twice.

    26. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £185.00 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.



    27. Excel Parking Services Ltd were reportedly held to have tampered with a VRN list from a PDT machine which they produced as ‘evidence’. This alteration horrified a Skipton Court Judge who ordered punitive costs on the indemnity basis, and later in 2018 the facts were restated in the order by HHJ Gosnell declining Excels appeal (ref: Excel v Ambler, case no. E1DP2061).

    28. The fact that a payment had been made would have been captured and the claimant had enough information to conclude from their secondary data stream ANPR
    that an oversight (human error) had been made, yet instead of rectifying their data to match the payment, they contacted DVLA to obtain my personal details. Parking firms are also prohibited from issuing ANPR PCNs without manual checking by human intervention (BPA Code of Practice and AOS rules).

    29. Given that I had appealed and the ANPR camera system, which proved which single car with the identifier 08‘’ was actually in this car park, the Claimant knew about the error and had ample opportunity to rectify the inaccurate data held by one of their two conflicting data systems.

    30. At all times, from the ANPR image, the Claimant knew the correct VRN and it is averred that the PCN cannot have been properly or fairly checked before it was issued, since there was nothing to deter and no legitimate interest in merely penalizing a consumer.

    31. Between -------and ------- 2018 I received several letters from the claimant and debt collectors acting on behalf of the claimant, asking for payment to be made, or court proceedings would be issued At no time did the Claimant try to resolve the matter. Exhibit 5 copy correspondence received.

    32. On 4th October 2018 I received a Copy of a claim form which had been issued by the claimant.

    33. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied that any contract existed beyond the agreement to pay the tariff and identify the car ‘number’. Accordingly it is denied that I breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied or by conduct.

    34. The charge offends against the reasonable and statutory expectations of trader/consumer relations requiring ‘open dealing’ and the doctrine of good faith. There was a complete lack of any fair warning on the screen: “are you sure, have you entered your full VRN? A penalty of £100 applies if inaccurate or incomplete number plates are entered here”.

    35. I maintain that there was no relevant contract or obligation or burden that could fairly and squarely fall at my feet that day, and that such an imbalance in consumer rights and interests certainly falls under Part 2 ‘Prohibitions’ of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.


    No standing or landowner authority

    36. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices under defined and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    No legitimate interest or commercial justification

    37. It is my case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing paying patrons for a hundredfold penalty, for the ordinary and reasonable conduct explained in this witness statement.

    38. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.

    Unconscionable sum claimed - double recovery - abuse of process

    39. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of its claim by adding purported but unsupported damages, admin, debt collector or other costs, which I submit have not actually been incurred at all. The claim flows from an alleged (already hugely inflated) contractual parking charge of £100 but the sum on the claim form is more than this sum. I aver that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

    40.The Claimant is a serial offender on this regard and must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC LocumsUKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

    41. I deny any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and ask the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, where the sparse cut & paste particulars are embarrassing and give rise to no recognizable claim in law.

    42. I invite the Court to dismiss this Claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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



    Last edited by U414830; 16-04-2019 at 6:59 PM.
    • U414830
    • By U414830 16th Apr 19, 9:10 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    U414830
    Help with Witness statement
    Appreciate any comments on the above draft
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

143Posts Today

1,020Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin