VCS stopping infringement at Southend Airport, Claim Form Received for £185 Options

[redwood]

Have now received a Claim Form in relation to a PCN NTK received back in August 2019, from VCS:

Contravention Reason: 46) Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited.

The still images taken from CCTV footage clearly show the vehicle stopped at a marked zebra crossing to allow pedestrians to cross, but whilst stopped the passenger disembarked from the vehicle - approx 20 secs duration).

Not sure if this could be counted as an inconsistency but, the PCN states that "this Notice relates to the period immediatley preceding the Contravention Tiime" given as 15:35 yet the first image is time stamped 15:35:30 (so it occured after 15:35 not before)

I appealed through VCS's own system but did not declare the drivers details. My appeal was rejected

Apart from the above, from reading other threads, it seems there is also a PoFA issue as the airport land is governed by byelaws (and is therefore not "relevant land").
In addition their PCN stated that I had to notify the drivers details "no later than 28 days beginning with the Issue Date of this Notice" rather than from service/receipt of the notice.

I have submitted my AOS declaring that I dispute the whole claim and have until the beginning of March to submit my defence. I would welcome any advice on how best to submit my defence and if there is anything else I should add to the above.

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

Yep, it is not relevant land, and as it is a roadway it is ALSO not relevant land because it comes under the RTEs.

PLease gi e us the DATE OF ISSUE
When precisely did you submit the AOS?

MSE Forum -> Newbies thread, plus theres an active thread or two there about Southend.

[redwood]

Hi
The Issue Date of the Claim was 10/02/2020 and I submitted the AOS today

Thanks for the steer to MSE Forum - should I duplicate my thread on there ?

This post has been edited by redwood: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 - 17:34

[redwood]

I note that the Claim Form states "the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver" which seems like a bit of a fishing trip. Would it be enough to simply state as my defence that I was not the driver and because PoFA doesn't apply I am not liable (as the registered keeper) ?

[nosferatu1001]

So you have 32 days to get your defence in, from the date of issue. Work out this deadline yourself - you will NOT get reminded by *anyone* of this deadline. You will be EMAILING your defence.

No, because noone ever uses just a single point. If the judge decided POFA DOES apply, youre screweed.

[redwood]

Good point - I may as well throw everything in as my defence. Can you just clarify the meaning of your acronym RTE - I've tried searching the site and found other uses but no explanation. I'm asuming it's something to do with the Road Traffic Act (RTA) ?

[nosferatu1001]

ITs the Road Traffic Enactments ,of whcih the RTA is one

[redwood]

Here is my draft defence. Just to remind you, the driver did stop at the zebra crossing to let someone across, but whilst stopped the passenger decided to disembark and take their luggage out of the boot so there was a short delay before the vehicle took off again. Any comments welcomed


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx xxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The road upon which the alleged offence was committed falls under the definition of a road as defined in Section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) ie: ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’, and is therefore subject to the RTA 1988 and all subordinate legislation.

3. The Claimant’s claim is for breach of contract, “namely stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited” as defined by signage erected by the Claimant.

4. The evidence submitted clearly shows that the driver of the vehicle stopped in order to allow a pedestrian to cross a marked zebra crossing.

5. The Defendant maintains that the driver of the vehicle was obliged to stop under Section 25(1) of The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 (ZPPPCR 1997) which states:

Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.

6. The private signage erected by the Claimant contradicts the ZPPPCR 1997 in this location and circumstances and therefore cannot apply.

7. The Defendant is the Keeper of the vehicle and the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion. The Defendant denies any liability for the claim as the Keeper of the vehicle.

8. The Particulars of Claim state that “At all materials times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver.” These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

9. The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper states that “we will have the right to recover from you, the Keeper any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge” and the Claimant’s letter dated xxxxxxxx reiterates this claim and refers to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).

10. The land where the alleged contravention was committed is covered by Southend Airport Byelaws and the RTA, therefore it is not “relevant land” covered under PoFA 2012 and therefore the Claimant is unable to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

11. Furthermore, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in that it fails to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates, and incorrectly states the timescale within which a response is required. The Claimant, therefore, does not have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of vehicle.

12. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

13. Schedule 4, Para 4(5) of PoFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 of “contractual costs”, for which no calculation or further explanation is given. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.

14. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

15. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed nor liability of the Defendant, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


REV A 25-2-2020 ITEM 10) & 11) UPDATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH nosferatu1001's COMMENTS BELOW

This post has been edited by redwood: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 13:10

[nosferatu1001]

10) the RTA *also* means it is not relevant land.
11) yes -in bullet point form. Your WS expands on this.

13) MSE FOrum -> Parking -> Newbies , post2. Follow links to the HUGE scred on unlawful costs being added on. This is centred on the CRA2015, amongst others.

[Harrold]

I'm in exactly the same position here. I am trying to send AOS on gateway but it's asking if I want to contest jurisdiction. Should I tick yes or no? The issue date of mine is 10/02/20 and thus service day is 15/02/20. I've been away in SA and only got back today to find this! I am also intending to add that I am not the driver on the balance of probabilities as there were 4 named drivers and the driver was not driving the vehicle as he was being dropped to go on holiday by another named driver who was not going on holiday . I have said this VCS already but they went ahead with the claim. The cannot use POFA, so I expect they'll go the BOP route. I've been out of the country so long that I need to refresh where I was with all this. Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated. I may have my own thread, or piggybacked another similar one. I'm not great at navigating the site so apologies.

Thanks for any other guidance on top of the contesting jurisdiction issue.

[The Rookie]

I'm in exactly the same position here.

"One case one thread", please use your own without hijacking, it just causes confusion.

[nosferatu1001]

Dont contest, click no. Unles syou live outside of E&W and want to spend £100 on an appliucation that is...

[redwood]

Hi All

I've done a bit more research and added some other lines of defence. Any comments ? Good/Bad ?

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxx xxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

No Contract Exists

2. The Claimant’s claim is for breach of contract, “namely stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited” as defined by signage.

3. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The Claimant’s case is that the area is intended as “a zone where stopping is prohibited” at all times. The signage is therefore prohibitive in nature and does not communicate any offer of consideration (ie: such as stopping or parking, at a price). In the absence of any consideration no contract exists.

5. This was reflected in the PCM-UK vs Bull et al (B4GF26K6 2016) case, where Defendants were issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”. District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that “the notice was prohibitive, and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.

RTA 1988 Takes Precedence

6. The road upon which the alleged offence was committed falls under the definition of a road as defined in Section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) ie: ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access’, and is therefore subject to the RTA 1988 and all subordinate legislation.

7. The evidence submitted by the Claimant clearly shows that the driver of the vehicle stopped in order to allow a pedestrian to cross a marked zebra crossing.

8. The Defendant avers that the driver of the vehicle was obliged to stop under Section 25(1) of The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 (ZPPPCR 1997) which states:
Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.

9. The signage relied upon by the Claimant contradicts the Road Traffic Enactments, and in particular the ZPPPCR 1997, in this location and circumstances, and therefore cannot apply.


No Cause of Action

10. The Particulars of Claim state that “At all materials times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver.” These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.


No Keeper Liability

11. The Defendant is the keeper of the vehicle and denies any liability for the claim. The vehicle is insured for, and used by, more than one driver and the identity of the driver at the material time has not been evidenced on any occasion.

12. The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper states that “we will have the right to recover from you, the Keeper any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge” and the Claimant’s letter dated xxxxxxxx reiterates this claim and refers to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).

13. The land where the alleged contravention was committed is covered by Southend-on-Sea Municipal Airport Byelaws 1980 and the RTA 1988 , therefore it is not “relevant land” covered under PoFA 2012 and therefore the Claimant is unable to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

14. Furthermore, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in that it fails to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates, and incorrectly states the timescale within which a response is required. The Claimant, therefore, does not have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of vehicle.


15. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

Double Recovery

16. The claim includes an additional £60 of “contractual costs”, also referred to as “Debt collection costs”. No calculation or further justification/explanation is given. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the purported added 'costs' constitute double recovery. They are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) S71(2) insomuch as being unfair.

17. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £100 “parking charge” covers the costs of the debt recovery administration and letters.

18. Schedule 4, Para 4(5) of PoFA 2012 states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

Abuse of Process

19. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA 2012 and the CRA 2015, and should be considered an abuse of process.

20. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''


21. The Claimant contested the Judge’s decision in a N244 application, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30th Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances.

22. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - Britannia Parking -v- Mr C and another the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.

23. Similarly, in December 2019, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court summarily struck out multiple parking ticket claims from various firms all due to the adding of false £60 costs to a £100 parking charge, that already indisputably (in law and case law) includes those costs.

24. The Defendant is of the opinion that the Claimant has knowingly submit an inflated claim including an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover, and this should be considered an abuse of process. The court is invited to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

25. In the event that this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited above, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

No Grace Period

26. According to the current Contract between DVLA and parking companies, in order to obtain “Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event” (KADOE) information from the DVLA, Clause A6.1 states that “The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct”.

27. The Claimant is an Accredited Operator and a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), and according to the ‘Notice to Keeper’ issued to the Defendant, operates in accordance with their Code of Practice.

28. The IPC Code of Practice (Sixth Edition that was in force at the time of the event) Clause 15.1 states that a ‘grace’ period must be allowed. According to the evidence supplied by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped for a period of less than one minute. Thus, a grace period was not observed and therefore the Claimant is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice, and therefore in default of the contract that exists between them and the DVLA; hence the Claimant has obtained Keeper details under false pretences.

This post has been edited by redwood: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 - 09:07

[redwood]

Does no comment mean it's OK or no one has read it ?

I realise they will quote VCS vs Ward at me regarding my argument stating no contract exists but my understanding is that the appeal is only binding in the Northeast court circuit (where it was won), although it could of course be persuasive in other areas. Have there been many cases determined on the VCS vs Ward appeal ?

The driver has not been declared and the vehicle has one other named driver who will be my lay representative at court. Is this something I should mention in my defence or can it wait until my Witness Statement ?

[SchoolRunMum]

VCS v Ward is not binding anywhere but is 'persuasive' if Judges are easily persuaded.

A Judge the other week who found in favour of a victim reported on MSE forum, read VCS v Crutchley and VCS v Ward (truly diabolical and embarrassingly 'PPC steered' decisions by Judges who allowed themselves to be led hopelessly wrong by VCS reps) and that Judge retorted 'back in the real World...'

The driver has not been declared and the vehicle has one other named driver who will be my lay representative at court. Is this something I should mention in my defence or can it wait until my Witness Statement ?

You never mention a plan to use a lay rep until you rock up on the day and tell the Usher who you are and that the person with you is your 'lay rep'.

Defence draft looks OK with a skim read except I couldn't see the usual point about landowner authority/no proprietary interest, as seen in all other forum defences.

[redwood]

Many thanks for your comments SchoolRunMum
I was assuming they must have landowner authority but you're right I shouldn't assume anything and will put them "to strict proof" of the same if that's the terminology.
I wasn't asking if I should declare a proposed lay representative in my defence but whether or not I should state that there is more than one insured driver - I've now added it

[redwood]

Have now received a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track and have to submit my witness statement this week along with my court bundle. Rather surprised by short notice to the hearing. Draft Witness Statement is below. I would welcome any advice or comments

This post has been edited by redwood: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 - 19:18

[redwood]

Here is my draft Witness Statement - I would welcome any comments or advice. Question: Do i need to include CPR's in my evidence bundle or can I assume the court is already familiar with them

Claim No.
Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)

and

(Defendant)


WITNESS STATEMENT
I, of , will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked Exhibit 01 to 12 to which I will refer.

EXHIBIT 01 - Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Notice to Keeper (NTK) dated xxxxxxx from the claimant showing a photograph of my vehicle stopped at a zebra crossing with pedestrians passing in front of the vehicle
EXHIBIT 02 - Enlarged copy of the photograph from the PCN
EXHIBIT 03 – My appeal against the Parking Charge Notice submitted through MyParkingCharge.co.uk
EXHIBIT 04 - Claimant’s appeal rejection letter dated xxxxxxxx
EXHIBIT 05 – Copy of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4
EXHIBIT 06 - Copy of Car Insurance Schedule
EXHIBIT 07 - Copy of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
EXHIBIT 08 – Copy of Section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act
EXHIBIT 09 - Copy of Southend-on-Sea Municipal Airport Byelaws 1980
EXHIBIT 10 -. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67
EXHIBIT 11 – Examples of additional charges being considered an abuse of process
EXHIBIT 12 – Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4)


1. I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Notice to Keeper (NTK) on or around xxxxxxx (see EXHIBIT 01). The PCN states “Contravention Reason: 46) STOPPING IN A ZONE WHERE STOPPING IS PROHIBITED” at Southend Airport. The PCN then goes on to state that the driver of the vehicle is liable to the Parking Charge and claims that the period of parking was before the Contravention Time of 15:13. The first photograph provided (see EXHIBIT 02) is time stamped 15:13:30 and clearly shows the vehicle stopped at a zebra crossing with pedestrians passing in front of the car. It appears that the Claimant is suggesting that the vehicle should not have stopped to let the pedestrians cross, and it is this act of stopping for which they are claiming

2. I appealed against the PCN on the Claimants online portal (see EXHIBIT 03) explaining that the vehicle is shown to be stopped (for a period of approximately 20 seconds) in order to allow pedestrians to cross a zebra crossing but my appeal was rejected

3. The Claimants appeal rejection letter (see EXHIBIT 04) states “A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped to drop off a passenger on the access road where restrictions apply.” On the contrary, their evidence clearly shows that this was not the reason for stopping (see EXHIBIT 02) and that the driver was obliged to stop and give precedence to the pedestrians on the crossing in accordance with the Road Traffic Enactments

4. The passenger of the vehicle admits to getting out while the driver was stopped at the zebra crossing but without the permission of the driver

5. The Particulars of Claim submitted by the Claimant do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or driver” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability and is not a “concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies” in accordance with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (see EXHIBIT 05)

6. The vehicle is insured and used by more than one driver (see EXHIBIT 06) and the driver of the vehicle on the day in question has not been evidenced by the Claimant on any occasion. There is no reasonable presumption in law that the keeper was the driver so I assume that they are pursuing me “as the registered keeper of the vehicle” as warned in their letter of xxxxxxxxx, because I declined to name the driver. They claimed to be entitled to pursue me as the keeper under Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

7. Schedule 4 of PoFA allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle but the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”, (see EXHIBIT 07). The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection © excludes “any land ……..on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”

8. The road on which the alleged contravention took place is subject to the Road Traffic Act 1988, (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) of RTA and it being a road “to which the public has access”, (see EXHIBIT 08). It is also subject to the Southend-on-Sea Municipal Airport Byelaws 1980 (see EXHIBIT 09). Schedule 4, of PoFA therefore, does not apply, and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges

9. Furthermore, Section C of the NTK (see EXHIBIT 01) states that notification of driver/hirer/keeper details must be made within 28 days of the Issue Date (posted). Paragraph 9(f) of PoFA Schedule 4 states that the response period is “28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” and paragraph 9(6) states the “given” date for a “notice sent by post is to be presumed, …… to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted;”. As such, the Claimant’s NTK does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 (see EXHIBIT 07) so they do not have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle

10. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “Debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. (see EXHIBIT 05)

11. Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

12. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) (see EXHIBIT 07) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the NTK which in this case is £100

13. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (see EXHIBIT 10).

14. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio (see EXHIBIT 11). I am of the opinion that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4) (see EXHIBIT 12)

15. The Claimant has not provided evidence that the landowner has given them the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation

16. The Claimant has failed to provide details of the alleged signage upon which they are relying to form a contract with the driver and neither have they demonstrated that it is appropriately positioned to allow all drivers to read and understand the terms of the alleged contract

17. I would also question the existence of the alleged contract which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”. The signage is wholly prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration. In the absence of consideration, no contract exists




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


Signature of Defendant:

[Sheffield Dave]

Most of what you've written in your WS is actually argument and is supposed to be appear in your skeleton argument that you optionally submit a few days before the hearing, or which you argue verbally at the hearing. But judges tend to be very flexible in small claims court on the assumption that most people don't know what they're doing while representing themselves.

[redwood]

Hi Dave Yes I think you're right I hope it doesn't go against me. For Item 4 regarding the passenger, do you think I should say "The passenger told me ....." or perhaps get them to submit a WS ? Would it be admissable ?