PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CPM parking charge notice
niikii
post Fri, 12 Aug 2016 - 10:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



I'm new in this forum. I need your help please I'm tenant in private residence UK CAR-PARK ENGAGEMENT took control our residence parking nearly 9 month ago and I got 6 ticket all together.

My vehicle was issued 6 ticket one after another 1st PCN on 16th of June 2016 the day I have parked my car at Lantern Close in bay no:46 where usually I’m parking my car last four years and the reason stated on ticket is “Not displaying valid permit” and I was shocked that my parking permit was displayed on wind screen so why warden issued ticket to me? Before I find out why they issued ticket? I wrote formal appeal to them to give me a reason why they issuing ticket to me? I wrote all the appeal to them for clarify why they issuing ticket to me? Even my permit always displayed on wind screen!
Finally I received their explanation letter on 16th of July after 29 days stating that my permit is not correspond to the parking bay where I’m parking my car. I have a visitor permit which was issued by CPM and my visitor permit displayed on careen and I’m not visitor I’m tenant and I have only visitor permit they supposed to give more clear reason on ticket that “Not displaying valid residence permit “Instead of saying “Not displaying valid permit” until now I was thinking that I have valid permit and I'm parking my car in 46 bay last four years and the 46 bay owner they don't have car and they were happy to let me park my car in their bay Its took 29 days to know what happened in between they already issued 5 ticket unfairly I’m not stupid if I knew that they talking about my visitor permit is not valid for 46 bay then I could have moved my car when the 1st ticket was issued not waiting for putting ticket one after another.

After rejected my appeal by CPM I wrote appeal to Independent Appeals Service TheIAS.org and lost my appeal there as well.
Now I'm worried CPM start sending letter to pay £100 each ticket all together £600 I cannot afford.

Please advice on below point.
(1) what is the private car park company rules? CPM took control 9 month ago but they didn't check car park since they took charge of and suddenly in June start issuing ticket to me.
(2) What next as i have lost my appeal in ISA as well
(3) I read in forum that private company can not charge me full amount but they can only charge the money that they loss on private land.

I'm feeling very stressful can somebody help me please!
Sorry for my poor English may I didn't explain very well.
Thank you in advance for your help.

This post has been edited by niikii: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 - 10:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 >  
Start new topic
Replies (140 - 159)
Advertisement
post Fri, 12 Aug 2016 - 10:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 20:11
Post #141


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
My AST lease doesn't have any parking/restriction clause and I did post my AST lease beginning of the thread and Lynnzer have checked and he commented in post#31


OK.

QUOTE
Can you please also help to me to find relevant case where I could go through and find more information. ( I know its not good question to ask but as I mentioned earlier I could not find easily and search option not helping me either)


Not sure, but didn't I already write your defence? The cases will be stated in it.


QUOTE
I will re write my WS and post it here for further advise.


Good.


QUOTE
Particular with this ticket they are wrong as they mentioned in ticket that I have not parked in designated area but I did parked in marked bay and they issued ticket to me


Yep, you should win this one.


QUOTE
So should I defend on base of unfettered use of parking as per my ast lease or defend on base of I didn't park out side of designated area?


On everything that you had in your defence.

Please repeat the defence here, and the lease link too from post #31, don't expect us to look back.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 19:43
Post #142


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 20:11) *
QUOTE
My AST lease doesn't have any parking/restriction clause and I did post my AST lease beginning of the thread and Lynnzer have checked and he commented in post#31


OK.

QUOTE
Can you please also help to me to find relevant case where I could go through and find more information. ( I know its not good question to ask but as I mentioned earlier I could not find easily and search option not helping me either)


Not sure, but didn't I already write your defence? The cases will be stated in it.


QUOTE
I will re write my WS and post it here for further advise.


Good.


QUOTE
Particular with this ticket they are wrong as they mentioned in ticket that I have not parked in designated area but I did parked in marked bay and they issued ticket to me


Yep, you should win this one.


QUOTE
So should I defend on base of unfettered use of parking as per my ast lease or defend on base of I didn't park out side of designated area?


On everything that you had in your defence.

Please repeat the defence here, and the lease link too from post #31, don't expect us to look back.


I'm so sorry for very late response due to a health problem and other family issues.

First of all "Happy New Year" to you.

Please check my WS and do I need to attach all pics and documents here with WS? (is not possible due to size of attachment)

My WS

I, XXX I, of (address), I am the defendant in this matter and litigant in person.
2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge.
3. 21/11/16: My car was parked on my private residence in the designated parking bay at Lantern ……………. It was just before 12:00 noon, it was rainy. I found a Parking Charge Notice after 17.00. I was shocked to see that the reason was: “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF DESIGNATED AREA”. I did not understand why I got the ticket, as I had parked my vehicle in the designated parking bay. I took several photographs illustrating the Parking Charge Notice on my windscreen.
4. 21/11/16: I wrote an appeal letter to UK Car Park Management. In this letter, I explained that I am the resident of that residence and that contravention did not occur, as my vehicle was parked within the designated marked bay.
5. 29/11/16: I received from the UK Car Park Management, a notification that my appeal letter was not successful. The letter reiterated that my fault was: “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF A DESIGNATED AREA/PARKING BAY”. United Kingdom Car Park Management stated that they would "not accept any further appeals", suggesting that any further appeals can be logged to The Independent Appeal Service.
6. 12/01/17: I received a “FORMAL DEMAND” letter from United Kingdom Car Park Management, demanding me to pay £100 overdue.
7. 05/04/17 - 05/05/17: I received various harassing and intimidating letters from Debt Recovery Plus, demanding various amounts of money. Many of these letters stated that the court would issue a County Court Judgment against me.
8. 25/07/17: I received “LETTER BEFORE CLAIM” from Gladstones Solicitors, stating that they (Gladstones Solicitors) are acting on behalf of the Claimant, by taking legal action against me, in order to recover the amount of £160.
9. 21/08/17: In order to better understand the Claimant's case, I made a request for further evidence, information, and clarification of Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Despite posting this letter as a 1st class with proof of postage, 4 months later, I have not received a response.

Also please check my statement of defense.

Statement of Defence
In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: D6GF5Q8G

Between:
Uk Car Park Management v ___ NxxxxxBxxxxxx

DEFENCE
Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
1.1 The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.
1.2 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.
2.1 The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.
2.2 The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charge in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute, including what was described by the Claimant as an 'independent' review by the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). There is no scrutiny board and IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice and shift the burden to the consumer to prove matters outside of their knowledge and evidence, causing a significant imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
2.3 The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant's Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently. They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the IAS.

2.4 The Defendant now submits that the IAS 'decision' should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). It is unsurprising then, given the relationship between the parties, that the IAS rejected the Defendant's appeal.
2.5 Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.

Background

3) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.
4) It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
5) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
6) It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material date, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that can have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
7) It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Lease/Tenancy Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. The Defendant avers that there was at the very least, a prior and overriding grant of a license to park, and indeed believes there was an absolute entitlement to park, deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide residents with the right to park a vehicle on this private land, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of the vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays'.
8) It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.
9) The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:
(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.
9.1 Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
No contract and no breach - this bay has never been ''undesignated'' nor was it clearly marked as such
10) It is denied that the vehicle was “parked outside of designated area”. The Defendant parked legitimately in a bay, used without penalty for many years, by various residents at the site.
11) This Claimant has only in recent months, begun a predatory parking regime targeting residents and has unilaterally attempted to foist upon residents a change of rules, in complete disregard to any existing rights and grants; the Claimant being a stranger to the various residents' Agreements. No variation of residents' Agreements has taken place and any such variation would be solely a matter between the landowner and the resident, in any case.
12) The is no site plan of bays in existence (the Defendant has checked with the site Managing Agents). If such a plan now exists, the Claimant is put to strict proof of its origin and on what basis/on whose authority this particular bay has been decided to be 'undesignated' after many years of normal use by residents, and how this change of use was communicated to residents and/or agreed.
13) Other residents also routinely park their vehicles in this bay and when the Defendant contacted the Managing Agents they advised that there was no site plan identifying any bays or 'non-designated bays'. The Defendant concludes that, given the fact that the Managing Agents state there is no site plan, the Claimant is not entitled, nor has any locus standi to decide that one bay is 'undesignated' as opposed to any other.
14) The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been parking in that space for years and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.
15) It is denied that there was any breach of contract or of any relevant parking terms. The Claimant's claim is wholly misconceived.
In the Alternative: Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished.
16) The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

16.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
16.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
16.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
16.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
16.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.
16.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.
Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
17) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
18) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
19) The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).
20) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.
21) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


Signed

Date

Can I use above DS to write the 2nd statement of defense for the reason stated in a ticket that vehicle parked outside of the designated area?

Here is Lynn replied to short-term lease. ( I didn't attach all pages of lease here due to large size of lease)

Linked from here

Seems very simple to me though.
You have right of use of a parking bay, no mention of it even being any specifically numbered one either.
The lease is silent on parking altogether so it's absence is indicative of unfettered use.

If this ever goes to court it'll cost them. Don't get hung up on it as you are in the right.

So what do you do from here?

I'll see what others say but I'd be inclined to send them a 9iss off letter.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 - 19:24

--------------------

This post has been edited by niikii: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 19:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 20:15
Post #143


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



Hello all,

Did I do something wrong?

No one replied yet.

Please help me.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 07:54
Post #144


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,262
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You didnt do anything wrong. Its just hte forum is hugely busy, as you can see!

If the vehicel was parked in YOUR bay, then you use the primacy of contract argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 18:10
Post #145


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 07:54) *
You didnt do anything wrong. Its just hte forum is hugely busy, as you can see!

If the vehicel was parked in YOUR bay, then you use the primacy of contract argument.


Hi,

Thank you.

It wasn't parked in my own bay but it was parked in visitor bay actually CPM made a mistake no one else received a ticket for that visitor bay all other residents are shocked that how come I received a ticket for that bay.

Where I can find example templet for primacy contract argument?

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 23:17
Post #146


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Search the forum, or search MSE forum, for 'primacy residential witness statement' or 'Jopson witness statement'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 15:26
Post #147


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 23:17) *
Search the forum, or search MSE forum, for 'primacy residential witness statement' or 'Jopson witness statement'.


Thank you SRM,

I found in MSE forum I'll go through.

Thank you again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 10:49
Post #148


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289




Good morning,

I was trying to search primacy residential witness statement but I found the same case as mine on MSE. I'm sorry I could not find Jopson WS

I have posted below but it looks like a defence statement, not a WS.

My defence already submitted to court via email.

Thank you all for helping me lots sepcially no legal experience and with language problem. I'm digging both forum to find a relevant case as mine.
Please, I need your continues support.
Do you think I need to put my case in MSE?



Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation. (PAP: they sent me letters demanding money from DPR and after that they send Gladstone letter for further action)

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof. (Would I include this?)
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. (not sure about this section?)

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.(I can't find much information in the lease so don't think this is relevant - especially considering I am not the leaseholder - my partner is)

7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. (Again, signage included in pictures but don't think relevant. Or could this point link to the fact they took away spaces?)

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
(all relevant - but i did have my permit on show everytime)

Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
(last point is definitely relevant, attached pictures of signage as no sure the rest is - signage may be sufficient?)

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

Thank you.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 14:24
Post #149


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,262
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



THats a defence. Not a witness statment, which is a series of facts (on x date Y happened)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 18:52
Post #150


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 23:17) *
Search the forum, or search MSE forum, for 'primacy residential witness statement' or 'Jopson witness statement'.


I'm so sorry again I could not find any of the above WS. I spent long time to read through but could not find anything useful or may I don't know how to find better.

I found "theconquest" written defence WS in MSE on 21st December in post#42 but it doesn't look like a WS.

I think I'm running like headless chicken.

Thank you for your support.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 08:59
Post #151


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,756
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



Here is a one to use as a template http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...mp;postcount=41

Your facts will different but the layout and flow should be the same.


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:21
Post #152


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



QUOTE (emanresu @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 08:59) *
Here is a one to use as a template http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...mp;postcount=41

Your facts will different but the layout and flow should be the same.


Thank you. I used the same template with my new WS.

Sorry for late update.

Could you please check my updated Witness Statment and advise. (I will host evidence to tiny pic and will copy link here)

IN THE XXX COURT Claim Number: XXXXXX
and XXXXXX (Consolidated together)

Parking Control Management Ltd (PCM)
(Claimant)
-AND-
XXXX
(Defendant)
I, XXXX, of XXXX will say as follows:



• I am the Defendant in this matter. I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court before. In this statement I will refer to the documents contained in exhibit A, by page number, and Claimant’s Accredited Trade Organisation (ATA) (International Parking Community) Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, by section numbers.

• On the 21st November 2016 the defendant’s vehicle with registration number XXX XXX was parked at XXXXXX. It was just before 12:00 noon, it was rainy. I found a Parking Charge Notice after 17.00. I was shocked to see that the reason was: “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF DESIGNATED AREA” I did not understand why I got the ticket, as I had parked my vehicle in the designated visitor parking bay. I took several photographs illustrating the Parking Charge Notice on my windscreen .Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event was a year ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.

• On the dates mentioned, the visitor parking was inadequate and did not come close to the plans on the private residence. See page XX showing visitor parking plans.

• On 21st November 2016 I wrote an appeal letter to UK Car Park Management. In this letter, I explained that I am the resident of that residence and that contravention did not occur, as my vehicle was parked within the designated marked bay.

• On 29th November 2016 I received letter from the UK Car Park Management, a notification that my appeal letter was not successful. The letter reiterated that my fault was: “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF A DESIGNATED AREA/PARKING BAY”. United Kingdom Car Park Management stated that they would "not accept any further appeals", suggesting that any further appeals can be logged to The Independent Appeal Service.

• I should emphasise that compliance with the Code is a compulsory condition of the Claimant’s membership of its ATA (and without membership the Claimant would not be allowed to request keeper details from the DVLA which allow it to pursue private parking charges). Compliance has also been held by the Supreme Court to be compulsory if a private parking company like the Claimant wishes to recover what is effectively a penalty charge (rather than a lower sum designed to reflect its actual loss) (case of Parking Eye v Beavis, paragraphs 96 and 111) which is included on page XX. In the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. The defendant argues that this is not the case as XXXX is a residential site, of which all named drivers including the defendant are residents of. The defendant also states that the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. See witness statements on page XX confirming this.

• On 12th January 2017 I received a “FORMAL DEMAND” letter from United Kingdom Car Park Management, demanding me to pay £100 overdue.

• Between 5th April 2017 – 5th May2017: I received various harassing and intimidating letters from Debt Recovery Plus, demanding various amounts of money. Many of these letters stated that the court would issue a County Court Judgment against me.

• I did not pay the charges on any occasion mentioned, and I received numerous threatening demands from Gladstones solicitors. On the XXX February 2017 I received a further demand with increased amount owing with no explanation for the increased amount, and this letter threatened me with further debt recovery.

• On the 14th August 2017 I received court case. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to a charge of £243.21, The charge is steep considering this is not commercial land and a visitor permit was on show. The parking company should be to deter non-residents from parking. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts. The fact that the Claimant originally raised two separate claims appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4, on page XX, specifically disallows. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5), on page XX, states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper on page XX.

• On 21st August 2017 In order to better understand the Claimant's case, I made a request for further evidence, information, and clarification of Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Despite posting this letter as a 1st class with proof of postage, 4 months later, I have not received a response.

• The Particulars of Claim set out in the Claim Form do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies what the terms of the alleged contract were, or how they were breached. The Particulars are not “clear and concise” as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). 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. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. The claimant also failed to provide a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). Furthermore, no indication is given as to the Claimant’s contractual authority to operate the car park, another thing that is required by the Claimant’s compulsory ATA Code of Practice - paragraph B1.1 states as follows:

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

• I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £50 Solicitors costs for the case, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable. The claimant has described the charge of £50 as ‘legal fees’ not ‘contractual costs’ CPR 31.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.

The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum claimed has been calculated, or the conduct that gave rise to it.

• The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

• The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. Evidence on pagexx shows another resident who parked in Phoenix quarter and received 20 tickets when the visitor bays were out of action, showing that the Claimant issues tickets regardless of the situation as a money making scheme. Similarly, witness statements on pages XX-XX shows the number of tickets a few of the other resident’s have received and their court cases they have ongoing.


I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true


Signed:

This post has been edited by niikii: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:32
Post #153


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



Hello all,

I couldn't post Tinypic pics link here and below message was showing.

WARNING: some file types (including Microsoft Office .doc and .xls documents) contain information that you cannot see just by reading the file. This can include personal information such as your name, and previous versions including text that you've deleted.

Maybe I was using the wrong link from Tinypic there is four link available I used "IMG Code for Forums & Message Boards" for posting here.

Please help me how to upload and which link I can use to post here.

Thank you.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:58
Post #154


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,262
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



READ FIRST sticky, have you followed it exactly?

Diagnosing error messgaes isnt something youre going to gettoo much help with...

You must number this, every single para must be numbered.

In para 3 (ish) did you mean to identify exactly who drove the vehicle that day? I suggest you edit that post NOW. NO DELAYs.

For the solicitors costs - is this not the £50 filing fee, which IS allowed? While it is allowed, you could challenge that the GENERIC USELESS PoC did not merir such amount, and you put them to proof the amount was invoiced AND paid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 09:57
Post #155


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



Dear all,

I don't know if I'm not preparing well or I'm not following proper instruction. As I explained I'm not good in english and also not good in using technology.
First time I'm using this forum and preparing my self with all of your help and support.
I'm final stage to exchange WITNESS STATEMENT and my hearing date is 12th of March. Can someone please help me to prepare my WS.
Also pls help me how to paste tinypic link here so I can upload all my documents and pictures for final preparation.

Appreciated all your help and support.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 13:11
Post #156


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,262
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



"On the 21st November 2016 the defendant’s vehicle with registration number XXX XXX was parked at XXXXXX. It was just before 12:00 noon, it was rainy. I found a Parking Charge Notice after 17.00. I was shocked to see that the reason was: “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF DESIGNATED AREA” ...."

EDIT THIS POST NOW!

The paragraph starting with this sentence identifies the driver. CALL THEM THE DRIVER, do NOT use any personal pronouns

We are aware of your difficulties, however as has been pointed out - we canot help diagnose error messages. Nothing suggests you have read the "read first" sticky. PLease confirm if you have done this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 20:33
Post #157


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



QUOTE (niikii @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:21) *
QUOTE (emanresu @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 08:59) *
Here is a one to use as a template http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...mp;postcount=41

Your facts will different but the layout and flow should be the same.


Used the same template with my new WS.

Sorry for late update.

Could you please check my updated Witness Statment and advise. (I will host evidence to tiny pic and will copy link here)

IN THE XXX COURT Claim Number: XXXXXX
and XXXXXX (Consolidated together)

Parking Control Management Ltd (PCM)
(Claimant)
-AND-
XXXX
(Defendant)
The driver, XXXX, of XXXX will say as follows:



• The driver is the Defendant in this matter. The driver is an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court before. In this statement The driver will refer to the documents contained in exhibit A, by page number, and Claimant’s Accredited Trade Organisation (ATA) (International Parking Community) Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, by section numbers.

• On the day defendant’s vehicle with registration number XXX XXX was parked at XXXXXX. It was just before 12:00 noon, it was rainy. The driver found a Parking Charge Notice after 17.00. The driver was shocked to see that the reason was: “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF DESIGNATED AREA” Driver did not understand why the driver got the ticket, as driver had parked my vehicle in the designated visitor parking bay. The driver took several photographs illustrating the Parking Charge Notice on my windscreen .Whilst the driver was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event was a year ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.

• On the dates mentioned, the visitor parking was inadequate and did not come close to the plans on the private residence. See page XX showing visitor parking plans.

• In November, driver wrote an appeal letter to UK Car Park Management. In this letter, Driver explained that the driver is the resident of that residence and that contravention did not occur, as vehicle was parked within the designated marked bay.

• On 29th November, The driver received letter from the UK Car Park Management, a notification that appeal letter was not successful. The letter reiterated that the driver's fault was: “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF A DESIGNATED AREA/PARKING BAY”. United Kingdom Car Park Management stated that they would "not accept any further appeals", suggesting that any further appeals can be logged to The Independent Appeal Service.

• The driver should emphasise that compliance with the Code is a compulsory condition of the Claimant’s membership of its ATA (and without membership the Claimant would not be allowed to request keeper details from the DVLA which allow it to pursue private parking charges). Compliance has also been held by the Supreme Court to be compulsory if a private parking company like the Claimant wishes to recover what is effectively a penalty charge (rather than a lower sum designed to reflect its actual loss) (case of Parking Eye v Beavis, paragraphs 96 and 111) which is included on page XX. In the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. The defendant argues that this is not the case as XXXX is a residential site, of which all named drivers including the defendant are residents of. The defendant also states that the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. See witness statements on page XX confirming this.

• On 12th January, The driver received a “FORMAL DEMAND” letter from United Kingdom Car Park Management, demanding driver to pay £100 overdue.

• Between 5th April – 5th May : The driver received various harassing and intimidating letters from Debt Recovery Plus, demanding various amounts of money. Many of these letters stated that the court would issue a County Court Judgment against the driver.

• Driver did not pay the charges on any occasion mentioned, and Driver received numerous threatening demands from Gladstones solicitors. On the XXX February 2017 The driver received a further demand with increased amount owing with no explanation for the increased amount, and this letter threatened to the driver with further debt recovery.

• On the 14th August, The driver received court case. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to a charge of £243.21, The charge is steep considering this is not commercial land and a visitor permit was on show. The parking company should be to deter non-residents from parking. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

• On 21st August, In order to better understand the Claimant's case, The driver made a request for further evidence, information, and clarification of Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Despite posting this letter as a 1st class with proof of postage, 4 months later, The driver have not received a response.

• The Particulars of Claim set out in the Claim Form do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies what the terms of the alleged contract were, or how they were breached. The Particulars are not “clear and concise” as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). 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. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. The claimant also failed to provide a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). Furthermore, no indication is given as to the Claimant’s contractual authority to operate the car park, another thing that is required by the Claimant’s compulsory ATA Code of Practice - paragraph B1.1 states as follows:

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

• The driver also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £50 Solicitors costs for the case, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable. The claimant has described the charge of £50 as ‘legal fees’ not ‘contractual costs’ CPR 31.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.

The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum claimed has been calculated, or the conduct that gave rise to it.

• The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

• The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. Evidence on pagexx shows another resident who parked on regular parking space even parking scheme is not applied for that residence, showing that the Claimant issues tickets regardless of the situation as a money making scheme. Similarly, witness statements on pages XX-XX shows the number of tickets a few of the other resident’s have received and their court cases they have ongoing.


The driver believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.


Signed:


This post has been edited by niikii: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 20:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 20:44
Post #158


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 13:11) *
"On the 21st November 2016 the defendant’s vehicle with registration number XXX XXX was parked at XXXXXX. It was just before 12:00 noon, it was rainy. I found a Parking Charge Notice after 17.00. I was shocked to see that the reason was: “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF DESIGNATED AREA” ...."

EDIT THIS POST NOW!

The paragraph starting with this sentence identifies the driver. CALL THEM THE DRIVER, do NOT use any personal pronouns

We are aware of your difficulties, however as has been pointed out - we canot help diagnose error messages. Nothing suggests you have read the "read first" sticky. PLease confirm if you have done this.


Thank you for bringing in my attention. I have now edited the post. I have still left some date and month but removed years due to making in order.

I have used this template from the forum who have used and I did edit according to my dates.

Can you please re check if everything is ok.

Thank you again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 21:08
Post #159


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,262
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Ok, you are not understanding

You need to click the EDIT BUTTON on post number 152.then you need to change the wording. In fact just delete it all
You still identify the driver in your new version. The driver.... did everything. No I, she, he, my wife or my husband EVER.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
niikii
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 20:04
Post #160


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,289



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 21:08) *
Ok, you are not understanding

You need to click the EDIT BUTTON on post number 152.then you need to change the wording. In fact just delete it all
You still identify the driver in your new version. The driver.... did everything. No I, she, he, my wife or my husband EVER.


There is no edit button on post no 152 and when I try to delete whole post it doesn't let me do it.

I have modified new version. Sorry for that mistake.

Question: In the original WS can I use real date and personal pronouns? which will use for exchange.

This post has been edited by niikii: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 20:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 24th February 2018 - 10:18
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.