So, yes, their PCN is ridiculous with no photographic evidence at all. We spend our time laughing at the PPCs but the Chuckle Brothers truly are the stupidest of the stupidest. My impression is that they have a background in other sectors of business and just latched onto the PPC scam as a way to make easy money, without having a clue what they're doing. The only thing that worries me is that if your brother did sue for GDPR distress, it could go wrong if the fleecers do have photographic evidence salted away somewhere which they could dig out, and he could lose the case and have to pay their costs. Also, what is likely to happen in practise is one of two things. SCENARIO 1 The buffoons ignore a claim form as they don't understand it and your brother wins by default. SCENARIO 2 The imbeciles panic and run to Gladstones solicitors, who file a ludicrous defence in order to spin the case out and rip off, hopefully your brother, but certainly their own client. We've seen this happen. In any case, don't do anything immediate. I think a little discussion with the other regulars over the next 48 hours would be a good idea.

They have up to 33 days from the date of the claimform to file a defence.

Thanks NB. Yes, it does look appalling. I actually have to do some work now after travelling last Friday to Monday, but promise to have a good read through the thread from the start this evening.

It's just hot air from paper tigers. Ignore.

Ho! Ho! Ho! The PCN has been cancelled. Why? Because miley_b ob and CAG and are bad news for the two inbreds, that's why! GDPR is a a bit of a high bar to reach, we've suggested it only in cases where the "offence" was so blatantly ridiculous they should never have issued an invoice. In your brother's case, what did they reckon he had done wrong? Yes, I know it's in the thread somewhere, but it's just easier to ask you!

Well done on wanting to prepare well in advance. Your case is atypical, I can't remember a specific thread to guide you towards - but also every case is different. You need to expand on the legal arguments explained in posts 59 & 61. There should be something in the fleecers' trade association's Code of Practice about not entrapping motorists if you look it up.

They have been very naughty in claiming £50 legal representative's costs - yet the documentation is to be sent to them rather than a legal representative. A search for Angelika Brzozowska shows she is "Head of Legal at UK Parking Control (UKPC)" (i.e. the tea lady). Make sure the question of this fictitious cost is added to your defence in mid-September.

Is there really nothing on the Court paperwork? And does not Googling that particular county court produce any results?

Standard BW hogwash. Have a laugh and a yawn in their direction and ignore.

Well done on your victory! We didn't have a clue really if writing to Morrisons would work, but it was worth a try. Thanks to you we now know it does work and this will help others in future.

Looks good to me. I've integrated it with what I wrote on the same issue so it's all in one paragraph. The OP needs to number the paragraphs, sweat over a hot printer, and get to the post office tomorrow.

Understood. Thanks. Your mate and fro have the same defence date. If fro hasn't received a reply to CPR by then, the next step will be for your mate to SAR the fleecers to recover the paperwork. But there are 10 days yet.

Yes. Send them a letter by 2nd class post. Get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office. Yes. You may get nowhere. But nothing ventured ... Tell them the truth, that you are a customer of ten years and on this occasion you were taken ill and needed time to recover. You can only get a CCJ if the fleecers send you a Letter of Claim, then take you to court, after win the court case - and next you decide to defy the court and not pay. None of this will happen.

Thank you! I have three nights in Wroclaw and thoroughly intend to explore as much as I possibly can. I know you want to send this off on Saturday. So use tomorrow (Friday) to see if there are any other comments from the other regulars. Then tidy up the WS. Each paragraph needs a number. Make sure the list of exhibits match after my faffing about. If you're particularly pernickety, make it consistent, you've gone for "OPS" rather than "the claimant" and "OPS is/has" rather than "OPS are/have" which comes naturally to me. I've tried to copy you but I'm sure have got it wrong somewhere. Obviously this is of miniscule importance. Just I'm a pedant E-mail the court their copy. In the subject line put the claim number, the names of the parties, and "Witness Statement" Click on "return receipt" or similar. Send the fleecers theirs by 2nd class post as that's all they're worth, make sure to get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

Yes, none of this will transfer to the new owner.

OK, suggestions in red below. Witness Statement One Parking Solution Limited v. <Defendant> (Claim Number <number>) Below is the Witness Statement of <Defendant> <Address> Sequence of Events I parked in Llangrannog Beach car park on 03/05/2021 and 06/05/2021, and on both occasions the only ticket machine showed Not in Use. Alternative means of payment, via an app, was not available due to lack of mobile signal in this remote location on the West Wales coast. I always pay for parking, and provide evidence (Exhibit 1) of having done so at other car parks in West Wales during my holiday that week. Frustration of Contract One Parking Solution Limited (OPS) claims I am in breach of contract, by parking in Llangrannog Beach car park, and failing to buy a ticket. I reject this claim on grounds of Frustration of Contract, as there was no available means to do so, as explained above. OPS is well aware of the ticket machine being Out of Use most of the time and of the unreliability of the mobile signal, as this was highlighted in a report by OPS's trade association the British Parking Association (BPA) in 2019 (Exhibit 2). The BPA's representative went so far as to write: "My own experience confirmed that it was not possible for me to pay for parking and I had no choice but to leave the car park within 10 minutes. If I had taken longer, presumably I would have received a PCN from One Parking Solution". OPS has chosen not to act on the recommendations of the BPA in their report. The ticket machine being invariably Out of Use is reported in numerous articles in the local and national press. To be succinct I include only two, an article in the Cambrian News from May 20th 2021 (Exhibit 3), which describes some of the many cases where OPS have issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to motorists who were unable to buy a ticket, and even some who did, and another published on the BBC website (Exhibit 4). Planning permission for ANPR cameras was granted to OPS in May 2019. There were a large number of objections to the application. Many pointed out then that the internet reception was insufficient to provide a service. So OPS knew from the start that paying was going to be a problem. Four years later they are still charging motorists for something that is not the motorists' fault. In a number of persuasive court cases judges have indeed ruled that Frustration of Contract applies in cases brought by OPS for this car park. One such case was in February 2022 and another the same or the next month before Deputy District Judge Henderson sitting at Blackwood Civil and Family Court. Breach of Code of Practice Section 9.5 of the BPA Code of Practice (Exhibit 5) states “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges”. This is exactly what OPS is doing though. The constant stream of complaints on Trip Advisor (Exhibit 6) about this car park and its operator, is an indication that OPS is deliberately making it as difficult as possible for motorists to purchase a ticket, so they can demand a Parking Charge, and indeed have even demanded a Parking Charge from some who did manage to buy a ticket, in the hope they’ll have thrown it away and not be able to prove they ever had one. The earliest of these complaints was made in June 2019 and the latest in July 2023. Indeed the latter is the latest review on the site. The pattern is always the same - for four years OPS has left a single, Not in Use machine on site which makes it impossible for the motorist to pay. OPS's own Witness Statement Exhibit 8 backs up everything I have said. On 03/05/2021 my car entered the car park at 12:29. There is not one record of payment by machine ("Metric") after that time. On 06/05/2021 no-one paid by machine ("Metric"). That is because the machine was Not in Use. Admittedly on both days some motorists were eventually able to get an Internet signal and paid on-line ("JustPark"). It would be interesting to see a list of those who were able to pay this way and those who were not due to the appalling Internet signal and who received a PCN. OPS have, unsurprisingly, chosen not to supply the court with this list. Another of OPS's wheezes is to issue PCNs to motorists who have paid on-line after eventually getting a signal but who did so after the 10 minutes after entry that they allow. it is perfectly possible that all those who paid on-line on those days also received PCNs. OPS are being dishonest with the court as nowhere in their Witness Statement do they mention the well-catalogued saga of four years of difficulties in effecting payment in the car park, that someone from their own trade association was unable to pay and that persuasive cases have gone against them due to Frustration of Contract. It is rather "rich" for OPS to complain that I used a template defence when paras 1-7 of their Witness Statement is cut & paste of issues not in dispute. In fact in para 26.ii. of their statement they say: "The Defendant could not have submitted a Defence with the detail it contains if the Particulars were so insufficient as to prevent them from understanding the claim". Obviously, pertinent "detail" would not be present in a "template". It is risible that they refer to the appeals system as "robust" - I made an appeal but they rejected it as they reject all appeals. It is not I who is wasting the Court's time. Double Recovery OPS has artificially inflated their claim for two £100 invoices to a total of £340, as well as claiming legal representative's costs. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...'' The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14. It is the Defendant’s position 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) Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Reading through it all now. Their own evidence of payment logs show the machine was knackered when you were there. A couple of extra paras in your WS wouldn't go amiss. Will suggest something in a mo.

It would be good if you could upload it this evening. I'm pleased to see that I for one am going away on a mini-holiday from early tomorrow morning so don't know how much free time I'll have after.

Use https://www.ilovepdf.com/compress_pdf

Spot on! I forgot that. The OP needs the letter to really get there though to avoid any chance of a backdoor CCJ.

Pernickety, but instead of A, B, C, etc, it should be Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, etc. In (2 x) there are some words to cut out. You need to tweak the numbering in "Conclusion". Are "timing belt" and "cambelt" the same thing? Forgive me, I'm the world's worst for being ignorant about what goes on under a car bonnet. If so, change "timing belt" in (2 iv) to be consistent. Apart from these tiny things, it looks fine to me - well done. It's quite a simple case for a judge. Was the cambelt knackered or not? If so, were your CRA rights respected or not? Anything you emphasise on these points is important. And you have done so repeatedly. In (6) add - "Clearly there was a serious problem with the cambelt as I have maintained all along, otherwise the defendant would not have replaced it". Your exhibit here needs to be numbered and added to the list. Any proof you have of the AA and the independent mechanic need to be included. I know you have no report. But anything to back up your story would be good. Receipts? Phone records? Name of independent mechanic?

The OP did that during their case NB, and the letter came back undelivered.

As you were ill, and it was a very short overstay, I'm wondering about contacting the retail park and asking them to get the invoice cancelled. Unfortunately I can't find a website or an e-mail address, but Google Maps does have a phone number +448081565533. Must be worth a try.