Hello all Today we received another WS from the Claimant, identical to the last except for the date the WS was signed. The first WS dated 11th Oct signed and dated on 10th Oct (printed electronic signature) and today's WS dated 23rd Oct signed and dated 9th October. Is this normal practice? Am I missing something? Thanks

Thanks EB. Yes changed that as Shamrocker pointed out earlier. I get your point re the novel. I guess we were just trying to make sure all points were covered. Docs dropped at court and sent to Gladys. Thanks for your help.

Have also added in para below: 15.1 The Driver paid for one hour of parking, there is minimum of 10 minutes grace period but no maximum, allowing for time to review all of the different signs and then allowing time to exit the car park taking into account other traffic/queuing cars, 15 minutes is not wholly unreasonable.

Hey all. Have spent the morning re-reading a few of the other threads and I think we're good to go with this WS (after Shamrockers suggested amends...thanks). Conscious we need to get this in the post today so will print and send. Thanks again for help, you guys must get fed up of all of us 'newbies' with all the questions.

Perfect. Thanks Shamrocker. Much appreciated. Will amend

EB should we include Elliot v Loake case in the WS ad an exhibit also?

Thank you all! Here is a second draft of his WS which focuses mainly on the Driver/Keeper aspect and loosely on the signage/contracts/planning aspects. I look forward to your comments....erm actually I don't really, I'm a tiny bit scared Need to get this to court ASAP and post to Gladrags!! :-0 WS Redacted Draft 2.pdf

Thanks brassnexked and shamrocker. Yes read up on Elliot v Loake and saw the reasoning behind the presumption and how it doesn't apply here. Will have to tackle each point in turn...feeling a bit bogged under after reading WS after WS!

Thanks Shamrocker. we're drafting a more succinct WS and trying to address their points one by one. Fast losing the will to live!

Ok so current pictures: Looks like car park is now being managed by UKCPM? All signs have changed. None of the old signs remain. Is this something I can still use in the WS if the car park is indeed now managed by a different company? Thanks Witness Statement from HXCPM: claimants_ws.pdf new signs pix .pdf

Yes EB, going back to take pictures of new signage and will take a close up of the sign you mention also.

Thanks EB I am waiting for my tech savvy husband to get me the pictures which are no longer on my phone but on an external hard drive.....I will get them up ASAP. In the meantime you can see the car park signs here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119328 Incidentally, I drove past the car park recently and saw that they now have new signs up by the machine. Huge big white one. Have received the WS from 'Claimant' today so it seems they will be pushing ahead. Will upload WS from them which also includes their car park plan. Car park pictures: Court fee has been paid. GRRRRR! pix.pdf

done: 10. Without any exact details regarding the alleged overstay, the Defendant can only assume that 1 hour of parking was paid for and the alleged overstay amounted to 15 minutes. Allowing for the minimum grace period of 10 minutes to read the signage, it is not unreasonable to take up to 15 minutes grace period to consider the parking terms since there is no maximum limit and also considering that there can be any number of reasons which could cause a delay in exiting a car park, cars queuing, time to get in the car etc. As such it is wholly unfair to impose such an inflated penalty on the driver in these circumstances.

Hi DX, Contract pics as per above: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/i5sekn8muy6evn1/AABFTpj4WYoX2G17d6vNHH9aa?dl=0 Thread to which it relates: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5703773&page=2#topofpage About to look at it properly now.... Hi EB, CPR request was done a few months back, obviously got nothing back. Called council, they're utterly useless....can't be put through to speak to planning waiting for a call back. Have emailed requesting any and all planning docs relating to the site....waiting for response. Have added in following to WS: 10. Without any exact details regarding the alleged overstay, the Defendant can only assume that 1 hour of parking was paid for and the overstay amounted to 15 minutes. Allowing for the minimum grace period of 10 minutes to read the signage, the alleged overstay equates to 5 minutes. There can be any number of reasons which cause a delay in exiting a car park, cars queuing, time to get in the car and as such is wholly unreasonable to impose such an inflated penalty on the driver in these circumstances. 11. There is a distinct lack of signage upon entry to the Car Park. The signage itself cannot be read from a seated position in the car. The Defendant returned to the car park and took photographs of the site and machine. The sign on the machine itself is completely different to the signs displayed in the car park and mention no penalty charges. Exhibit XXX thanks!!

Of course. Good point! Max stay is Two hours. Although signs on the walls are different to what's on the machine itself. I took photos so will dig those out. Also found a similar 'case' on another forum, also with hxcpm, which has images of the 'contract'between O&C Property Management and HXCPM. I'm not entirely sure if O&C own the land or just 'manage' it. Haven't looked at it properly. My brain hurts. Will resume tomorrow. Thanks DX don't know where we'd be without you all!!

Have tried many times to view planning consent online but can't find it anywhere. I'm not great at this can you tell???? But while searching saw this! https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-parking-firm-fining-people-14790956

understand completely, problem is, Keeper genuinely doesn't know who was driving the car that day! Me neither. It was two days before an epic journey to NZ, the house was teeming with bodies bidding farewells! :-0

Hi HB Ntk states duration 75 mins. Signs say 1 hour 50p, 2 hours £1

NtK doesn't state the length of alleged overstay? Only total number of minutes of stay or am I just blind?

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXXXX CLAIM NO: XXXXXX BETWEEN HX CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED CLAIMANT V XXXXXX DEFENDANT WITNESS STATEMENT I, XXX of XXX, am the Defendant in this case. The facts in this case come from my own personal knowledge except where indicated otherwise. I have included documents within this witness statement referenced with page numbers beginning with XXX. This witness statement is made in readiness for the hearing on XXX in defence of the Claimant’s claim. 1. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise, that the car was indeed parked on the site in question. 2. It is unclear if the Claimant is pursuing the Driver or the Keeper. 3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the Keeper of the Vehicle XXX on XX November 2017. 4. It is denied that the Defendant was the Driver of the Vehicle XXX on XX November 2017, the Claimant is put to strict proof. A letter from the Defendant’s place of employment confirming the Defendants whereabouts on the date of the alleged breach is included as Exhibit XXX. 4.1 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 Keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). A copy of the schedule included as Exhibit XXX. 4.2 Before seeking to rely on the Keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that: 4.2.1 There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and 4.2.2 That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the Driver to the registered Keeper. 4.2.3 The Notice to Keeper (“NtK”) does not include 9(2)f from Schedule 4, which is the mandatory warning about keeper liability after the prescribed 28 day period so the conditions are not met for purposes of paragraph 6. Therefore according to POFA, the Defendant cannot be liable as the keeper for the alleged debt of the driver. 4.2.4 To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, 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. A copy of s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 included as Exhibit XXX. 5. The Defendant did not enter into any ‘agreement on the charge’. No consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. 6. HX Car Park Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim. 6.1 The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. 6.2 The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question. 6.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. 7. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. Exhibit XXX 8. The Claimant has not provided enough details in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract that it is alleged was broken have not been provided. 8.1 The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt. 8.2 The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred. 8.3 The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the PoC. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action. 8.4 The PoC claims ‘The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle’ There is no clarity under which of these the Defendant is being pursued. 8.5 The Particulars of Claim contains insufficient detail and fails to establish a cause of action that would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing a cause of action. 9. The Claimant is in breach of its pre action obligations as set out in the Practice Direction. No information or documents have been provided to the Defendant despite requests from the Defendant on two separate occasions. Exhibit XXX 10. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstone’s Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct. 11. 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 or 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. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant. Indeed, The Defendant received correspondence from Gladstone’s Solicitors referencing their Client ‘XXX Management Limited’ which is not in fact the client. Exhibit XXX 12. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support. 13. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. 14. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Exhibits XXX and XXX **** as per your above comments DX i'm guessing these exhibits are not needed? **** I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Thanks DX. Sorry....the stress is getting to me now, feel like the world is out to get us at every turn...bad weekend! Perfect, will redact the witness statement and post for review in the morning. Again, thanks for your help.

I really appreciate everyone's help on here, but sometimes I think posters can be a little rude. I'm always careful about my tone and the language I use, maybe you could afford me the same? The dates refer to the fee payment deadline...it was 5th oct but was extended to 12th oct. Court date 2nd Nov thanks

perfect thanks DX court date 2nd nov so in post by 17th??

nope not been advised that before....court said to email. Will only send hard copies! Thanks Is it wise to post the WS here for review?

I thought MCOL stayed 'live' until case had been heard. My mistake. Thought that was where he could check if and when court fee had been paid? Needed pdf 16.4 as part of WS 'exhibits" so WS could be submitted via email in addition to hard copy.