ok - so 1st draft below - a few tweaks needed and the full picture pack to be referenced in Section 1 which is to be added, but how's this for starters?
xxx & xxx Court
BETWEEN xxx (Claimant)
AND
xxx (Defendant)
Witness Statement of MR. xx
Introduction:
1. I, Mr xxx, am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2. In my statement, I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle, referring to page and evidence numbers where appropriate.
3. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case which is xxx
4. Sequence of events:
4.1. On the afternoon of xxx at appx. xxxhrs I entered the car park at West Quay Retail Park, Southampton, eventually finding a parking space outside of the xxx store.
4.2. As per the terms and conditions of parking, a parking ticket was collected from the parking ticket machine outside of the xxx store. There was a short delay in being able to get a ticket from the machine due to the numerous people waiting in front of me.
4.3. The valid ticket was issued at xxxhrs and usable for xxmins
4.4. Terms and Conditions placed above the ticket machine instruct that ‘a valid ticket is to be displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle.’ (T+C’s signage picture reference number xxx)
4.5. The valid ticket could not be placed on the windscreen as directed, as the ticket had no adhesive backing to be able to comply with the posted Terms and Conditions of Parking.
4.6. The valid ticket was placed on the dashboard of my vehicle in plain sight as per the instruction written on the ticket itself ‘Display clearly on dashboard this side up.’ (valid ticket picture reference number xxx)
4.7. On return to my vehicle at appx xxxhrs, it was noticed that a Parking Charge Notice was affixed to the windscreen of my vehicle. (valid ticket picture reference number xxx)
4.8. A short attempt was made to locate the parking attendant who had issued the Parking Charge Notice in order to show the displayed ticket they had clearly missed, but no parking attendant could be located.
5. An appeal was launched with the Claimant on the xxx where photographic evidence of the valid ticket was provided to the Claimant. The Claimant dismissed the appeal by letter dated xxx 2021 stating ‘The parking charge notice was issued to your vehicle because you failed to display a valid ticket. The signage in the car park clearly states that a valid ticket must be displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle. Although a ticket has been provided, it was not displayed as per the terms and conditions.’
6. Multiple attempts have been made to reason with the Claimant via email – namely that a valid parking ticket was gathered, that the ticket was clearly displayed in accordance with the confusing signage. (email pics dated xxxx21-4 to xxx)
7. Multiple requests have been put to the Claimant to provide photographic evidence of the vehicle dashboard – to date, none have been provided, only photographs of the vehicle windscreen. (email pics dated xxxx21-4 to xxx)
8. Following several months of a number of intimidating letters and emails from the Claimant including mention of additional costs, debt collection, court proceedings, CCJs and effects on employment, I received an N1 Claim Form on the xxx 2021.
Locus Standi:
9. The Particulars of Claim submitted by the Claimant state that claim is for “A breach of contract for failing to comply with the terms and conditions as displayed.”. It is contended that the Claimant is not the landowner and they do not have the authority from the landowner to bring claims in their own name.
10. The Claimant has failed to show any contract with the landowner which authorises them to bring claims in their own name.
Illegal Signage:
10. It is contended that the Claimant does not have planning permission for their signs which is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.
11. Checks have been made with the planning portal of Southampton council (will be confirming this tomorrow morning) , and no indication has been found of planning permission being granted.
12. The Claimant has failed to show any proof of planning permission.
De Minimus:
11. A valid ticket was provided and displayed. The Claimant suffered no loss. Multiple attempts have been made to communicate such proof to the Claimant.
12. The government’s private parking code of practice, set up following the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, states ‘6.2 Pay-and-display Where relevant obligations require the parking tariff receipt to be displayed in the parked vehicle, in addition to the information given in 6.1.2, the parking operator must ensure the information provided includes clear instructions on where the receipt is to be displayed. A thorough check through the windscreen and side windows of a parked vehicle must be conducted before a notice of parking charge is issued for non-display of a receipt by a parking attendant.’
Whilst the Code is being legally challenged on (a) the amount of allowed parking charges and (b) the addition of debt collection charges, it is not being challenged on this point.
13. It is contended that the instructions provided on where the receipt was to be displayed were conflicting and confusing.
14. It is contended that a thorough check through the windscreen and side windows took place and the ticket must have been seen.
Double Recovery:
16. As well as £50 legal costs, The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge (need to check amount) 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. (page 33, Exhibit 06)
18. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £XXX
19. Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.
20. 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 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. 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 £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. 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. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 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 v 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. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. 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 ParkingEye 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...''
22. 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.
23. 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)
24. The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
25. I invite the Court to dismiss this Claim in its entirety.
26. At the time of filing this Witness Statement, i.e. 3pm on 8 December, the Claimant, who is represented by professional solicitors, has not provided me with a Witness Statement. Although I am a Litigant-in-Person I have done my best to respect the Court's orders. The Claimant has not. I would respectfully request the Court not to admit any late Witness Statement eventually filed by the Claimant.
Statement Of Truth:
26. 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.
