CEL PCN ANPR Claimform - NHS Lease Car - Tenerife Buildings, Station Road, South Gosforth, Newcastle, NE3 1QD ***Claim Discontinued***

[FTMDave]

Good detective work.  Well done.

 

I see there are no photos of your car either.  They haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

What utter charlatans.  One of the stores is a take.-away pizza place.  I've had to wait loads of times over the years for 20 minutes at a take-away place at peak times.  The 20-minute limit is totally unfair, designed to entrap and as you and dx say was never given any PP. 

[FTMDave]

So it'll go up to £170, will it? 

 

Government Private Parking Code of Practice

 

Published 7 February 2022

 

9. Escalation of costs

 

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Open.

[FTMDave]

Well done on doing AOS.

Did the they send you a Letter of Claim?

As well as all their other mistakes, I see the charlatans are claiming legal representative's costs - despite representing themselves!

[FTMDave]

Go to  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-dec-2021/

 

Scroll down to  Q2) How should I defend?

 

There is our generic defence.  File it a couple of days before the deadline.

 

Given the idiocy of the fleecers in claiming legal representative's costs although they are representing themselves, I suggest you change (6) into (7) and insert a new (6).

 

6.  The Claimant is abusing the court process by claiming £50 legal representative's costs even though they have nominated no legal representative and indeed are representing themselves.

[FTMDave]

Yes, it is common as the courts are so overworked.

Just to be sure, have a look at the status of the claim on MCOL and paste here what you see.

[FTMDave]

I understand from your reported post that there have been developments in the case.

Please post here so everyone can see - and help.

[FTMDave]

Yep, time to start work on the Witness Statement.

Obviously the regulars will be happy to help.

[FTMDave]

Indeed.

As soon as I went to open the file with the cursor your real name popped up.

Well done dx.

[FTMDave]

I've had a quick look and have
  - moved some sections around to make the legal arguments flow better (thereby of course knackering the numbering)
  - cut out the stuff about there being problems with the takeaway order and with your child.  IMO that suggests you were responsible in some way.  No.  Having a  maximum stay of only 20 minutes outside a take-away restaurant is an unfair term, end of.  That's unless you intend to suggest some emergency
  - made some other suggestions in red.

In the County Court of Newcastle upon Tyne

Claim Number

Between

Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

V

XX (Defendant)

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XX

 

INTRODUCTION

1.      I, XX 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 reference numbers where appropriate.

3.      I am the hirer of the vehicle in question in this case which is XXXXX.

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

4. On January 28, 2022, at 17:35, I parked my vehicle in the "Tenerife Buildings" car park with the intention of retrieving pre-ordered food from the takeaway located on Station Road.

5. On March 3, 2022, I was notified via email by NHS Fleet Solutions that they had handled a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and subsequently shared my information with the Claimant. (Appendix 1). NHS Fleet Solutions do not keep details of PCN charges.

6. On March 18, 2022, I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by mail, dated March 14, 2022 (see Appendix 2). The PCN indicates the violation as "Maximum 20 minutes free parking" at Tenerife Buildings, Station Road NE3 1QD. According to the PCN, the vehicle in question was parked during the period from 17:35:44 to 18:07:29.

7. After enduring a series of intimidating letters from the Claimant spanning over 12 months, which included references to additional costs, debt collection, court proceedings, CCJs, and potential repercussions on employment, I was served with an N1 Claim Form on the 24th of April, 2023. (see Appendix 3)

NO HIRER LIABILITY

8.      The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 14 [2] states:

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b) a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;

9. The documents required from Section 13[2] are

(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b )a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

I did not receive any of those documents nor a copy of the NTK sent to the keeper.

Instead I  received a new NTK  giving me 28 days to respond as opposed to receiving a Notice to Hirer with 21 days to respond.

10. I respectfully submit therefore that as the Creditor has failed on every point to comply with the Act that they are precluded from recovering any of their charges from the Defendant.

UNFAIR TERM

11.   The signage at the entrance (referenced in Appendix X) does not constitute a contract but rather extends an "invitation to treat." In the event the claimant asserts a breach of contract, it is imperative to invoke the Unfair Terms in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This legislation stipulates that an unfair term in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier is not legally binding on the consumer. In the context of a parking ticket, should a term be deemed unfair, the parking company may be precluded from enforcing it.

12.   Article 62(4) explicitly states that a term is unfair if, in contradiction to the principle of good faith, it results in a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Article 62 further declares that unfair terms shall not be binding on the consumer.

13.  To allow only 20 minutes' parking outside a food takeaway is an unfair term.  Anyone who has ever ordered takeaway food will have experienced delays at peak times which indeed occurred in this case.  The driver did not abuse the car park or leave the area, they only visited the takeaway restaurant.

14.  The Claimant's signs mention that the 20 minutes can be extended if motorists "register for a permit in one of the stores".  No details are given about how to apply for this permit nor were any on display in the takeaway.  Nor does it seem that obtaining this slippery, non-existent permit would have stopped the issue of a PCN anyway as PCNs are sent according to ANPR time capture.  It is ludicrous to expect someone in a queue to pick up takeaway food to be looking at their watch and then deciding at what point during the allowed 20 minutes they should stop simply waiting and instead apply for a permit from the hard-working staff.  It seems that the Claimant is not interested in sensibly managing a car park but rather in inventing unfair terms which motorists will inevitably break and so the Claimant can issue their PCNs.

15.   Moreover, there exists considerable ambiguity, as the driver had the opportunity to renegotiate terms (as indicated by the signage) with the shopkeepers. The Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are not privy to, nor can they override, any conversation and agreement the driver may have had with the stores.

16.   In alignment with the guidance on writing fair contracts provided by gov.uk, contract terms and notices are generally deemed unfair if they place the customer at an unjust disadvantage.

CONSIDERATION & GRACE PERIODS

17.  The "overstay" was 11 minutes and some seconds.

18.  The Government Code Of Practice, set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019,. states a consideration period of at least 5 minutes to read the signs and a grace period of at least 10 minutes to leave the car park.

The Code is currently being challenged on the maximum amount that parking charges can be fixed at, and regarding debt collection fees - it is not being challenged on the matter of grace and consideration periods, or on any other grounds.

The driver respected these times.  They did not overstay.

19.  A grace period is also used by the British Parking Association CoP and the International Parking Community CoP  both of which allow for a minimum of 10 minutes.  The IPC allows a consideration period of a ‘reasonable time‘ which is surely one minute.  Again the driver respected these times.  They did not overstay.

20.  The BPA, which is the Claimant's trade association, does not allow a consideration period if the motorist then parks, which is absurd as motorists need time to read the signs.  If this madness is accepted, then the overstay was one minute.

DE MINIMIS

21.  In any case, arguing about an  "overstay" of 60 seconds, which is not considered an overstay in two national Codes of Practice, but may arguably be an overstay in a third, is legally "de minimis" and a waste of the court's time.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

22.   I possess written confirmation (refer to Appendix XX) indicating that the signage within the parking area did not comply with the standards set by the local authority, rendering it unreasonable. Under the Town and Country Planning Act of 2007, obtaining planning permission is mandatory for the installation of permanent signage exceeding 0.3 square meters, as is the case in car parks. My thorough search of the local authority's planning applications register, spanning from 1986 to the present, revealed no record of applications or permissions for car park signage or the installation of ANPR cameras at the Tenerife Buildings.

23.   An email communication from the Planning Enforcement Department affirmed that these signs indeed necessitated planning permission. Notably, there are currently no approved or pending applications for such signage. According to Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, exhibiting an advertisement in violation of the Regulations constitutes a criminal offence. The photographic evidence of the signage surrounding the Tenerife Buildings (see Appendix xx) underscores that these signs are in place without proper consent, rendering them illegal advertisements.

24.   Based on the aforementioned details, I firmly believe that the Claimant should not benefit from this illicit act, aligning with the principle "ex dolo malo non oritur actio" (RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd. v. Bracewell (2015).

25.  Moreover, the absence of planning permission for said signage implies that CEL is in breach of the Code of Practice established by the BPA, which mandates adherence to all legal requirements in conducting parking operations. Consequently, this raises serious doubts about their entitlement to seek motorists' data from the DVLA.

DOUBLE RECOVERY

26.      The Claimant is misusing the court proceedings by asserting a claim for £50 in legal representative's costs, despite not designating any legal representative and, in fact, representing themselves.

27.  In addition to £50 in legal costs, the Claimant pursues restitution of the initial £100 parking charge and an extra £70. No further rationale or itemised breakdown has been supplied, as mandated by Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (refer to page 33, Exhibit 06). Unless the Claimant can provide clear evidence substantiating the purported additional costs, it may be construed as an effort to seek double recovery.

28.      In previous instances related to parking charge cases, legal precedent, as established in Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, dictates that the parking charge itself encompasses the costs of recovery. The authoritative ruling in this case concluded that the specified sum (£85), or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm, is designed to cover all associated costs, including those related to an automated private parking business model. The Supreme Court emphases that a parking firm lacking possession cannot assert any part of their case in damages.

29.      Since 2019, numerous County Courts have deemed claims exceeding £100 as an abuse of process, leading to their immediate dismissal. For instance, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies (case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019), District Judge Jones-Evans explicitly warned against such claims, stating that they are unenforceable in law and constitute an abuse of process. The court's declaration specified that any claim exceeding £60 would be treated as a penalty, echoing the decision in the Supreme Court v Beavis.

30.      In landmark judgments in November 2019 (Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby), courts further reinforced the principle that claims extending beyond the parking charge itself are considered an abuse of process. Judges highlighted that any additional charge, not explicitly specified on signage and not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, constitutes an abuse of process.

31.   Moreover, the inclusion of costs not clearly specified on signage is deemed a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically violating paras 6, 10, and 14.

32.  The Defendant contends that the Claimant knowingly submitted inflated costs, and therefore, the entire claim should be struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4). The Defendant asserts that the Claimant should have been aware that claiming in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis case, the Protection of Freedoms Act, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Relief from sanctions, in this case, should be refused.

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.

 Signed: ……………………………………… Date:……………………………………………

Edited January 11 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

I've had a go with a new section Consideration & Grace Periods.

TBH I'm too knackered to do it properly now.  Fortunately the weekend will soon be upon us. 

I also think a No Locus Standi section is in order - did you send them a CPR request after you received the claim form?

[FTMDave]

WS updated with LFI's magic on POFA.  A few of my typos changed.  Numbers unknackered.  Changes in red.

I'll have a good read of the other thread you spotted.  Good detective work.

[FTMDave]

Yes!

Well done on your victory! 

I was just about to read laluna88's thread and noticed they bottled that case too.

You're right to check with the courts.  Can you also upload the Notice of Discontinuance they enclosed?

Thread title updated with "CEL wet themselves yet again" to show your victory (not really, but I was tempted!)

 

[FTMDave]

An utter pants case with an absurd limit of only 20 minutes?

[FTMDave]

Even though CEL ran away with soaked underpants I've done some tweaking with the WS - it may come in useful for others in the future.