DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 36911--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 15, 2024, 7:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is an updated version of your suggested WS, which includes
some paragraphs about the redacted contract provided:
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE UXBRIDGE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
> [center]Between
>
> Hounslow Enforcement Limited
> (Claimant)
>
> - and -
>
> [Your Full Name]
> (Defendant)
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> WITNESS STATEMENT[/center]
>
> 1. My name is [Your Full Name], and I reside at [Address]. I
am the Defendant in these proceedings and this Witness Statement
is made from my own knowledge and research, and I confirm that
the facts stated within it are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
>
> PRELIMINARY MATTER - The Claim should be struck out
>
> 2. I respectfully submit that before proceeding with the
hearing, the Court should consider a Preliminary Matter:
striking out the claim due to the Claimant's and/or their
solicitor’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which
requires a concise statement of the facts. It is embarrassing
that the Claimant’s solicitor, a firm widely recognised for its
bulk litigation process of issuing thousands of poorly pleaded
claims each month, has once again provided inadequate
Particulars of Claim (PoC). In this case, the PoC are so
deficient that I, as the Defendant, was expected to prepare a
defence without a proper understanding of the facts and
allegations against me.
>
> 3. Dismissing the claim is the correct course, with the
Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms like
the notorious Gladstones with their well-documented connections
to the IPC Trade Body) should know better than to make little or
no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing
to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, they
should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims
based in the following persuasive authorities:
>
> 4. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024
[K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at
Manchester County Court, held that
>
> [indent]"It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule
that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a
defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character
limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many
characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display
permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080
character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars
of Claim."[/indent]
>
> The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-01 CPMS v
Akande judgment)
>
> 5. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on
15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, held
that
>
> [indent]"the particulars of the claim as filed and served did
not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance
upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for
breach of contract."[/indent]
>
> The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-02 CEL v Chan
judgment)
>
> 6. There are many other examples of similarly poorly pleaded
claims that have been struck out, both at allocation stage and
at hearings. (See exhibit XX-03 Other CPR 16.4 judgments)
>
> The basis of the defence
>
> 7. These are the woefully inadequate PoC as provided to me by
the Claimant through their solicitor utilising MCOL:
>
> [indent]"THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION ENTER THE
VEHICLE REG PARKED IN BREACH OF THE TERMS OF PARKING STIPULATED
ON THE SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT) AT NORTH HYDE HOUSE HAYES, ON
19/04/2023, 18/04/2023, THUS INCURRING THE PARKING CHARGES (THE
'PCN'S'). THE PCN'S WERE NOT PAID WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE. THE
CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN'S FROM THE DEFENDANT AS THE
DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE DEMANDS BEING MADE, THE
DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE
CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 PER PCN, £70.00 PER PCN CONTRACTUAL COSTS
PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TOGETHER
WITH STATUTORY INTEREST OF £15.14 PURSUANT TO S69 OF THE COUNTY
COURTS ACT 1984 AT 8.00% PER ANNUM, CONTINUING AT £0.07 PER
DAY."[/indent]
>
> 8. As evidenced, there is a lack of precise detail in the PoC
in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against me
such that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a). There is no precise or even concise factual
allegation made against me. There is no factual or legal basis
for the claim. It is not shown how the claim has been
calculated.
>
> 9. Should the court not agree that the claim should be struck
out, I respectfully request that the Claimant be ordered to
provide further particulars that, for the avoidance of doubt,
must:
>
> [indent](a) refer to and have attached to them a copy of the
contract (or contracts) between the claimant and defendant
relied on.
>
> (b) set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is
(or are) relied on.
>
> (c) have attached to them a copy of each of the Parking Charge
Notices (PCNs) which forms the basis of this claim.
>
> (d) must state by what method each of the PCNs was first
brought to the attention of the defendant. For example,
attaching it to the defendant's vehicle or sending by post.
>
> (e) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out the
reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant
was in breach of contract.
>
> (f) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out (i)
the full postal address of where the breach took place and (ii)
the precise date and time of the alleged breach and (iii)
exactly how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was incurred.
>
> (g) state, in respect of each PCN sued on, whether the claim
is (or is not) brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012.
>
> (h) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, must state
whether the defendant is sued as the driver of the vehicle or
the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (i) not state that the defendant is sued in the alternative as
the driver of the vehicle or as the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (j) state what amount of the claim is the claim for
non-payment of the PCNs and what amount of the claim is not for
non-payment of the PCNs.
>
> (k) must explain the factual or legal (or both) basis of the
claim for any amount claimed which is not for non-payment of the
PCNs.
>
> (l) set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory
interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest
started running.[/indent]
>
> Should the Claimant fully comply with the order and the claim
is not struck out, I should be allowed to provide an amended
defence based on all the facts provided by the order.
>
> Hearsay evidence
>
> 10. The Claimants 'witness' is a legal assistant employed by
the claimant’s solicitors and has no direct knowledge of the
actual events that form the basis of the claim. Any evidence
provided by this individual is second-hand, supposedly relying
entirely on information supplied by the claimant, and thus
cannot carry the same weight as testimony from someone who
witnessed or was directly involved in the incident.
>
> 11. While the Civil Evidence Act 1995 allows hearsay evidence
in civil proceedings, it is required to be given less weight,
especially when it comes from someone with no firsthand
knowledge. Furthermore, under CPR 32.2, the court has the
discretion to exclude hearsay evidence when it is of limited
probative value. In this case, the witness provides only
second-hand information from the claimant and cannot be
considered reliable or probative.
>
> 12. The claimant's Witness Statement (WS) fails to comply with
CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, as it does not
clearly distinguish between what the witness knows firsthand and
what has been provided to them by others. It is evident that the
individual providing the statement, being a legal assistant with
no direct involvement in the events, relies on information
provided by their client and lacks personal knowledge of the
facts. As a result, this statement amounts to hearsay, which
weakens its credibility. Further, the claimant's witness has
failed to indicate the source of any information and belief, as
required under PD 32.18.2.
>
> 13. The paralegal 'witness' does not work for the Claimants
company and therefore has no role in the operations, policies,
or specific events regarding the parking charge or this case.
This distance from the Claimants company further undermines
their ability to give a credible account of the facts.
>
> 14. The claimant's WS is written in the third person, which is
inappropriate for a witness statement. A WS should represent the
personal account of the witness and should be written in the
first person, as per CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.1,
which requires a witness to state their evidence clearly, in
their own words.
>
> No Offer of Parking and No Contract Formed
>
> 15. In paragraph 11 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the
claimant lists the "terms and conditions" displayed at the site,
which are all prohibitory terms such as "No Stopping," "No
Waiting," and "No Pick Up/No Drop Off." I submit that these
prohibitions cannot possibly form a contractual offer because
they do not offer any service or benefit to the motorist but
rather prohibit actions altogether.
>
> 16. For a contract to exist, there must be an offer,
consideration, and acceptance. The claimant’s signs, by their
own wording, prohibit any action (such as stopping or waiting)
rather than offering parking or any other service. This means
there is no contractual offer made to motorists, as no positive
action is proposed in exchange for any consideration (payment).
>
> 17. In legal terms, a prohibitory notice merely tells the
motorist what they cannot do, and therefore, it does not give
rise to any enforceable agreement or parking contract. It is
impossible for a motorist to "accept" a contract that does not
exist, as they are not given the option to do anything other
than leave. If the terms are simply prohibitions, there can be
no offer capable of acceptance, and thus no contract has been
formed.
>
> 18. As there is no valid offer or contract, no liability can
arise from any alleged breach of such "terms and conditions" and
the Claimant’s parking charge is unenforceable on this basis.
>
> Unenforceable Additional Costs
>
> 19. In paragraph 13 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, it is
stated that the signage provides for a "Parking Charge in the
sum of £100, plus additional costs if the same remains unpaid."
However, I submit that these "additional costs" are not defined
anywhere in the signage or contract terms allegedly relied upon
by the claimant, rendering them vague and unenforceable under
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which requires that contract
terms be both fair and transparent.
>
> 20. In the Particulars of Claim, the claimant has added £70
per Parking Charge Notice (PCN), claiming this as "contractual
costs as per the contract terms and conditions." However, these
additional costs are not referred to or specified on the signage
at the site. The claimant cannot impose additional costs that
are not clearly stated in the contract (assuming a contract even
existed, which is disputed). This lack of transparency violates
Schedule 2, Paragraph 10 of the CRA, which prohibits unfair
terms 'that have the object or effect of irrevocably binding the
consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real
opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the
contract.'
>
> Penalty Charge, Not Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
>
> 21. Furthermore, these additional costs appear to be arbitrary
and penal in nature. Under established law principles, such as
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], parking charges must either be a
genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially justified. In this
case, the additional £70 is neither justified nor explained.
>
> 22. The claimant has provided no breakdown or explanation of
how this amount was calculated or why it is appropriate. It can
only be viewed as a punitive charge designed to penalise the
defendant, which is contrary to established legal principles
that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties.
>
> 23. The claimant’s demand for additional costs of £70 per PCN
is entirely baseless. It is not supported by any clear
contractual term, it violates the CRA's requirements for
fairness and transparency, and it constitutes an unlawful
penalty charge. The court should strike out this portion of the
claim as unenforceable.
>
> No Evidence of Service of PCNs and Reminder Notices
>
> 24. In paragraphs 20 and 23 of the claimant’s Witness
Statement, the claimant asserts that the details of the alleged
contraventions were sent to me as the registered keeper of the
vehicle, and that I failed to make any payment or response.
However, the claimant has provided no evidence that these
notices were actually sent or that they were properly served.
>
> 25. I submit that the burden of proof is on the claimant to
show that they not only prepared these notices but also sent
them in accordance with the relevant rules of service, as per
Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 6.26. Merely producing copies of the
notices does not prove they were properly delivered or received.
>
> 26. The claimant has not provided any evidence, such as proof
of postage or a certificate of service, to confirm that the
notices were actually posted. Simply producing copies of the
notices does not prove they were ever sent. Without evidence of
proper posting, the claimant cannot rely on CPR 6.26 to claim
that these notices were deemed served.
>
> 27. Furthermore, I had not received any correspondence
whatsoever from the claimant until the County Court claim form,
despite my address being unchanged for the last 10 years. I have
always received other PCNs and promptly dealt with them, which
demonstrates that there is no issue with my address being on
record with the DVLA.
>
> 28. The claimant’s assertion that, because the claim form was
received, the PCNs and reminders must also have been received is
speculative and not supported by any evidence. It is entirely
possible that these documents were not sent, were misaddressed,
or were otherwise not delivered. The claimant must provide proof
of proper service, such as proof of postage or delivery, for
these notices. Without this, their claim cannot stand as the
basic pre-requisites for holding the registered keeper liable
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
have not been satisfied.
>
> 29. Additionally, the claimant seeks to recover legal fees and
other charges beyond the PCNs, yet there is no evidence that any
pre-action protocol (PAP), including a formal Letter of Claim,
was ever served. This lack of compliance with pre-action
procedures further undermines the claimant’s claim and the
additional costs they seek to recover.
>
> 30. I invite the court to strike out the claim on the basis
that the claimant has failed to prove proper service of the
PCNs, the reminders, and any pre-action correspondence. Simply
showing copies of these documents is not sufficient to meet the
burden of proof.
>
> Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to
Understand CPR and Legal Issues
>
> 31. In paragraph 23 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the
claimant’s legal representative — who, as already noted, has no
direct involvement in the events surrounding the alleged claim —
makes a wholly inappropriate and offensive assertion about my
ability to understand the complexities of the Civil Procedure
Rules (CPR). The witness claims, without any basis, that I have
relied on a "generic defence" found on the internet and implies
that I do not understand the references I have made to the law
and CPR requirements.
>
> 32. This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack.
The claimant's witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level
of education, professional background, or capacity to understand
legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly,
embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal professionals would
resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document.
As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the same
legal expertise as the claimant’s solicitors. However, I have
made every effort to research and present a reasonable defence.
The claimant’s solicitors, being professionals, should be held
to a higher standard of compliance with legal procedures,
especially with respect to the Civil Procedure Rules.
>
> 33. I respectfully remind the court that I am a litigant in
person. I have every right to research legal matters and use any
available resources to present my defence, just as the
claimant’s solicitors have evidently relied on templates for
both their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My
defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal
principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.
>
> 34. Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about
my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable
behavior on the part of the claimant's solicitors. Such conduct
is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than
address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this
behavior violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount
to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which
requires the parties to act justly and fairly.
>
> 35. I respectfully request that the court take note of this
unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The
claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than
focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly
on their conduct and should be considered when determining
whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the
proceedings.
>
> Claimant’s Assertion Regarding My Defence
>
> 36. In paragraph 25 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the
claimant asserts that I have been able to produce a "substantive
defence" and implies that I have not suffered any prejudice as a
result of the claimant's failure to provide detailed and
compliant Particulars of Claim (PoC). I respectfully submit that
this assertion is inaccurate and fails to appreciate the nature
of my defence.
>
> 37. My defence primarily relies on the fact that the
Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant were woefully
deficient and did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4,
as they failed to provide sufficient detail about the basis of
the claim. As a result, I was unable to understand the case
against me or adequately prepare a response to any specific
allegations.
>
> 38. The only substantive element of my defence, aside from
pointing out the deficiencies in the claimant's PoC and their
failure to comply with CPR 16.4, was to state:
>
> [indent]"I have no recollection of the reasons I would have
been at the location as this claim is the first communication I
have ever received on this matter."[/indent]
>
> 39. This is far from a detailed or "substantive" defence, and
it reflects my inability to provide a fuller response due to the
claimant's failure to communicate the alleged contravention to
me prior to initiating this claim. I have never received any
prior communication about this matter, either in the form of a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or reminder letters, as stated in my
defence. The claimant’s failure to serve any prior notice means
I could not reasonably provide a detailed account or explanation
of the circumstances of the alleged incident.
>
> 40. It is important to highlight that my defence is not
"substantive" in the sense that the claimant implies, but is
rather a reflection of the claimant's procedural failures and
their failure to provide me with any prior information about the
alleged breach. This has placed me at a significant
disadvantage, and the suggestion that I have not suffered any
prejudice as a result is clearly without merit.
>
> 41. The claimant cannot now seek to argue that their
inadequate PoC is excusable simply because I have pointed out
their legal and procedural failings. Their lack of compliance
with CPR 16.4 has severely hindered my ability to respond to
this claim in any meaningful way beyond disputing the receipt of
prior communication and highlighting their procedural errors.
>
> 42. I respectfully request that the court takes this into
account when considering the claimant's conduct and the impact
it has had on my ability to defend this claim.
>
> Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4
>
> 43. In paragraph 26 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the
claimant attempts to excuse their failure to fully comply with
CPR 16.4 by asserting that the information provided in their
Particulars of Claim (PoC) was sufficient to make me aware of
the nature of the claim. This is a feeble and unconvincing
attempt to justify their non-compliance, and I have already
provided evidence of recent persuasive cases where similar
failures led to claims being struck out.
>
> 44. As I have referenced earlier in this Witness Statement, in
CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that
vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential
details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s
PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking
crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged
contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting
evidence.
>
> 45. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued
reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court
giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer
the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v
Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as
evidence.
>
> Redacted Contract, Missing Signatories, Lack of Proof of
Authority, and No Evidence of Landowner Permission
>
> 46. In their evidence, the claimant has provided a redacted
copy of the alleged contract between themselves and
VapesDirect-UK Ltd, signed on 1st November 2020 for a term of 5
years. I wish to draw the court’s attention to the fact that key
details have been obscured, including the names, positions, and
signatures of the signatories to the agreement. This omission
raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the contract and
the authority of the individuals who purportedly entered into
it.
>
> 47. Further investigation has revealed that the business
operating at the location at the time of the alleged parking
contravention in April 2023 was not VapesDirect-UK Ltd, but
Anicres-UK Ltd, a separate registered company. The director of
both companies is the same individual; however, this does not
alter the fact that they are legally distinct entities with
different company registrations.
>
> 48. The contract provided by the claimant is solely with
VapesDirect-UK Ltd, which ceased operating at the location
sometime between 2021 and 2022, long before the alleged
contravention occurred. Anicres-UK Ltd, the company operating at
the location in April 2023, is not a party to this contract, and
no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the contract
was novated or assigned to Anicres-UK Ltd. As such, the claimant
has no valid contractual authority to issue Parking Charge
Notices (PCNs) at the location in question.
>
> 49. It is also important to note that neither VapesDirect-UK
Ltd nor Anicres-UK Ltd own the land in question. Both companies
are tenants at the location. The claimant has failed to provide
any evidence showing that either company had the necessary
authority from the landowner to enter into a contract with the
claimant for parking management. Without such authority flowing
from the landowner, the companies, as tenants, may not have had
the legal right to authorise the claimant to operate on the land
in the first place.
>
> 50. Although VapesDirect-UK Ltd was not placed into voluntary
liquidation until October 2023, this fact does not alter the
situation, as the business operating at the location had already
changed to Anicres-UK Ltd by 2022. The claimant’s reliance on a
contract with a company (VapesDirect-UK Ltd) that no longer
operated at the site in 2023 renders their authority to issue
PCNs invalid. The contract with VapesDirect-UK Ltd does not
confer any rights upon the claimant to issue PCNs on behalf of
Anicres-UK Ltd, and the claimant has provided no evidence of any
subsequent agreement with the latter company.
>
> 51. The redaction of the signatories and the absence of any
evidence showing that the contract was novated or assigned to
Anicres-UK Ltd prevents me, as the defendant, from verifying
whether the agreement was duly authorised by the current
business operating at the location. Moreover, there is no
evidence that either VapesDirect-UK Ltd or Anicres-UK Ltd had
the landowner’s permission to contract with the claimant. In the
absence of clear evidence of Anicres-UK Ltd authorising the
claimant, and no evidence that either tenant had the necessary
authority from the landowner, the claimant has not proven that
they have the authority to operate at the location and issue
PCNs.
>
> 52. Should the court hold an unredacted version of the
contract, I submit that this does not cure the claimant’s
failure to demonstrate their authority to operate at the
location, as no evidence has been provided to the defendant
showing that the claimant is authorised by Anicres-UK Ltd or the
landowner. The court is invited to strike out the claim on this
basis, as the claimant has failed to meet their burden of
proving they have the requisite authority to issue PCNs at the
location.
>
> 53. I submit that providing an unredacted version of the
contract to the court without providing the same to the
defendant would be insufficient to satisfy the requirement for
transparency and fairness in these proceedings. However, the
issue at hand is not simply the redactions but the complete lack
of evidence showing that the authority to operate flows from the
current business (Anicres-UK Ltd) or the landowner. In the
absence of such evidence, I respectfully request that the claim
be struck out for lack of standing.
>
> Conclusion: Claimant's Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof
>
> 54. The claimant, in their Witness Statement, has failed to
satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Despite
making various assertions about the alleged contraventions and
my supposed liability, the claimant has not provided adequate
evidence to support their claim. Specifically:
>
> 55. Lack of Evidence of Service: The claimant has not
demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), reminder
notices, or any pre-action correspondence were properly served,
as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Simply producing copies of
these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or
delivery, and their failure to provide such proof severely
undermines their claim.
>
> 56. Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4: As detailed earlier, the
claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are woefully deficient and
do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4. The PoC fails
to provide sufficient detail about the alleged contravention,
preventing me from fully understanding the case against me.
Recent persuasive cases, such as CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v
Chan [2023], demonstrate that such failures warrant the striking
out of the claim.
>
> 57. Inadequate and Speculative Witness Testimony: The
claimant’s Witness Statement was provided by a legal assistant
who has no personal knowledge of the events surrounding the
claim. Much of the testimony provided is hearsay and fails to
comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, which
requires the witness to clearly indicate which statements are
based on their own knowledge and which are based on information
provided by others. This undermines the credibility of their
evidence.
>
> 58. Invalid Contract and Lack of Authority: The claimant has
provided a heavily redacted version of the alleged contract
between themselves and VapesDirect-UK Ltd. However, this
contract is invalid for several reasons:
>
> [indent]The business operating at the location at the time of
the alleged contravention in April 2023 was Anicres-UK Ltd, not
VapesDirect-UK Ltd. These two companies are distinct legal
entities, and the claimant has failed to provide any evidence of
a novation or assignment of the contract from VapesDirect-UK Ltd
to Anicres-UK Ltd. Therefore, the claimant had no authority to
issue PCNs based on the original contract with VapesDirect-UK
Ltd.
>
> Additionally, both VapesDirect-UK Ltd and Anicres-UK Ltd are
tenants at the location, not the landowners. The claimant has
failed to provide any evidence that either company had the
necessary authority from the landowner to contract the claimant
for parking management. Without such authority flowing from the
landowner, the claimant’s contract lacks the legal basis
required to issue PCNs.[/indent]
>
> 59. Redacted Contract and Missing Signatories: The redacted
version of the contract provided by the claimant further
undermines their position. Critical details, such as the names,
titles, and signatures of the signatories, have been obscured,
making it impossible for me, as the defendant, to verify the
legitimacy of the contract. This raises serious doubts about
whether the claimant had proper authorisation to act on behalf
of either the tenant companies or the landowner.
>
> 60. Despite these significant procedural and evidentiary
failings, the claimant has unreasonably asserted that my defence
is "without merit." I strongly reject this assertion. My defence
has highlighted the claimant's failures to provide sufficient
evidence and comply with legal procedures, as well as their lack
of contractual authority to operate at the location.
Furthermore, as a litigant in person, I have made every effort
to research and present a defence that addresses the key issues
in this case, despite the claimant’s refusal to provide me with
clear and adequate information from the outset.
>
> 61. I respectfully request that the court dismisses the
claimant’s claim in its entirety due to the claimant’s failure
to meet the burden of proof and their failure to comply with the
requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court should also
consider the claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout these
proceedings when making any assessment of costs.
>
> 62. In the matter of costs, I ask:
>
> [indent](a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court,
pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
>
> (b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant,
seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5[/indent]
>
> 63. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from
this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of
Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is
liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance
(r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to
the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book
states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to
costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the
small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it
might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has
behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."
>
> Statement of truth
>
> [indent]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.[/indent]
>
> Signed:
>
>
> Date:
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 36923--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I
DIR By: bz.08
Date: September 15, 2024, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> As you have redacted the name of the client, are you positive
that the client is the landowner or an agent of the landowner?
If they are an agent, such as a management company, there does
not appear to be any evidence in that contract that they have
any authority flowing from the landowner to operate.
>
> Please confirm the name of the client or at least confirm
whether the client is the landowner or an agent of the
landowner.
>
--- End Quote ---
So the client is "Vapes Direct UK Ltd", they are the
shop/unit/warehouse right next to where it is alleged the driver
parked. So I assume it is their land. But what is interesting is
that based on Google Maps Streetview, their shop sign was
removed between 2021-2022 (see link below). It was replaced with
a sign for business "Anicres" - based on Companies House "Vapes
Direct UK Ltd" and "Anicres" are owned by the same owner but are
separate registered businesses.
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4970795,-0.399327,3a,31.3y,14.81h,88.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1x6JuR1zfFbcad6l4_xhyA!2e0!5s20210501T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
The alleged contravention was in April 2023. Not sure if this is
relevant at all but just thought I'd point it out.
#Post#: 36924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 15, 2024, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is relevant. If the contract is with one registered company
but that company is not the landowner because a different
registered company is the landowner, is important.
Looking at the Companies House records, Vapesdirect-UK Ltd is in
the process of being liquidated. They owe HMRC over £2.3 million
and only have assets of around £15,000 of which are likely to
realise £0.
Anicres UK Ltd with net assets of £96,000 is unlikely to be the
landowner. So, there is no evidence that the contract shown is
either valid or flows from the landowner.
I will make an amendment to the WS to cover this fact. Once that
has been done, please review it, change any necessary details
such as the claim number and your name and address where
applicable plus any reference to dates and then type your name
for the signature, date it and then save it in PDF format.
In which county court is the hearing supposed to be?
#Post#: 36925--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: bz.08
Date: September 15, 2024, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> It is relevant. If the contract is with one registered company
but that company is not the landowner because a different
registered company is the landowner, is important.
>
> Looking at the Companies House records, Vapesdirect-UK Ltd is
in the process of being liquidated. They owe HMRC over £2.3
million and only have assets of around £15,000 of which are
likely to realise £0.
>
> Anicres UK Ltd with net assets of £96,000 is unlikely to be
the landowner. So, there is no evidence that the contract shown
is either valid or flows from the landowner.
>
> I will make an amendment to the WS to cover this fact. Once
that has been done, please review it, change any necessary
details such as the claim number and your name and address where
applicable plus any reference to dates and then type your name
for the signature, date it and then save it in PDF format.
>
> In which county court is the hearing supposed to be?
>
--- End Quote ---
Interesting! I did not go as far as checking their accounts to
see the above. The hearing will be at Uxbridge County Court. I
will await your amendment before reviewing the WS.
Thanks again.
#Post#: 36928--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 15, 2024, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, I have edited the WS above and you only need to edit the
information I do not have into it and sign it. Create a simple
cover sheet with the same headers as the WS simply listing the
contents. List of exhibits (should only be the three
transcripts) and WS.
So, make sure that you have reread it and understand it. You
will have 5 PDF documents:
1. Cover sheet
2. Akande transcript
3. Chan transcript
4. Other judgments
5. Witness Statement
Those 5 pdfs are attached to an email which is sent to the
Uxbridge court at countycourtuxbridge@justice.gov.uk and also to
Gladstones. Both addressees in the "To" section. Also CC in
yourself so that you have proof of having emailed it.
The subject of the email should be "Hounslow Enforcement Ltd v
[your name] [claim number]". In the body of the email simply
state "Please find attached the Defendants Witness Statement
bundle for claim number [claim number] Hounslow Enforcement Ltd
v [your name]".
Please try to make sure that the formatting you use int he WS is
as close to as shown above. Ideally, use a san-serif font such
as Helvetica with at least 1.5 line spacing and decent margins.
Every page must have a page number on it.
If the resultant PDFs combined are larger than 25Mb then you can
put them through a free online PDF "files size reducer" such as
this one which will reduce the file size by at least 50% or
more:
Compress PDF
HTML https://smallpdf.com/compress-pdf?mu=b5Vg&utm_campaign=20932796081&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAoxWdI4TSdye_lbahz-qpq-5R9iAM&gclid=Cj0KCQjwi5q3BhCiARIsAJCfuZk_n-R7i7oCtntiJUciNSG6cR44-5Mzr8OP2Z1vPspVP7dqlLSh-KoaAvoBEALw_wcB
#Post#: 36930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 15, 2024, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If it's not too late... here is a link to an editable Word
format version of the document:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ikzbcl4eslmnxmukoyi9g/WS.docx?rlkey=17jlcl6zy2dhrbplwy12pko0c&st=8b6wccb1&dl=0
And if you're an Apple Mac user, here is a link to an editable
Pages version:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7s40br3o1lfwksf66dz70/WS.pages?rlkey=79lp1h6rap9jq816zjf68a5w9&st=0su552md&dl=0
#Post#: 36940--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: bz.08
Date: September 15, 2024, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> If it's not too late... here is a link to an editable Word
format version of the document:
>
>
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ikzbcl4eslmnxmukoyi9g/WS.docx?rlkey=17jlcl6zy2dhrbplwy12pko0c&st=8b6wccb1&dl=0
>
> And if you're an Apple Mac user, here is a link to an editable
Pages version:
>
>
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7s40br3o1lfwksf66dz70/WS.pages?rlkey=79lp1h6rap9jq816zjf68a5w9&st=0su552md&dl=0
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks a lot - I have until tomorrow afternoon but I will submit
this tonight as per your instructions above.
#Post#: 36941--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 15, 2024, 12:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you have deadline of 4pm tomorrow, I'd leave it to the last
minute. If you can, email it at 3:30pm.
#Post#: 37287--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: bz.08
Date: September 18, 2024, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> If you have deadline of 4pm tomorrow, I'd leave it to the last
minute. If you can, email it at 3:30pm.
>
--- End Quote ---
I sent it at 3:30pm sharp as you advised above.
The court replied an hour later asking me to submit the
documents physically as they collectively exceeded the 50 page
limit (I think the total I submitted was 52 pages or so). I just
reduced the font size slightly on the WS and this got it under
50 pages then resent to them.
Is there a typical timeline in terms of the court making a
decision on striking cases out before it gets to the court date?
Thanks again for all your help.
#Post#: 37316--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 18, 2024, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The limit is 25 pages/50 sides. As long as they have accepted
the bundle and you received an auto response email from the CNBC
when you sent it, that is all done.
There is no timeline. The case management judge will look at the
bundles and either order something, such as the request in the
WS for the Claimant to provide answers to all the questions
asked that have not been answered as required by CPR 16.4 or may
simply throw the case out or require everyone to attend the
hearing and face the consequences of their actions. How long is
a piece of string?
If it is chucked out before a hearing, it won't be a surprise as
Gladstones have a habit of irritating judges with their bulk
litigation failures. We'll see.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page