On behalf of the Claimant

Witness: Alan Vorhand

Statement no. 1
Exhibit 1 - 6
19/01/2024

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST. HELENS CLAIM NO: J0KF1P1T

BETWEEN: -

SPRING PARKING LTD

CLAIMANT
-V -

SUZANNE JANE LEIGH

DEFENDANT

THE FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF ALAN VORHAND

I, Alan Vorhand, of PO Box 77282, London, NW4 9LR, state as follows: -

1. I am employed by Spring Parking Ltd (“my Company”). I am duly authorised to make this Statement
on my Company’s behalf.

2. I make this Statement in support of the Claimant’s Claim and in response to the Defendant’s
Defence.

3. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless I state otherwise.
I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source is identified.
Facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

1
Parties

4. My Company provides private car park management services to private Landowners, to manage the
way motorists are permitted to park on their private Land. My Company does so by issuing Parking
Charge Notices to any Vehicle parked in a way the Landowner does not permit.

5. The Defendant is the recipient of a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by my Company. The
details are set out herein.

Accreditation

6. At all material times, my Company was accredited by the Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”)
known as the British Parking Association (“BPA”). The BPA has a Code of Practice (“Code”) that its
members are expected to adhere to, or otherwise face potential sanctions. My Company operates in
accordance with the Code.

7. In order to obtain Registered Keeper details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
(“DVLA”) my Company must be a member of an ATA. It is therefore essential for my Company to
comply with the Code.

Background

8. My Company issued a PCN (“Charge”) to the Vehicle (“Vehicle”) with details listed below: -

PCN No. Location (“Land”) VRN Issue Date Reason for Issue
912307168 Bridge Shopping Centre, WM13KOV 02/03/2018 Not displaying a valid
Maybrook Place, Knutsford pay and display ticket
Road, Warrington, WA4 1JR

9. At the time of issue, my Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to
manage parking on the Land. A copy of my Company’s agreement with the Landowner (“Landowner
Agreement”) is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 1”.

10. I refer to the recent decision in One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] (Wilshaw) whereby it
was found that it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove the Landowner’s authority to constitute a
valid cause of action to recover the PCN, what is required is proof that there is a binding Contract
2
 between the Claimant and the Defendant. Further, it was found in Wilshaw that the Contract between
the Claimant and the Freeholder (Landowner) does not affect the validity of any Contract between
the Claimant and the Defendant.

Contract

11. At the time of issue, my Company was prominently displaying signs on the Land setting out the
Terms of parking. A copy of the content of the signs is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 2”.
The signs formed the basis of the Contract with the Driver (“Contract”).

12. The following was a term of the Contract: -

“FREE PARKING FOR 3 HOURS

A VALID PARKING RECEIPT MUST BE DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES”.

13. In parking the Vehicle on the Land, the Driver accepted the Contract, with the license to park being
the Consideration. It is evident from the photographic evidence exhibited to this Statement at
“EXHIBIT 3” that the Driver failed to adhere to the terms of the Contract by parking as they did,
thus breaching the Contract.

14. The Contract provides that a charge is payable by the Driver upon breach, with payment falling due
within 28 days.

15. A copy of the affixed PCN is exhibited to this Witness Statement at “EXHIBIT 4”, and a copy of the
Notice to Keeper is exhibited at “EXHIBIT 5”.

Defendant’s Liability

16. Pursuant to the Contract; the Driver was liable to pay the Charge within 28 days of issue.

17. To make the Driver aware, a PCN was affixed to the Vehicle in accordance with Section 7 of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). Exhibited to this Statement at
“EXHIBIT 4” is a copy of what was affixed.

18. The Driver failed to make payment and as such my Company applied to the DVLA for the details of
the Registered Keeper and sent Notice to the Keeper compliant with Section 8 of POFA (see

3
 “EXHIBIT 5”). Paragraph 1 of POFA states that the Registered Keeper is presumed to be the
‘Keeper’ unless proven otherwise. Paragraph 4 of POFA gives my Company the right to recover
from the ‘Keeper’.

19. The Defendant does not dispute being the Keeper of the Vehicle. My Company reasonably believes
that the Defendant was the Driver because they would otherwise have nominated a Driver, and
therefore the Defendant is pursued on that basis. My Company has complied with POFA and can
pursue the Defendant as Keeper in the alternative.

Defence

20. The Defendant was afforded a 28-day period in which they could appeal and I am instructed they did
not. The potential next step was clearly communicated to the Defendant in notices. It is respectfully
submitted that if the Defendant genuinely believed the Charge had been issued incorrectly, they
would have engaged with the appeals process further.

21. If there was any doubt regarding their liability, the Defendant has had ample time to challenge the
Charge or request evidence in support. Despite correspondence being sent to the Defendant by a debt
collection agency and a ‘Letter of Claim’ being issued in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for
Debt Claims, no challenges have previously been raised.

22. The Defendant has filed a widely available templated Defence, rather than dealing with the
substantive issues. It is submitted the this is disingenuous and a waste of both the Court’s and my
Company’s time.

23. Notwithstanding the above, I respond to the issues raised in the Defence by way of sub-headings as
follows (as the Defence is quite repetitive, I will only deal with each point once, but for the
avoidance of doubt nothing within the Defence is accepted unless I specifically state otherwise): -

The Contract

i. The Defendant claims that there is no Contract between them and my Company. It is my
Company’s position that there is and the details of which are set out above; Parking Eye -v-
Beavis established that this form of Contract is perfectly workable;

4
ii. Further to the above, the Defendant alleges that my Company has no authority to bring the
Claim. The Landowner instructed my Company to manage the parking on the Land and issue
Parking Charges to any Vehicle found to be in breach of the Terms of parking. A copy of the
agreement can be seen at “EXHIBIT 1”. It is respectfully submitted that my Company has
the relevant authority to issue Parking Charges and bring Claims for such in the event the
charges remain outstanding. In any event, the Defendant is a third party to the Landowner
Agreement and privity of Contract applies;

Limitation Period

iii. The Defendant refers to the length of time passed between the contravention and the Claim
being issued. The limitation period for bringing this Claim is six years from the date the cause
of action arose pursuant to the Limitation Act 1980. No adverse inferences can be drawn from
the time taken for my Company to bring this Claim, because Court proceedings should only
be instigated as a last resort, and the Claimant has exhausted all other avenues by attempting
to communicate with the Defendant;

Defendant’s Allegations

iv. Within their Defence, the Defendant suggests that the signage is contradictory and confusing.
This is denied in its entirety. The issue of signage is addressed further within the ‘Signs /
Unfair Contract Terms’ of this Witness Statement;

v. It is addressed by the Defendant within paragraph 3 of their Defence that a ticket was
displayed within their Vehicle at the time of issue, however; it had “slipped down below the
visible portion of the windscreen”. The images shown at “EXHIBIT 3” demonstrate that the
Vehicle was not clearly displaying a receipt as required by the terms on the signs at
“EXHIBIT 2”. In any event, the responsibility is on the Driver to ensure that their receipt is
correctly displayed at all times for inspection;

vi. Further to the above, it is respectfully submitted that the Defendant cannot reasonably argue
that the signs were so confusing and contradictory that they were unable to understand and
comply with the same, whilst at the same time arguing that they had complied with the terms
by obtaining and displaying a receipt within the Vehicle;

5
vii. It is denied that the Landowner Agreement is “inadmissible” and “irrelevant” due to the date
of signing. The Landowner Agreement was signed on 05/06/2017, and section 12 clearly
states “This agreement is for an initial period of twelve months, and will continue thereafter
until terminated by either party upon one month’s written notice”. The PCN was issued on
02/03/2018 – just short of 9 months after the Landowner Agreement was signed, as such; it is
respectfully submitted that the Landowner Agreement is sufficient to cover the date of the
PCN being issued;

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

viii. The Defendant suggests that they cannot be pursued as the Registered Keeper as my
Company has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). This is
denied. My Company has complied with the requirements of POFA to pursue the Defendant
as the Registered Keeper;

ix. As evidenced within “EXHIBIT 3”, the PCN was physically affixed to the Vehicle at the
time of issue, notifying the Driver that the charge had been issued. A copy of the affixed PCN
can be seen at “EXHIBIT 4”. Notices were then sent to the address that the DVLA confirmed
was that of the Registered Keeper, which is the same address that the Claim Form was served
to. Copies of the Notices can be seen at “EXHIBIT 5”. The Notices afforded the Defendant
the opportunity to appeal the charge or nominate an alternative Driver, which they failed to
do. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant was put on notice of the charge and failed
to respond or pay;

x. Further to the above, DCB Legal also sent a ‘Letter of Claim’ compliant with the Pre-Action
Protocol for Debt Claims to the same address that Defendant has confirmed as their correct
address for service. A copy can be seen at “EXHIBIT 6”. The ‘Letter of Claim’ afforded the
Defendant 30 days to either dispute the matter or make payment. As no response was
received, a Claim was issued. If the Defendant believed they were being wrongfully pursued,
they would have made a greater effort to communicate this to my Company;

CPR Compliance

xi. The Defendant questions whether the Particulars of Claim comply with the Civil Procedure
Rules. I submit that the Claim was issued via the County Court Business Centre and in this
regard, I refer to Practice Direction 7E (“the PD”) which specifically provides the guidelines

6
 for doing so. I respectfully submit that the Particulars of Claim (“the Particulars”) are in
keeping with the PD. The following sections are of relevance: -

5.2(1) provides a limited character count for the Particulars of Claim; and

5.2A stipulates that the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents
to be attached to the particulars of Contract claims does not apply to claims started using an
online Claim form;

xii. It is my Company’s position that the Particulars were sufficient to allow the Defendant to
identify the subject matter of the Claim. 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. Further, with respect, if the Defendant were of the genuine belief
that that the Particulars of Claim were insufficient, the correct procedure would have been to
make an Application to the Court. The Defendant has chosen not to do so;

xiii. In addition to the above, I also refer to CPR 1 and respectfully remind the Defendant of their
obligation to deal with the case justly and at proportionate cost. Bearing in mind the Claim
amount, the Claimant has taken proportionate steps to recover the debt;

Amount Claimed

xiv. In respect of the Defendant’s allegation that the Claim is a penalty, my Company is not
seeking more than the original charge as the core debt. The core charge remains the same for
the PCN (i.e. £95.00); however, my Company is now also seeking further costs/damages;

xv. My Company is instructed to manage the Land, the Landowner agreement previously referred
to in this statement confirms this. My Company’s legitimate interest is to fulfil this obligation.
The Landowner’s legitimate interest in managing the Land is because it is a shopping area.
Because there is a clear legitimate interest/commercial justification, the same as that
established in ParkingEye -v- Beavis [2015], this case does not fall foul of the penalty rules
established in that case;

xvi. The amount charged is in line with the guidelines given by the ATA. Part 20.5 of the BPA
COP states “We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more
than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance”. It is my Company’s

7
 position that there is no requirement for the amount of the charge to bear any relevance to the
actual or potential cost of parking. The PCN is a fee charged by my Company for providing
the service and it stays within the guidelines given by the ATA. As with many other
‘services’; the service provider is entitled to charge as they deem appropriate;

xvii. The PCN was not paid within the prescribed 28 days or indeed at all. In view of this, the sum
of £60.00 is also claimed as a contractual cost pursuant to the Contract which states “Unpaid
PCN’s may be passed on to a debt recovery team and additional costs may be incurred”. The
Defendant was on notice of the fact that the outstanding amount may increase as a result of
any necessary debt recovery action. In support I draw the Court’s attention to paragraph 45 of
Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798 whereby, when considering contractual
indemnity costs, it was stated: -

“There is nothing … which enable[s] the rules to exclude or override that contractual
entitlement and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the Judge had the jurisdiction to
assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14”;

xviii. The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by my Company as a result of the
Defendant’s non-payment. My Company’s employees have spent time and material
attempting to recover the debt. This is not my Company’s usual business and the resources
could have been better spent in other areas of the business, generating profit. Had the
Defendant of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so
the amount due would not have increased;

xix. With respect of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015], whilst it is accepted the original charge is
designed to include the ‘operational costs’; this was with reference to maintaining the Land,
taking payment or sending the relevant notices. It was never intended to include the need to
pursue the debt in Court to recover it. If that were the case, it would override the Civil
Procedure Rules (allowing fixed costs and recovery of Court fees) which of course is not the
case. The Defendant has misunderstood the phrasing ‘operational costs’;

xx. The recent successful appeal in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] EW
Misc 12 (CC) (29 July 2020) found that the inclusion of the debt recovery charge in the Claim
does not fall foul of the decision of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, because that
was not the point in discussion in that case. The appeal also concluded that the inclusion of

8
 such a charge in a Claim of this type does not constitute an abuse of process that would allow
for the entire Claim to be struck out;

New Code of Practice (“COP”)

xxi. The Defendant makes reference to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities (“DLUHC”) and the ‘new’ parking code of practice originally published in
February 2022 within paragraphs 14 - 17 of their Defence. With respect, it is submitted that
this bears no relevance to the matter at hand as the code has not yet been enacted with the
current status of the code being ‘withdrawn’ as of June 2022;

xxii. Further to the above, the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the
Independent Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the
Defendant’s liability. With respect, nothing has currently been implemented by the
Government for my Company to adhere to (although this is of course pending). I respectfully
ask the question; would the Defendant have deemed it more appropriate for my Company to
not adhere to the COP(?). Referring to that Code is not ‘misleading’ – it is (at the present
time) entirely relevant and section 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] confirmed that;

Signs / Unfair Contract Terms

xxiii. The Defendant alleges that the signage is insufficient. The Terms on the signs at “EXHIBIT
2” were adequate in respect of overall size, font size, plain English, location and content, and
it is submitted they are adequate to constitute notice of the Terms to the Driver. If the
Defendant did not understand the Terms on the signs, they should have exited the Land and
found alternative parking;

xxiv. In the event that a Driver parks their Vehicle on Land in which they do not own nor have prior
authority to park, it is incumbent upon the Driver to ascertain whether there is a remedy to
prevent their unauthorised parking. It is reasonable to suggest that the Defendant should have
sought out the signage on the Land in any case if they were unsure of the Terms of parking;

xxv. The signs at “EXHIBIT 2” clearly outlined the Terms of parking and the Defendant was on
notice of the Terms upon entering the Land. By parking on the Land, the Defendant accepted
the Terms. These Terms state that a valid parking receipt must be clearly displayed, and that if
the Terms are breached, the Defendant agrees to pay a Parking Charge of £95.00. As

9
 evidenced within “EXHIBIT 3”, the Vehicle remained on the Land without clearly displaying
a valid parking receipt, therefore; the Defendant breached the terms and agreed to pay a
Parking Charge;

xxvi. In respect of the ‘terms’, as per Schedule 2 of the Consumer Right Act 2015, specifically
referred to: -

Term 6 – It is submitted the sum is not disproportionate for the reasons set out within the
‘amount claimed’ section of this Statement, nor is it ‘compensation’;

Term 10 – As is evident at “EXHIBIT 2”, signs were displayed throughout the Land. The
Driver was aware of the fact that parking was managed from the point of entering the Land
and could leave if they did not agree to the Terms. It is not unreasonable for the Driver to
need to potentially walk no more than 10 meters to fully familiarise themselves with the full
Terms. This would have all happened before the conclusion of the Contract;

Term 14 – The price is stated on the sign;

Term 18 – The fact the Driver was able to park means my Company fulfilled their
obligations;

xxvii. The Terms clearly stated what would happen if payment was not made: -

“Unpaid PCN’s may be passed on to a debt recovery team and additional costs may be
incurred”.

With no concession made in this regard, if a Driver ever does not understand the Terms on the
signs, they can exit the Land and find alternative parking. They are under no obligation to
park on the Land;

xxviii. The phrase ‘double recovery’ suggests the same amount is being recovered twice. This is not
what is claimed, as explained within this Statement;

10
Landowner Authority

xxix. Within paragraph 29 of the Defence, the Defendant again asserts that my Company has no
authority to bring the Claim. Paragraph 23.i of this Witness Statement is repeated in response.
In any event, the Defendant is a third party to the Landowner Agreement and Privity of
contract applies;

Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”)

xxx. The Defendant alleges that my Company has failed to offer an Alternative Dispute Resolution
(“ADR”). This is denied in its entirety. As outlined within paragraphs 23.ix and 23.x of this
Witness Statement, the Defendant was afforded sufficient opportunity to contact my
Company in relation to the PCN, however; they failed to do so;

xxxi. In the case of Link Parking Ltd v Mr David Ian Blaney & Michael Blaney (2017), DJ Pratt
stated “it seems to me, on the balance of probabilities, letter(s) do not go missing as a matter
of course, and, on the balance of probabilities, [the Defendant] would have received the
letter(s)”. The Notices and ‘Letter of Claim’ were sent to the same address that the Claim
Form was served to, which the Defendant evidently received as they filed a response to the
same. It is therefore reasonable to submit that had the Defendant genuinely believed the PCN
had been issued incorrectly, they would have submitted a response. It is respectfully
submitted that the Defendant was put on notice of the charge and failed to respond or pay;

The Defendant’s Costs

xxxii. The Defendant is requesting standard Witness costs for attendance at Court. The Defendant’s
entitlement to the relief claimed is denied in its entirety. The Defendant’s Claim is not
supported by any documentation to evidence the costs incurred. Costs are to be decided after
the determination of liability. Pursuant to CPR 27.14, costs are not ordinarily applicable to
small Claims. Notwithstanding the above, and without concession, the Defendant is put to
proof that the costs claimed are true;

xxxiii. It is denied that the Defendant is entitled to the cost of their time. My Company is pursuing
what is, in its opinion, a legally owed debt. The Defendant would not have needed to incur
any such costs if they had not breached the Terms or simply made payment upon receipt of
the PCN;

11
 xxxiv. It is denied that the Claimant has acted unreasonably and the Defendant has failed to explain
their reasons for alleging such.

24. In view of the above, it is my Company’s position that the Defendant breached the Contract as set out
in this Statement and as such the Defendant is liable.

CPR Costs

25. My Company claims the Claim issue fee, fixed costs pursuant to CPR 45, and the Hearing fee in any
event.

26. In the alternative to the contractual costs set out above, my Company reserves the right to claim
additional costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). This Claim was issued as a last resort, and given the
robust appeals procedure in place, should not have been necessary. It is my Company’s position that
this is unreasonable behaviour and it is respectfully requested that the Court considers whether they
conclude the same.

Conclusion

27. It is my respectful submission that the Defence is entirely without merit and as such it is requested
that the Defence is struck out and Judgment awarded in favour of my Company, payable forthwith.

28. I may not be able to attend the forthcoming Hearing. Should this be so, an advocate will attend on my
behalf. I ask that the Court accepts this as written notice pursuant to CPR 27.9(1). If I am unable to
attend, please decide the Claim in my absence, taking into account the advocate’s submissions, this
Statement, and any other evidence filed. This paragraph demonstrates my compliance with CPR
27.9(1)(a)-(b).

29. In the event an advocate does attend the Hearing, I request their fee be added to the amount sought.

12
13
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST. HELENS
CLAIM NUMBER: J0KF1P1T

BETWEEN:-

SPRING PARKING LTD

CLAIMANT

-V -

SUZANNE JANE LEIGH

DEFENDANT

“EXHIBIT 1” to the
First Witness Statement of
Alan Vorhand

DCB Legal Limited

Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG

Ref: 101454.12934d

Solicitors for the Claimant

14
15
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST. HELENS
CLAIM NUMBER: J0KF1P1T

BETWEEN:-

SPRING PARKING LTD

CLAIMANT

-V -

SUZANNE JANE LEIGH

DEFENDANT

“EXHIBIT 2” to the
First Witness Statement of
Alan Vorhand

DCB Legal Limited

Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG

Ref: 101454.12934d

Solicitors for the Claimant

16
17
18
19
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST. HELENS
CLAIM NUMBER: J0KF1P1T

BETWEEN:-

SPRING PARKING LTD

CLAIMANT

-V -

SUZANNE JANE LEIGH

DEFENDANT

“EXHIBIT 3” to the
First Witness Statement of
Alan Vorhand

DCB Legal Limited

Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG

Ref: 101454.12934d

Solicitors for the Claimant

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST. HELENS
CLAIM NUMBER: J0KF1P1T

BETWEEN:-

SPRING PARKING LTD

CLAIMANT

-V -

SUZANNE JANE LEIGH

DEFENDANT

“EXHIBIT 4” to the
First Witness Statement of
Alan Vorhand

DCB Legal Limited

Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG

Ref: 101454.12934d

Solicitors for the Claimant

28
 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE
Reference No: 912307168
Vehicle Registration: WM13KOV
Vehicle Make: FIAT
Vehicle Colour:
Observed Time: 02/03/2018 10:45
Date / Time of Issue: 02/03/2018 10:57
Issued By: OP000004
Location Code: 003735
Location:
Bridge Shopping Centre, Maybrook Place,
Knutsford Road, Warrington WA4 1JR
Issue Reason: 0054
Not Displaying a Valid Pay and Display Ticket
The vehicle was parked on private property in
contravention of the site parking restrictions as
displayed on the signage.
A PARKING CHARGE OF £95.00 IS DUE
WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE OF ISSUE
The reduced amount of £55.00 will be accepted if
payment is received within 14 days of the date of
issue. Failure to provide payment of the full
amount within 28 days from the date of issue may
result in the vehicle keepers details being
requested from the DVLA under the reasonable
cause criteria of recovering unpaid parking charges
and may be followed by further enforcement action
where our Debt Recovery Agent will be instructed
incurring additional
costs.
Appeals must be made in writing, to the postal
address below or by emailing
[email protected] within 28 days from
the date of issue and should be supported with
evidence. Any driver appealing against a Parking
Charge Notice within 14 days of the date of issue
will be given the opportunity to provide payment at
the reduced amount in the event that their appeal
is unsuccessful. Please allow 14 working days for a
response. In the event that your appeal is
unsuccessful you will be provided with details of
how to access the Independent Appeals Service
(POPLA). Please be advised that if you choose to
appeal to the Independent Appeals Service and
your appeal is unsuccessful then you will lose the
right to pay at the reduced amount. You can pay
or appeal this charge; you cannot do both.
PCN Enquiries: 0845 496 7275

Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms
First Name:
Surname:
Address:
29
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST. HELENS
CLAIM NUMBER: J0KF1P1T

BETWEEN:-

SPRING PARKING LTD

CLAIMANT

-V -

SUZANNE JANE LEIGH

DEFENDANT

“EXHIBIT 5” to the
First Witness Statement of
Alan Vorhand

DCB Legal Limited

Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG

Ref: 101454.12934d

Solicitors for the Claimant

30
 NOTICE TO KEEPER
DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE

Date: 4th April 2018

Parking Charge Details

Reference Number: 912307168
Mrs Suzanne Jane Leigh Vehicle Registration: WM13KOV
Issued Date: 2nd March 2018
48 Barley Road
Issued Time: 10:57
Warrington
WA4 2EZ Amount Due: £95.00
Payment options and instructions can be
found overleaf.

Dear Mrs Leigh

Payment for the Parking Charge Notice 912307168 is overdue.
Please pay the amount of £95.00 now.

We recently issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 912307168 to your vehicle because it was parked in a
manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at Bridge Shopping Centre, Maybrook
Place, Knutsford Road, Warrington WA4 1JR that we are authorised to manage by our client. This PCN
was issued on the 2nd March 2018 at 10:57 and has not been paid. The reason we issued the PCN to the
vehicle is as follows: Not Displaying a Valid Pay and Display Ticket.

In accordance with the signage that is clearly and prominently displayed on site, those drivers who break
the terms and conditions of parking are liable to pay a charge. We have requested your details from the
DVLA as the registered keeper of the vehicle (through the Reasonable Cause criteria of pursuing an
outstanding parking charge).

We, the Creditor, now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If
you were not the driver of the vehicle, you should notify us (in writing using the form attached) of the name
of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and pass this notice on to the driver.

You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this notice is
given – the amount of the unpaid parking charge specified in this notice has not been paid in full, and we do
not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, under paragraph
9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 we will have the right to recover from the
keeper so much of that parking charge amount as remains unpaid. The case will then be passed to our Debt
Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed. The overdue charge
will increase to £145.00 in the first instance of further action.

Operating in accordance with the British Parking

Association’s Code of Practice.

Payment Slip I enclose a cheque/postal

Return with payment to: Spring Parking, PO Box 746, Edgware, HA8 4PS order for the amount of :

£
Parking Charge Notice Number: 912307168
made payable to:
Spring Parking
Vehicle Registration: WM13KOV
Do not send cash in the post.
Notice Issue Date: 02/03/2018 31
 How to Pay Useful Information
You will need both the Parking Charge Following the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Parking Eye v Beavis, it has now been
Reference Number and Vehicle established that a Parking Charge Notice issued on Private Land is enforceable. The Court
Registration to hand when paying. rejected claims that such charges are extravagant, exorbitant or unconscionable and advised
that such charges act as a necessary deterrent for breach of contract. If you feel you have
Online sufficient grounds to appeal this notice, full details of the appeals process can be found below.
sp.eparking.co.uk Vehicle Hire Firms
If you are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was hired out at the time the parking took place,
Please follow online instructions. please let us know and provide us with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement
of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
By Phone Contesting this Parking Charge
0330 008 0454 In the event that you wish to dispute liability for this parking charge, within 28 days of the date
this letter was issued, please either write to:
Credit and Debit card payments can Appeals Department, Spring Parking, PO Box 746, Edgware, HA8 4PS
be made by calling our 24 hour or email: [email protected]
telephone line. All correspondence must include your full name, serviceable postal address, the name and
address of the driver, the vehicle registration and notice reference number, together with any
evidence which may support your position. All letters contesting a parking charge are carefully
By Post considered and replied to within 14 days. Charges are put on hold until an appeals decision has
been reached. In the event that your appeal is unsuccessful, you will be provided with
Please complete the Payment Slip on appropriate details enabling you to lodge an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service and a
the front of this letter and enclose a unique appeal reference. Please be advised that if you choose to appeal to the Independent
Cheque or Postal Order for the amount Appeals Service and your appeal is unsuccessful, you will lose the right to pay at the reduced
shown and send to the following amount.
address: Due to legal procedures, it is difficult for Spring Parking Ltd to submit verbal evidence before the
court. We therefore regret that we are unable to deal with telephone enquiries with regard to the
Spring Parking
issue of this PCN. All enquiries must be forwarded in writing. This charge has been lawfully
PO Box 746
issued and the collection process will be carried out in accordance with The Administration of
Edgware Justice Act 1970.
HA8 4PS
Data Protection
Please write the reference number and Spring Parking Ltd and its agents will process your information for the operation of their parking
vehicle registration on the back of all enforcement scheme. Processing may include the use of cameras to record data. Your
cheques and postal orders. information may be disclosed to, or requested from the DVLA. Records are made available to
Do not send cash by post. them thus ensuring the DVLA is satisfied that all data is expedited in the manner agreed and to
ensure security of storage and access so as to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Data
We will send you a receipt for your may be shared with third parties in relation to the issue of a PCN in order to assist with appeals.
payment if you request one. Spring Parking Ltd may also disclose data to a third party on the institution of legal proceedings.
If you believe your data has been used inappropriately, you should notify us immediately and
you can also notify the Information Commissioner and/or the DVLA by writing to the relevant
Contact us address shown below:
Phone: 0845 496 7275 The Information Release of Information
Commissioner’s Office England/Wales/Scotland
Spring Parking Wycliffe House Paying Enquires Section
PO Box 746 Wycliffe Lane, Wilmslow, DVLA
Edgware Cheshire, SK9 5AF Swansea, SA99 1AJ
HA8 4PS
www.ico.gov.uk www.dvla.gov.uk
Spring Parking Ltd - Registered in England & Wales: 07513006
Registered Office: 220 The Vale, London NW11 8SR

PCN Reference: 912307168 Vehicle Registration Number: WM13KOV

If you were not the driver of the vehicle stated when the contravention occurred, or you were the keeper of the vehicle stated when the
contravention occurred but it was in the possession of another person (either with or without your consent), please provide any information
that will lead to the true identification of the keeper/driver responsible by completing the following section and returning it to:
Transfer Department, Spring Parking, PO Box 746, Edgware, HA8 4PS within 28 days of this notice.
Please mark the statement(s) below that apply to you. At the time the contravention occurred, I confirm that:
I was the keeper of the vehicle stated, but the vehicle was Leased / Hired to the person named below. X
I was the keeper of the vehicle stated, but the vehicle was in the possession of the person named below. X
To the best of my knowledge, the keeper / driver (circle appropriate word) of the vehicle is the person named below. X
Name:

Address:

Post Code:

Your Name: Signed: Date: 32

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST. HELENS
CLAIM NUMBER: J0KF1P1T

BETWEEN:-

SPRING PARKING LTD

CLAIMANT

-V -

SUZANNE JANE LEIGH

DEFENDANT

“EXHIBIT 6” to the
First Witness Statement of
Alan Vorhand

DCB Legal Limited

Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG

Ref: 101454.12934d

Solicitors for the Claimant

33
 Direct House, Greenwood
Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn,
Cheshire, WA7 1UG

E: [email protected]
g
T: 0203 434 0424
DX
X:23457 Runcorn

DCB002/LBA-606/1090

Suzanne Jane Leigh

48 Barley Road
Warrington
WA4 2EZ

Our Ref: 101454.12934D

27 June 2022

LETTER OF CLAIM

RE: Our Client: Spring Parking Ltd

PCN Ref(s): Please see overleaf.
Amount Due: £155.00

We act for Spring Parking Ltd and write in respect of an unpaid parking charge notice(s) (“PCN”). This is a formal
Letter of Claim in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Basis of Claim
The vehicle with registration number WM13KOV ("Vehicle") was parked on private land ("Land") managed by our
Client. The signs displayed on the Land set out the Terms of parking (i.e. ”the Contract"). The Vehicle was parked
in breach of the Terms and as such the Contract was accepted and a PCN(s) was issued. You are liable as the
Keeper or Driver. The details of the PCN(s) can be found in the schedule at the bottom of this letter. Payment
was due within 28 days of the PCN(s) being issued but remains outstanding.

The amount of the debt is £155.00 which includes the PCN(s) and debt recovery costs. If a claim is issued, further
costs will be sought, together with accruing interest at 8% above base rate per annum pursuant to s69 of The
County Courts Act 1984.

Next Steps
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, you should either make payment using one of the methods detailed
overleaf or complete the Reply Form and financial statement. Failure to do so is likely to result in a claim being
issued without further notice. Please visit www.dcblegal.co.uk/response to complete and submit the reply form
and financial statement. You will also find an additional information sheet summarising your rights and
responsibilities under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Your attention is drawn to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and the Court's power to impose sanctions if you fail to
pay or respond. Any such failure will be brought to the attention of the Court when considering costs. Any
non-compliance with the Rules can increase liability for costs.

We suggest you deal with this as a matter of urgency to avoid a claim being issued. You you may wish to seek
independent legal advice from a Solicitor or other free money advice organisation.

If you would like a ‘dispute resolution call’ with our team, or a paper copy of the information sheet, reply form or
financial statement, please call our office on 0203 434 0424.

Yours faithfully
DCB Legal

34
 Ways to Pay

Online: Please ensure you quote

By card on the secure payment page
101454.12934D with any
www.dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/
payment
Bank Transfer: Post:
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441 By cheque or Postal Order payable to DCB Legal
Ltd:

Telephone: Direct House

Office Number: 0203 434 0424 Greenwood Drive
Opening Hours: Mon – Thur: 8am – 5pm Manor Park
Fri: 8am – 4pm Runcorn
Sat & Sun: Closed WA7 1UG

PCN Schedule
PCN Ref(s): 912307168

ISSUE DATE(S) LOCATION(S) REASON(S)

02/03/2018 Bridge Shopping Centre, Not displaying a valid pay and display ticket
Maybrook Place,

35
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST. HELENS CLAIM NUMBER:

J0KF1P1T

BETWEEN

SPRING PARKING LTD

CLAIMANT

-V -

Suzanne Jane Leigh

DEFENDANT

First Witness Statement of

Alan Vorhand

DCB Legal Limited

Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG

Ref: 101454.12934d

Solicitors for the Claimant

36