IN THE County Court at Swansea

CLAIM NO: C7GF9Q8H

Link Parking Limited

(CLAIMANT)

-AND-

EVE WARLOW

(DEFENDANT)

____________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF Martin Gardner

____________________________________

I, Martin Gardner, of 47 William Sparrow Works, Bower Hinton, TA12 6LG WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am the Director of the Claimant Company (my Company) and I am duly authorised to make
this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own
knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information
supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from
other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant
Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the
Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
GLENAUB HOUSE
910210061 17th May 2016 MANAGEMENT CO - Not Clearly Displaying a Valid
GROUND FLOOR OFFICE Permit
OLD SCHOOL ROAD
PORTHCAWL CF36 3AW.

Defence

3. The Defendant is keen to use numerous County Court decisions as a precedent in this case. I
didnt know this was permitted, but if it is Id also like to bring a number of cases where my
Company has obtained Judgment at a hearing on the Relevant Land to the Courts attention. I
have attached a schedule of the other cases (Schedule A). There are many more cases where
charges have been paid without fuss and the motorists have accepted why the charges were
issued & why the parking management scheme was necessary.

No authority to enforce charges

1
4. My Company acts as principal in the contract with the motorist on the Relevant Land. However,
without concession, I have set out below how my Company came about operating there.

5. As a result of the above, in February 2015 my Company was instructed to manage the Relevant
Land and signs were erected. The agreement was finalised in writing and is attached at Exhibit
MG1. Patrols begun on 16 February 2015.

6. In view of the above, each of the tenants at the properties (or in the odd case, the owner
occupiers), were sent notification and a permit. Signs were erected on the Relevant Land and a
copy of the sign, together with a site plan are attached at Exhibit MG2.

7. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the
authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and
Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a
right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a
parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any
event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences
my Companys authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the
Landowner.

8. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186

1. The Upper Tribunals reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have
the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not
have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious
flaw in this reasoning.

2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to
perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.
If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock
market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they
do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the
contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract
of sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to
contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to
perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and
Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held
to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would
not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in
precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the
land.

Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on
the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to
enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a
contract with the motorist to permit parking.

9. The Defence fundamentally ignores the fact that there are two distinct relationships;

2
 i. The relationship between my Company and the Landowner/ person with the best
title (Relationship 1)
ii. The relationship between my Company (acting as Principal) and the motorists
(Relationship 2)

10. Without concession, if at any point my Company was failing to comply with its contractual
obligations with the Landowner, or if indeed it had no contractual relationship with the
Landowner at all, then that would be a dispute between it and the Landowner. It would bear no
relevance upon the contractual relationship between my Company and the motorist.

11. The Defendants allege to have had permission to park in the residents bay to unload items and
relies upon the lease agreement. I have not distinguished these as;

a. Without concession, Ive seen no evidence of the alleged consent;

b. If the resident of the bay had consented, I have seen no evidence of their right to do so;

The Permit

12. The Defendant refers to the wording on the back of the permit. Without concession, the contract
between my Company and the Defendant is the sign and not the permit.

Tenancy Agreement

13. The Defendant states that it is her son who is a tenant of the building and that she was visiting
him the day the charge was issued. The Defendant refers to parts of the Tenancy Agreement
however she has failed to provide a copy.

14. Notwithstanding the above, without concession, even if the Defendants son had any rights, their
right was varied at the point he was advised parking rules were to be introduced. In any event,
without concessions the Defendant cannot oppose this variation as they are not a resident. This
would be the tenants right.

15. In view of the above, I submit that my Company was asked to manage the Relevant Land and
managed it as principal, not agent. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable for the parking charge.

The signs

16. The signs and the site plan are independently audited and approved by an Accredited Trade
Association, the International Parking Community. It is rejected that the signs are at an
inappropriate height. The photographs evidence that the sign was within eye-level/eye-sight of a
motorist.

17. It is also rejected that the signs are forbidding for non-permit holders. The sign offers all
motorists to park on the Relevant Land and those who park not in accordance with the terms on
the signs agree to pay a charge of 100.00.

Unfair/immoral/unethical

18. The Defendants opinion on the fairness of the parking charge cannot impact their liability to
pay. Quite simply, in parking in the manner they did, they understood a charge would apply. My

3
 Companys charges are issued in accordance with the guidelines set out by its trade association
and are industry standard.

19. Paragraph 108 of the Judgment in the recent Supreme Court case of Parking Eye and Beavis
(2015) said the concept of a negotiated agreement to enter a car park is somewhat artificial but
it is perfectly workable provided one bears in mind it is objective In our view a reasonable
motorist would have agreed to the term. I submit that the term in my Companys contract was
no more, or no less unreasonable than that in the ParkingEye case.

Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered

20. The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy my Companys
legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an 85.00 charge was
neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking
operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of
100. My Companys charges are within this level. The charge is not, therefore, excessive.

21. The recent decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor
do they have to be reflective of the parking operators loss. Furthermore, they are they are
entitled to be at a level that provides a deterrent effect.

The Current Debt

22. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of
the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to
the parking charge incurred.

23. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Companys legal
representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my
Companys staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time
could have been better spent on other elements of my Companys business. My Company
believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of
the Defendants breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage.
The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses.
Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Dated: 23 February 2017

4
5
6
7
8
 NOTICE TO KEEPER
DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE

Date: 24th June 2016

Parking Charge Details

Reference Number: 910210061
Eve Warlow Vehicle Registration: V296GAB
The Haven Issued Date: 17th May 2016
Ocean View Issued Time: 10:08
Porthcawl
CF36 3HT Amount Due: 100.00
Payment options and instructions can be
found overleaf.

Dear Eve Warlow Please be advised that all card payments are
subject to a 2.50 processing charge
Payment for the Parking Charge Notice 910210061 is overdue.
Please pay the charge of 100.00 now.

We recently issued Parking Charge Notice 910210061 to a vehicle you have been named as driving
because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at GLENAUB
HOUSE MANAGEMENT CO that we are authorised to manage by our client. This PCN was issued on the
17th May 2016 at 10:08 and has not been paid. The reason we issued a PCN to the vehicle is as follows:
Not Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit.

A Parking Charge Notice (Notice to Driver) was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle at the Time of Issue.
This charge relates to the period of parking that immediately preceded the issue of that Notice, the charge
having been incurred for the reason as stated above and liability for the same having been brought to the
attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the site at the time of parking. You have been named
as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.

If you were not the driver (even though you have been named as being the driver) of the vehicle at the time
it was parked or if the vehicle was stolen prior to the beginning of the period of parking which is the subject
of this Notice, please let us know. If you were not the driver we ask you to pass this notice on to the driver
and to supply us with the full name and current serviceable postal address of the driver so that we may
address this request to them.

We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If within 28 days
we have not received full payment, we have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains
unpaid from the driver of the vehicle. 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 150.00 in
the first instance of further action.

Operating in accordance with the Independent

Parking Committees Code of Practice.

Payment Slip I enclose a cheque/postal

order for the amount of:
Return with payment to: Link Parking Ltd, PO Box 36, Martock, TA12 6WL

Parking Charge Notice Number: 910210061
made payable to:
Link Parking Ltd
Vehicle Registration: V296GAB
Do not send cash in the post.
Notice Issue Date: 17/05/2016
9
 How to Pay
You will need both the Parking Charge
Reference Number and Vehicle
Registration to hand when paying.
Online
www.linkparking.co.uk
Please follow online instructions.
By Phone
0844 304 0102
Credit and Debit card payments can
be made by calling our 24 hour
telephone line.
By Post
Please complete the Payment Slip on
the front of this letter and enclose a
Cheque made payable to
Link Parking Ltd or Postal Order for
the amount shown and send to the
following address:
Link Parking Ltd,
PO Box 36,
Martock,
TA12 6WL
Please write the reference number and
vehicle registration on the back of all
cheques and postal orders.
Do not send cash by post.
We will send you a receipt for your
payment if you request one.
Contact us
Email: info@linkparking.co.uk
Customer Services: 0871 221 5919
Link Parking Ltd, PO Box 36,
Martock, TA12 6WL
Useful Information
Vehicle Hirers
If you are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was hired out at the time the parking took place, 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.
Contesting this Parking Charge
At the time that the charge was incurred, a Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle. This offered the
driver the ability to appeal within 21 days from its imposition. This opportunity has now lapsed and we
regret the ability to appeal against this charge is no longer available. If you consider there to be
exceptional circumstances as to why you should be allowed to appeal outside of this period please
write to: Appeals Department, Link Parking Ltd, PO Box 36, Martock, TA12 6WL
or email: appeals@linkparking.co.uk
All correspondence must include your name, serviceable postal address, the vehicle registration and
notice reference number, together with any evidence which may support your position. If we reject the
appeal, you will be provided with the contact details of the Independent Appeals Service. Please be
advised that if you choose to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service and your appeal is
unsuccessful, you will lose the right to pay at the reduced amount.
The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution
scheme for disputes of this type. We may engage with the IAS Non-Standard Appeals Service at our
discretion should a dispute arise over this charge in the future.
Due to legal procedures, it is difficult for Link 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 issue of this
PCN. All enquiries must be forwarded in writing. This charge has been lawfully issued and the
collection process will be carried out in accordance with The Administration of Justice Act 1970.
Complaints
Please note: If you wish to challenge the validity of this charge then you must use the Appeals
Procedure detailed above. Other issues can be dealt with under the complaints procedure.
If you wish to complain, you MUST complain to us directly in the first instance by writing to us at the
address at the top of this letter. If you are not satisfied with our response then you may refer your
complaint to the IPC. Further details can be found at www.theipc.info
Registered Keeper details and Data Processing
Please note that we have requested the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle
from the DVLA for the purpose of enforcing this unpaid charge. Such information has been provided in
accordance with the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.
Data Protection
Link Parking Ltd and its agents will process your information for the operation of their parking
enforcement scheme. Processing may include the use of cameras to record data. Your information
may be disclosed to, or requested from the DVLA. Records are made available to 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 may be shared with third parties
in relation to the issue of a PCN in order to assist with appeals. Link 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 address shown below:
The Information Release of Information
Commissioners Office England/Wales/Scotland
Wycliffe House, Wycliffe Lane, Paying Enquires Section
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF DVLA, Swansea, SA99 1AJ
www.ico.gov.uk www.dvla.gov.uk
Link Parking Ltd - Registered in England & Wales. Registered No: 08261355
Registered Office: 4 King Square, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA6 3YF

PCN Reference: 910210061 Vehicle Registration Number: V296GAB

If you were not the driver of the vehicle stated when the vehicle was parked in the above manner, or you were the keeper of the vehicle
stated when the vehicle was parked in the above manner 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 driver responsible by completing the following section and
returning it to: Link Parking Ltd, PO Box 36, Martock, TA12 6WL within 28 days of this notice.
Please mark the statement(s) below that apply to you. At the time the vehicle was parked in the above manner, 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 driver of the vehicle is the person named below. X
Name:

Address:

Post Code:

Your Name: Signed: Date:

10
11
12
13
 Schedule A

Case Number Case Reference Hearing Date Court

C7GF50J8 Link Parking Limited v I 16th November 2016 Cardiff Civil and Family Justice
Centre

C1GF34H7 Link Parking Limited v A 23rd November 2016 Cardiff Civil and Family Justice
Centre

C9GF53X4 Link Parking Limited v A 20th September 2016 Worcester Combined Court

C9GF9T89 Link Parking Limited v B 05th October 2016 Cardiff Civil and Family Justice
Centre

C2GF767Z Link Parking Limited v F 14th September 2016 Worcester Combined Court

C9GF51X4 Link Parking Limited v D 09th November 2016 Cardiff Civil and Family Justice
Centre

14