PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

HELP Witness Statement - Impending Court Date, Help with making witness statement more robust please
Deedee27
post Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 10:56
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,526



Hello
I am hoping it is not too late for this forum to help me as I am in a bit of a mess with my case. I am aware that this is a long post but I want to give as much information as possible in order to get all the help I can.

Background
My car broke down and was towed to a road near my mechanics (30th Jan 2017). Whilst it was there I eventually decided to have it scrapped as not worth fixing. Some weeks late I received at formal demand letter from UKCPM dated 6th April 2017 that I had received a ticket 4th March 2017. Unfortunately for me I had trusteed my mechanic to get the car scrapped. I called him and he directed me to the scrapping company who had no record of the car being scrapped. Eventually I called DVLA who said I was still the registered keeper. Subsequently I wrote to DVAL that I was no longer the registered keeper and do not have access to the car. They took my name off the car and needless to say I no longer use that mechanic.

I was then introduced to a company by a friend who help to fight parking tickets. They have been helping with communicating with UKCPM, have written my defence and I now at the stage of putting in my witness statement. It was at the point of the defence being written that I stumbled across MSE and Pepipoo. Had I known beforehand that they existed I would have used the advice here rather than the company. But all that is now water under the bridge. I am hoping this community can help me with my witness (already written by the company but I believe could use a second eye to make it more robust).

My court date is 11 Jan 2018 at 10am. I have to get my witness statement in by Thursday 27th December latest.

My defence was as follows:
I denied that
• a contract was formed,
• there was an agreement to pay a parking charge,
• there were terms and conditions prominently displayed around the site,
• there was an agreement to pay additional unspecified sums,
• the claimant adhered to schedule 4 of the protections of freedoms act 2012,
• the claimant complied with IPC and BPA code of practice, the I owe any debt

I have received back the witness statement sent by Gladstone Solicitors which is quite long and daunting, with pictures of my car (no signs nearby in their own picture), a lone picture of a parking sign surrounded by leaves and bushes (which is not and has never been on this road. The only signs they have up is on the opposite side of the road that I parked on and is a mostly faded no parking sign, also not present in the picture they took of my car and are presenting as evidence). They also have a map of the area and dots of alleged places where parking signs were (again not factual, I have even recently returned to the site and these so called signs are not there. Also if the signs were where they alleged them to be it would be visible in the picture they took of my car)

I want to include as evidence in my witness statement pictures of the area that I have taken showing the signs that are faded and on the opposite side of the road which I parked. Even google maps doesn’t have this so called sign that they are putting in as evidence. The company I am using is advising against it stating that it is the claimants’ job to prove those signs were there not mine. But I am trying to prove their lies. What is the advice here? Include my own pictures (which are taken a year late unfortunately, there is dated) or leave my pictures out and just try to combat it at the court as the sign is nowhere near my car in their own picture?

I will post my witness statement in a second post as I am very aware this post is getting long

I will be eternally grateful for any help or advice that can be offered

Thank you in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 10:56
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Deedee27
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 22:30
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,526



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 22:07) *
I doubt the court is going to get too excited about it, particularly if there’s nothing particularly controversial in it. Does it present you with a problem?


Mostly they re-iterate what was said in their previous statement but in response to what was in my witness statement. It seems in an attempt make their argument more robust and convince the judge

It is basically a skeleton argument in the form of 'supplementary witness statement'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 10:26
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,181
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Was it after the date to exchange? If so you can ask that the court excludes it
Even more reason to if the person isnt there
If theyre making arguemnts then it isnt a WS, and thats another reason to get it excluded I would have thought!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deedee27
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:34
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,526



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 10:26) *
Was it after the date to exchange? If so you can ask that the court excludes it
Even more reason to if the person isnt there
If theyre making arguemnts then it isnt a WS, and thats another reason to get it excluded I would have thought!


I thought as much that they are trying to do something sneaky by sending in a second witness statement days before the hearing.

The date of exchange is 14days before the court date which is tomorrow. They sent it yesterday and clearly state it as a supplementary witness statement. They have also mention they may or may not be there and in many of the points are referring to things I have said in my own witness statement

I will ask the judge to exclude it for these reasons when I get there

I will also make notes in my skeleton argument just in case

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trixie2
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:40
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,164



You MUST include your photos showing a lack of signage. I went to court last year and won nearly £700 in costs.

They have submitted their evidence, now you have to show yours. You can't expect a judge to just believe you that they're not there.

Ps I'm happy to send you a copy of my WS if you want. The other side dropped out the day before the case. Message me your email address.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:49
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,807
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...les/part27#27.9


Non-attendance of parties at a final hearing
27.9

(1) If a party who does not attend a final hearing–

(a) has given written notice to the court and the other party at least 7 days before the hearing date that he will not attend;

(b) has served on the other party at least 7 days before the hearing date any other documents which he has filed with the court; and

© has, in his written notice, requested the court to decide the claim in his absence and has confirmed his compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) above,

the court will take into account that party’s statement of case and any other documents he has filed and served when it decides the claim.

(2) If a claimant does not –

(a) attend the hearing; and

(b) give the notice referred to in paragraph (1),

the court may strike out(GL) the claim.





IF it transpires they don't show up, bring this up. If the claim does get struck out, and it's not mandatory, then pile in on unreasonable behaviour for costs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trixie2
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:54
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,164



Yes that's what I did. All the more reason to get those photos showing no signage in your bundle DeeDee. You want the Claimant to see you have a very strong case in the hope they drop out or don't show up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:02
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,181
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Does it advance arguments? Yes or No
If yes, it is not a WS and you should add that to the reasons given
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deedee27
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:31
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,526



QUOTE (Trixie2 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:54) *
Yes that's what I did. All the more reason to get those photos showing no signage in your bundle DeeDee. You want the Claimant to see you have a very strong case in the hope they drop out or don't show up.


Thank you Trixie2

I added the pictures showing no signage including Google Street View

It is too late to send anything new as the case is 10am tomorrow morning

I would appreciate your WS just in case there's anything I might be able to add to my skeleton argument

llipz05@hotmail.co.uk

Beefing that up wouldn't hurt

Thanks for all the advice

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:02) *
Does it advance arguments? Yes or No
If yes, it is not a WS and you should add that to the reasons given


I suppose it does in a way

Will add to the reasons

Thank you

This post has been edited by Deedee27: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trixie2
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:47
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,164



Just sent it. I attached my WS, evidence, and defence.

Ps it's not too late. If you email the court with your additions and put in the subject line that it's urgent for a hearing tomorrow they will prioritise it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deedee27
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:17
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,526



QUOTE (Trixie2 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:47) *
Just sent it. I attached my WS, evidence, and defence.

Ps it's not too late. If you email the court with your additions and put in the subject line that it's urgent for a hearing tomorrow they will prioritise it.

Thank you so much

Will read and see what I can use
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:16
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,181
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



If they only sent this yesterday, then it is after the deadline?

I thought you said the DEADLINE was up tomorrow
Not that the case was at 10am...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deedee27
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 15:47
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,526



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:16) *
If they only sent this yesterday, then it is after the deadline?

I thought you said the DEADLINE was up tomorrow
Not that the case was at 10am...


Yes recieved yesterday, dated 8/1/19, deadline stated by court was 13 days ago (14 days before hearing which is tomorrow morning)

Thanks

Will definitely push for it to not be accepted

This post has been edited by Deedee27: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 15:51
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,181
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



SO they didnt send notice of their non attendance more than 7 days before? Yes or No?
Such a late WS shoudl not be accepted. Theyre tying to ambush.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 16:36
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,753
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Trixie2 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:47) *
Ps it's not too late. If you email the court with your additions and put in the subject line that it's urgent for a hearing tomorrow they will prioritise it.

The OP will have to choose their argument - either the Claimant’s statement is late and shouldn’t be admitted (in which case they can’t realistically argue that theirs should be allowed in late) or vice versa.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deedee27
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:15
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,526



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 15:51) *
SO they didnt send notice of their non attendance more than 7 days before? Yes or No?
Such a late WS shoudl not be accepted. Theyre tying to ambush.


I'd say yes as their initial statement sent some weeks back mentioned that they may or may not be in attendance - so I suppose that counts as being informed on time

This new email is supplementary to the first statement they sent about 3/4 week ago

But I still think even with this supplementary one - something smells fishy - probably ambushing like you said

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 16:36) *
QUOTE (Trixie2 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:47) *
Ps it's not too late. If you email the court with your additions and put in the subject line that it's urgent for a hearing tomorrow they will prioritise it.

The OP will have to choose their argument - either the Claimant’s statement is late and shouldn’t be admitted (in which case they can’t realistically argue that theirs should be allowed in late) or vice versa.


I think I will go down the route of asking that it not be admitted

Because of work etc I won't have time to put something well structured together to send before 10am tomorrow morning

I'd rather focus on working more on the Skeleton argument tonight so that I am well prepared tomorrow

I have changed the structure drastically making use of some of the links here and on MSE. Will post for advice on it soon.

Many thanks

This post has been edited by Deedee27: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:24
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,753
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Deedee27 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:15) *
I'd rather focus on working more on the Skeleton argument tonight so that I am well prepared tomorrow

I have changed the structure drastically making use of some of the links here and on MSE. Will post for advice on it soon.

Don’t forget that you’ve decided it will just be notes for you now - you won’t be submitting it to anyone else. Therefore, don’t worry about the form of it.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 19:26
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,792
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Good luck.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deedee27
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 19:43
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,526



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:24) *
QUOTE (Deedee27 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:15) *
I'd rather focus on working more on the Skeleton argument tonight so that I am well prepared tomorrow

I have changed the structure drastically making use of some of the links here and on MSE. Will post for advice on it soon.

Don’t forget that you’ve decided it will just be notes for you now - you won’t be submitting it to anyone else. Therefore, don’t worry about the form of it.



Yes absolutely

It's so long at this point that giving it to the judge would likely be detrimental to my case, don't want to be a source of annoyance

I hope you'd be able to give some advice on it.

I have been thinking it may actually prove in my favour to allow the judge accept this new 'supplementary' WS from the claimant. There are some errors in it that it actually stands a chance supporting my case.
e.g claiming compliance with PoFA paragraph 8, but sending me a letter stating compliance with paragraph 9
using Vine v waltham forrest when it actually supports my statement that signs were inadequately placed and cannot be assumed to be seen as mentioned by the Judge in the appeals case for vine v waltham forrest

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 19:26) *
Good luck.



Thank you

So grateful for the help and support found on this forum

Hoping to come back with some good news before lunchtime tomorrow
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deedee27
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 20:48
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,526



Here we are,

For anyone who is able to read through and may be willing to advice on my skeleton argument, see below, I would be extremely grateful.

I know it's long so thank you very much in advance

- underlined words are ones that i may not refer to should the supplementary witness statement be deemed inadmissible. if allowed then i will make use of those arguments



Summary of Defendant (Miss xxx) position

Miss xxx was not the driver of the car, nor the day to day keeper at the time. The car had broken down and moved to this spot by a towing company. The Claimant had not complied wholly with the IPC or BPA code of practice in terms of signage, so no contract was nor could have been formed. It is clear that the Claimant has no standing to pursue these matters in any way, shape or form, nor are they capable of entering into a contract with me on its own account as there was no offer to park nor have they provided the correct documentation to hold me liable as the registered keeper.


The issues

  1. The defendant has identified the following areas of dispute
  2. The presumption of the driver
  3. Burden of Proof
  4. Correspondence
  5. Prohibitive and Confusing Signage with noncompliance to Codes of Practice
  6. No Contract
  7. No Locus Standi
  8. Penalty



The presumption of the driver

The defendant refutes the many allegations by the claimant that they were the driver at the material time either directly or by presumption. The claimant has no evidence to the contrary and the accusations merely ‘hear-say’ and conjecture; not a factual reciting of a witness who was present at the material time

It is a matter of record that the defendant evidenced within their witness statement that they were not the driver of the vehicle, having had it towed to a suitable spot nearby the mechanics.

It is clear in trite law that where there is no forensic and/or reliable evidence, that a registered keeper of a vehicle cannot be declared the driver at any given point in time. In fact, in some instances they may rarely drive the vehicle at all.

The defendants brings to the court’s attention POPLA Lead adjudicator and Barrister Mr. Henry Greenslade’s statement regarding keeper liability in the POPLA Annual Report of 2015:

“there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

The claimant had no entitlement to proceed on the presumption that the keeper is also the driver. Relying on Elliot v Loake [1983] Crim. L.R. 36 is a result of misplaced understanding of the judgement and in any event, has no application to this claim

The defendant fails to see the bearing of this criminal case on the current civil matter. Furthermore, this is a misrepresentation of this case where there was ample evidence available that pointed to the driver, not as stated by the claimant a presumption of who the driver was.

There is no suggestion from Elliot v Loake [1983] Crim. L.R. 36 that a presumption existed with the registered keeper, only prima facie inference that the owner was the driver

Conviction was as a direct result of compelling forensic investigation, the lies from the owner, and evidence that the owner was in fact the driver (not that there was no evidence as to who the driver was)

In any event Elliot v Loake [1983] Crim. L.R. 36 can be easily distinguishable as it was a criminal case


Burden of Proof

The Claimant makes an absurd suggestion in their initial WS paras #10 #11 and #12 (and para #4 and #7 of their supplementary WS) that the defendant has the obligation to prove by evidential submission that they were not the driver. A preposterous attempt to reverse the burden of proof

The defendant asserts that Paragraph 5(2) of the PoFA does not direct the registered keeper to nominate who the driver was as suggested by the claimant in paras #11 of their WS. The direction lays responsibility at the Claimant

Furthermore Section 172 (2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it clear that the registered keeper of a vehicle is required to furnish the police with the identity of the driver under statute

There is no such statute requiring the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge on private land

In any case the claimant was made aware that the vehicle had broken down

My Henry Greenslade comments on this particular issue in the 2015 POPLA Annual Report:

“…a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under schedule 4 to name the driver. Does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time.”

Correspondence

The defendant rejects the Claimants assumptions in paras #16 that ‘upon the defendant’s immediate return to their vehicle, they would have been aware of the parking charge.’

The Defendant denies awareness of this charge prior to first contact made by post, dated 06/04/17.

The Defendant denies ever seeing the car again after it was towed to the location prior to the supposed contravention date on 04/03/17

As previously asserted the vehicle had broken down and was towed to the site, the decision was then made to have the car scrapped. The claimant is under a wrong assumption that cannot be substantiated by any evidence or witness.

Claimant alludes to complying with Para 8 of PoFA but sent their letter dated 06/04/17 stating compliance with Para 9 of PoFA invalidating the supposed ticket.

Prohibitive and confusing signage with noncompliance to Codes of Practice

The Defendant disputes the Claimants judgement that the signs, and more specifically the terms and conditions, were prominently placed around the site and clearly visible. In general, prominence can be a subjective affair in which colours, fonts, height, size and ambient light all play a significant role in determining if a ‘something’ is prominent.

The claimant refers to an undated site map in paras #29 within their witness statement. This is rejected as proof that the signs were placed in the locations indicated, or proof that they were present at the time the car was placed there.

The Defendant refers the Courts to pages 11 and 17 of the Claimants bundle. Page 11 presents the car where it was placed with no visible signs within the vicinity of the car alluring to the signage not being placed prominently within the site

The defendant further refers the Courts to page 17 of the Claimant bundle GSL1, presenting a picture taking of the sign supposedly on the road. This sign is surrounded by vegetation and it is acceptable to assume this would have been difficult to notice by a driver.

Assuming a driver does notice the signage and was to further investigate, a significant proportion of core terms are exceptionally small, particularly when attempting to read at a height surrounded by vegetation.

It can be presumed that this was difficult to read even from a standing position under the sign based on the height at which the signage was placed, the state of the environment and also the lettering of further information being small and illegible from such a height.

This is also in breach of the IPC Code of Practice which the Claimant was purportedly a member of at the time. Page 24, Schedule 1, Paras. 4 states

“Signs must be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”

The Defendant also finds it unacceptable that the claimant suggests reliance on motorist headlights to be reasonably sufficient and appropriate lighting for their signage. It is the Claimants responsibility to ensure visibility of signage and an attempt to place this on motorist is erroneous


Whilst investigating the site after the material time it was evident that there were no warning signs at the entrance to the site which would draw attention to the signage inside the Site, a specific requirement of schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice, and evident in Defendants Bundle DO1, Exhibit 3, Page 1.

“Signs should, where practical, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist."

Exhibit 3 of Defendants bundle DO1 shows that this is not the case

The Claimant asserts that the Defendant ‘ought to have seen the sign’ in paras #9 of the supplementary witness statement referring to Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000. The Claimant however fails to mention that it was found in Para 19 of the Judgement by Justice Roch that

“To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk to his car [snip] it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of parking his car [snip] That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable [snip]. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning. In this case the recorder might have reached such a conclusion about the plaintiff's state of knowledge, but he did not do so. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff did not see the sign. That finding is not surprising in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space…”

Similarly, to this case in order for a motorist to be held to account for seeing the signage it ought to have been present on entrance into the road and prominently displayed within the Site. It was not.


Furthermore, the signs on the relevant road were in contradiction to the alleged signage evidenced by the claimant.

DO1 Exhibit 3 of the defendant’s bundle shows pictures of the relevant road from various angles with no such sign as presented by the claimant GSL1 Page 17. The only signage present were on the opposite side of the road from where the car was placed, and prohibited parking (which could easily be presumed to only apply to that side of the road), these were also quite faded.

Without conceding that the defendants sign was present and visible, having never observed such signs on the road, had it been seen it presents a confusing picture for motorists.

Motorist are left unable to know which sign held an authoritative position on the site

With this is in mind the defendant is once again in breach of the IPC Code of Practice Schedule 1, Exhibit 4 of Defendants Bundle, Page 23-24, and BPA Code of Practice, Exhibit 5, Page 11, Paras 18.1-4 and Paras. 18.9-10 in regards to signage

Noncompliance with the relevant bodies Code of Practice voids the claimant’s assertion to being a part of the IPC and BPA which makes them in Breach of the authorisation letter presented, giving them no ‘Locus Standi’

The Defendant has demonstrated to the court how the overall depiction of a sign being ‘prominent’ is significantly reduced by reasons set out above, whilst also conflicting, causing misperception


No Contract

The defendant rejects the statement by the Claimant in paras #23 that there was any offer to use the site. Where there is absolute prohibition no offer can be made

Without conceding that the signs were presented as the Claimant alludes, the Defendant asserts that “No Parking on roadways at any time” cannot possibly be an offer to park.

A sign of this nature is prohibitive and cannot create a contract with a driver. The Defendant refers the Court to the persuasive case of Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull [2016] B4GF26K2 on pages 4 and 5 paras 18-20

“The notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission to anyone to park on the roadway.”

District Judge Glen continues in his judgement that

“…there was never any contractual relationship [snip] For this reason alone I will dismiss this claim”

Deputy district Judge Ellington in case of UK Parking Control Ltd v Sean Masterson [2016] B6QZ4H3R although only persuasive, drew the same conclusion in page 2 paras. 6 as District Judge Glen with regards to prohibitive signage:

“I am not able to consider that that is an open offer to contract to park at first sight. If anything it prohibits parking on my reading of it”

Wordings suggestive of an offer “You must park wholly within a marked bay” where no true offer exist (there are no marked bays on the relevant site) is highly confusing

Furthermore, the authorisation from land owner presented within the Claimants’ Bundle GSL1 p.8 also Prohibits parking and makes no offer suggestive of marked bays. The Claimant in this case is making an offer where one cannot possibly exist nor was authorised to exist.

The defendant asserts that the signage authorised by the land owner does not offer a contractual agreement making this case one of trespass and can only be pursued by the land owner

No Locus Standi

The defendant presents to the courts that the claimant does not have legitimate authority to pursue the supposed charge

The Courts is referred to the BPA Code of Practice of which the claimant was purportedly a member of at the time. Paras 7.1 states

“If you do naot own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have written authorisation of the landowner [snip] in particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.”

the BPA Code of Practice also stated in Paras 7.2

If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure they have written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.”

The Courts is further referred to the IPC Code of Practice of which the claimant was purportedly a member of at the time. Page 10, PART B, Para 1.1 states

“…a contract [snip] must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly.”


There is no evidentiary basis presented to support compliance with the relevant directions of the IPC or BPA Code of Practice and so the claimant cannot state any locus Standi to pursue these matters.

Furthermore Noncompliance with the relevant bodies Code of Practice (evidenced in paras. #36 and #42 of this statement) voids the claimants assertion to being a part of the IPC and BPA which makes them in Breach of the authorisation letter presented, once again giving them no ‘Locus Standi’

Penalty

Without concession, should the Courts, reading all presented statements and evidences, decide that the claim brought forward by the claimant holds valid a charge of £100, then the claimant is put to strict proof that additional charges amounting to the sum of £150.20 (and inflating the overall monies claimed to £250.20) were actually incurred.

As indicative in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull [2016] B4GF26K2 on page 6, Judge Glen denoted that a contractual entitlement cannot be drawn from simply telling the parker that additional costs may be generated if you do not pay.

“This is a statement of the obvious, it is not a contractual entitlement and to the extent that it keys up, as it were, a claim for damages for breach of contract, there is not a shred of evidence before me to prove that that sum was £50. I suspect that most of the additional costs identified in Miss Philpotts’ witness statement would have been caught up in the £100 flat charge in any event and I would have refused to make an award of that sum."


Similarly, the Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 legal representatives’ costs pursuing an alleged £100 debt. In any case, the costs are not recoverable in small claims court.

As pursuant to The Protections of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 Paragraph 4(5) the Claimant is not permitted to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued

The defendant has demonstrated that the Claimant has been wholly unreasonable. It is also argued that the conduct of the claimant cannot be overlooked and has therefore out forward a statement of costs in accordance with CPR 27.14 (g)




If you've read to this point

Thank you and any advice would be warmly welcome

I know it's long, but bear in mind this is just for my personal use and makes me feel ready for whatever may be thrown my way.
Fingers crossed I won't even have to say a word like some of the other posts I've read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 20:59
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,807
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



The number one thing for getting over to the court -

It was the towing company who left it there and that's why the registered keeper can have no liability if POFA requirements have not been met. So what eveidence have you submitted to convince the court the towing company were the keeper ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 21st June 2019 - 00:22
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.