ES Parking Enforcement Ltd

nochargenotice

Hi All,

To update you on timescales:

1. From submission of DQ to receipt of Notice of Allocation: 3 weeks.
2. From notice of allocation to requested submission of "defence bundle": 4 weeks.
3. From submission of defence bundle to court hearing: 7-8 Weeks.

I'll post later with the court date I have been given.

I'm now preparing my defence bundle and will set out in a ring binder for the court with dividers. Would welcome any guidance on whether to include the defence statement in the bundle, or to leave it out as the court and claimant will have this anyway.

Thanks for all the help on here.

claxtome

I'm now preparing my defence bundle and will set out in a ring binder for the court with dividers. Would welcome any guidance on whether to include the defence statement in the bundle, or to leave it out as the court and claimant will have this anyway.

I included a copy of my defence in the bundles I have prepared for 2 reasons:
1) I thought it would help the judge out.
2) It meant I could refer to it easily
(Don't think there is any hard/fast rules on it though)

I would make the court bundle as easy to read for the judge as possible.
Colour dividers are great; Contents page; each page having a unique page number to make it easier to point the judge at references.

Just in case it helps I decided to email the claimant the bundle in 4 pdfs as was quite large and obviously hand delivered to court the bundle.

Have you decided to do a skeleton argument yet?
Just wondering as looking at your timescales you have plenty of time to prepare one after you have submitted the court bundle.

nochargenotice

Thanks claxtome,

Great advice. I'll be preparing a skeleton and will post it here when I've done the defence bundle.

Thanks again.

nochargenotice

Hi All,

I would welcome any comments on the changes I am making to the previously posted witness statement, changes as listed below:

As I have not received any copy of signage or contract:
16. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound. [STRIKE]The Defendant asserts that clauses in the Terms and Conditions are unreasonable and the signage does not draw attention to such clauses in accordance with Lord Denning's "Red Hand Rule" from Spurling V Bradshaw. Moreover, the Defendant asserts that, as a result of the signage, the Claimant is unable to demonstrate that anyone parking a vehicle in that car park fully understood the risks and happily took them in accordance with Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest.[/STRIKE]


Pointing to specific sections of law:

21. The Protection of Freedoms Act Section 4 (5) does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued (Exhibit X). The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal representative’s costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court as they are not listed under CPR 27.14 (2).


Request to court and list of exhibits:

27. The court is invited to dismiss this claim and allow my costs, which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner. To pursue me as the registered keeper and submit incomplete and incoherent particulars of claim is unreasonable and vexatious.

28. Exhibited to this witness statement are the following documents in the attached bundle that I wish to rely on:
EXHIBIT 1: xxx
EXHIBIT 2: yyy


Thanks in advance.

Umkomaas

The Protection of Freedoms Act Section 4 (5)

Schedule 4.

nochargenotice

Thanks for the note about Schedule.

I am also going to add the following. Its also mentioned in my respnse to the LBC, but I thought it worth including:

The Claimant may refer to Elliot v Loake (1983) as case law which supports the view that the owner of the vehicle, if there is no contrary evidence, is the driver. This is an incorrect representation of the case for the following reasons:
The facts of the case are that the appeal judge ruled that the appellant was the driver because of the ample evidence that he was the driver, and not, as incorrectly stated, because of the lack of evidence as to who the driver actually was.
In the case there was ample evidence that justified the magistrates to conclude that this man was driving his blue sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary car.
Additionally, a crucial part of the case was that forensic evidence showed that the appellant lied. Other material facts were that the driver had the only keys in his possession that night and that no-one else had permission to drive the car. I enclose the transcript of the judgement in this case as (Exhibit X)
This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, it is the well-known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.
Also the general principle is that the claimant has to prove their case. The Claimant has shown no evidence that I was the driver.

Thanks again.

Umkomaas

This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, it is the well-known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.

Make sure the principal principle is the correct one.

claxtome

Suggested amendments to shorten WS as you are producing a SA->

1) I would take out 8, 9 and 13 as dont think it adds a lot from what has been said in WS and defence
2) I would leave 11 and 12 to SA
3) I would leave 14 and 19 to SA - section on Beavis differences; like your wording of 14

Also suggest the Eliott v Loake witness part 2 you leave to your SA as backing your case as to have not proven who the driver was and wrongfully assuming the keeper liable.

I hope this helps

nochargenotice

Thanks Umkomaas and Claxtome.

I have used principle now, thanks.

I have made omits of the sections advised and moved all suggested sections to the draft SA, including the whole of Elliot v Loake. One question, there are transcripts of those cases which I had listed and have now moved the SA. I assume that I don't include the transcripts with the WS now, but can I include the transcripts with my SA?

SA to follow in a few weeks. Thanks again.

claxtome

I assume that I don't include the transcripts with the WS now, but can I include the transcripts with my SA?

I wouldn't include them in the bundle (WS) or with the SA. I would prepare a folder of them (2 or maybe 3 copies) to bring with you for your day in court. The transcripts are in the public domain so a copy of them is not needed until then AND only prepare the transcripts for the cases you are relying on not the ones that Claimant is and you are refuting.

This was the advice I received from Loadsofchildren123 a solicitor.

Just remembered. I suggest if you have the time, energy and paper/ink to include in the bundle the appropriate version of the IPC CoP in the bundle. Means you can refer to it in your WS and SA where necessary.
I assume you are exhibiting a copy of ticket, photos of car park and signage and copies of any correspondence both sent and received with Claimant. If not I suggest you do