ES Enforcement County Court Claim

Lamilad

Dot2101 wrote: »

Do you do a contents page for the exhibits?

You entire bundle should go in a file with numbered dividers and a index page at the front. I used this in my first case:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/34qrh62gz7jb277/Court%20Bundle%20Index%20%284%29.docx?dl=0

Lamilad touched on the wording to reference transcripts DT1 then the page number. Do I begin all exhibits with DT or is this just related to when referring to transcripts.

I was just using DT as an abbr to Dot2101... Use your real name initials followed by the number of the exhibit.

NorthWestITConsultant

Hi Dot,

While I'm not an expert, I feel the WS is quite lengthy. You have quite a few excellent points in there but are all the points in there necessary?

Could the WS benefit from a trimming down?

Dot2101

Hi NorthWest
Thank you for taking the time to read through it, I agree that it feels quite lengthy but at the same time there are no points that I really want to remove, particularly as I am admitting to being the driver some of the more common arguements I cannot use anymore.
Coupon mad and Lamilad thank you for your pointers this afternoon- I shall be going off to buy files and dividers now and getting organised... do you have any opinions on the length? Can having it too long shoot me in the foot ?

Coupon-mad

I am not the person to ask about writing concise Witness Statements! I can't do it!

Lamilad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I am not the person to ask about writing concise Witness Statements! I can't do it!

CM likes to throw the kitchen sink at them. This case that the prankster blogged about tell us that's not a bad thing:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/vehicle-control-services-issue-charge.html

I wouldn't worry too much about it been a bit too lengthy. This is small claims, the judge knows you are an unrepresented litigant in person.

I assuming you've already got rid of this bit which is irrelevant if you were the driver

"[FONT=&quot]4.
I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration xxxxxx I also assert that I was the registered keeper of that vehicle on the date 16/07/2016. I can also confirm that I was the driver of the vehicle but as per the POPLA 2015 report this cannot be presumed by the Claimant.

5 – No reasonable presumption that the registered keeper of the vehicle is the driver.
I wish to draw your intention to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) Lead Adjudicator’s Henry Greenslade’s words in the 2015 POPLA Annual report.

However keeper information is obtained, 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. Further, 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. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. Any evidence in this regard may therefore be highly relevant.
I have included a copy of the relevant part of this report as Exhibit 1." [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]You can get rid of this bit as well:

[FONT="][FONT="]I [/FONT][/FONT][FONT="]wish to draw your intention to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. I believe that the Claimant has failed to show that they have met the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule. The conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have not been met as no Notice to Keeper was set.
I have included a copy of this legislation as Exhibit 2.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Re: para. #10 - "deemable" is not a word... try 'relevant' or 'necessary'

Far too much commentary in #17.... Try this instead:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "17. Temporarily stopped, not parked.
During the event in question I could not find a parking space so dropped my partner off outside the shop while I continued to search for a space. A short time later she called me to collect her from the same spot as she had purchased a heavy, fragile item. I waited briefly while she paid for the item and loaded it into the vehicle"

"Bulstrode v Lambert (1953) (case law about right of way)"

you seem to havejust plonked at the end of the para. without explaining why. If it supports your above point then you need to say how and why. Exhibit the transcript (if you have it) and/or quote the relevant passages.


Get rid of para #25 it doesn't help your case.

"[FONT=&quot]18. Definition of parked/not parked
I wish to bring to your attention the Jopson case findings of fact about parked/not parked' as found by His Honour Charles Harris QC. Please see exhibit xxx" [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] - Again you need to say how and why this case supports you point. It's not enough to just say it does then expect the judge to trawl through the transcript. He won't do it, he'll just ask you why.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Para #20 contradicts #19... In one your saying it's ok to park on double yellows for loading/unloading and you assumed it was the same in the car park.... Then in the other you're saying that yellow lines have no meaning on private land and are tantamount to graffiti[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].....So why would you assume they have the same meaning in the car park as on a road?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Contradicting yourself in court can be disastrous and you could get tied up in knots under cross examination. Plus it discredits your WS and makes you look disingenuous.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Get rid of one... or both![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] - Don't mention PoFA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Get rid of this:[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT="]12. Lack of alternative suitable places to stop.
There are 2 other retail car parks close by, Currys and Sainsburys. However I presumed that these car parks are only for the use of their shoppers and not for shoppers of Next so I felt it inappropriate to stop within these car parks.
The other alternative car park is North Bridge Leisure centre which is a paid for car park managed by Calderdale Council however this is half a mile walk away, again as my partner had bought fragile goods I did not want to risk damages to these goods along the way (exhibit of the light bought and proof that we had purchased this).

There is also a main road before turning into the retail site, Charleston road, which is a public maintained road. This also features double yellow lines which I would have needed to stop on for a much longer time period. Charleston road is a busy narrow road in which stopped vehicles could cause disruption to traffic as exhibit xxx displays, it would be difficult for cars to get past a stopped vehicle along this road. Exhibit xxx also displays a google typical traffic map for a Saturday at 11.45am where you can see that the road is indicated orange, suggesting that it is not fast moving traffic. I was aware that this road was busy as we had driven along this road to get to the retail site so I took the decision that this would not be a suitable place to stop on this occasion.[/FONT][FONT="]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Once revised post your WS again. Should be looking a little lighter by then
[/FONT]

Dot2101

Still working on this as we speak, thank you for the advice above... i had taken most bits out that you mentioned above. Just taking time linking the correct exhibit numbers to the witness statement.
Will post soon! Thanks for going through it!

Dot2101

Ok - here is my refreshed version. Time for bed me thinks!!

(entered first sentence with my name and address details)

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any sum at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my Statement of Defence as already filed.

3. The facts of the case are as set out in my Statement of Defence, and I rely on that document as a true account. A copy follows this Witness Statement.

4. I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the County Court before.

5. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration xxx. I also assert that I was the registered keeper of that vehicle on the date 16/07/2016. I can also confirm that I was the driver of the vehicle.

6. Poor Practice used by PPCs

Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald in December 2016 has announced a consultation and information campaign to help protect consumers and stated that there will be an assessment of the role of parking companies and examine how drivers are informed of fines. It is also stated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will be taking further steps in due course to tackle poor practice by private parking companies. The article can be seen in exhibit MM1. I believe this suggests that it is well known and documented that it is noted that some PPCs have poor practice, I believe ES uses poor practice as they are not following the necessary conditions as further discussed throughout this Statement.

7. The landowner is the only proper claimant, not ES who is an agent. The landowner does not support this case been taken to court.
It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant.
a) 18/1/17 C2GF3D6 ES Parking v Limited Company Manchester. It was noted that the signs state that the private land is managed by ES Parking Enforcement Ltd but it is not, the land is managed by Spinningfields Estate. The judge therefore ruled the signage was incorrect. Blog article can be seen in Exhibit MM2.
b) 29/11/2016 C8GF4C12 ES Parking Enforcement v Ms Q. Manchester, in front of DJ Iyer. The judge stated that the signage was forbidding, there was no mention of the word 'contract' on them. The word 'breach' was on the signage. As a result of this, the only person that could bring a claim was the landowner for trespass. Blog article can be seen in Exhibit MM3.
c) 21/04/2016 PCM (UK) v Bull B4GF26K6 High Wycombe where the major part of the defence was that the signs were forbidding. They were not offering a contract at all, so no contract was formed - consequently no breach of contract. A full transcript can be seen in Exhibit MM4.
d) 23/10/2013 ParkingEye v Sharma 3QT62646 Brentford. The judge examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name and only the Landowner could bring the case to court. A full transcript can be seen in Exhibit MM5.
Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name. This information was requested on the 10th August, as seen in Exhibit MM6, but no contract was received. Exhibit MM7 is a letter from the Landowner, Halifax Retail Limited, in which she states she does not approve of the case been dealt with in court. Unfortunately she has struggled with contacting ES to discuss this matter further as she no longer holds a contract with them for the Charleston Road retail site.

8. No Notice to keeper received
I can confirm that I received no notice to keeper (NTK) before receiving the parking charge notice letter which was the first means of communication received by ES as seen in Exhibit MM8. The language used in the letter received on the 29th July suggested that this was not their first form of communication “parking charge…remains unpaid in full and for which the balance due remains outstanding”. An appeal letter was sent to ES on the 10th August as seen in Exhibit MM6 to request a copy of their original letter sent and to request further photographic evidence. No response was received.

9. Unexplained Inflated costs
I received a reminder letter from ES with the charges inflated to £125, I am unable to confirm the exact date this was received but I recall receiving this. The inflated costs are questionable and discussed further in the Defence statement. I presumed that they had not yet processed my letter whilst this letter was in transit. I awaited a reply to my appeal letter but never received this.

10. IPC/ IAS / Gladstones all linked
Whilst I had not received a response to my letter sent directly to ES, I discovered that the claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges. Following this revelation I had taken the decision to not appeal to the IAS, I felt that I had already sent my appeal and was looking forward to receiving a response to discuss the matter further.

11. Lack of responses from Gladstones Solicitors.
Following the initial parking charge notice and the reminder letter, the next letter I received was on the 23rd September, a generic letter before claim from Gladstones as seen in Exhibit MM9. I replied on the 5th October, within their 14 day request, as seen in Exhibit MM10. My response consisted of a short cover letter and a copy of my original letter but again, no response was received.

12. Lack of detail within the Particulars of Claim
I received County Court papers on the 14th October where within their particulars of claim it cited “parking charges”, as seen in Exhibit MM11.
I am unsure what reasons ES are using for taking the case to court as they have provided very limited particulars of claim (PoC). I had received letters, as seen in Exhibit MM8, which stated reasons for the charge as ‘not been parked within the confines of a parking bay’ but I had since appealed this reason in that I was stopped, not parked as seen in Exhibit MM6.

It is unknown if anything that I had previously stated within Exhibit MM6 changed their reasons that made them find it deemable to raise this case to court as I did not receive a response and there is no detail offered of what “parking charges” entails within the PoC. The PoC does not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.1 and 1.4 which can be found in Exhibit MM12. This therefore means that the Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

13. Lack of detail within the Particulars of Claim “RoboClaim”
The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support in accordance with CPR 1.1 2(a) “ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing”.

As an unrepresented consumer I am immediately at a disadvantage compared to trained solicitor in the matter and this is aggravated by Gladstones Solictors whom have not following CPR 16.4 1(a) as I have not received a detailed PoC to be able to properly formulate a concentrated argument.

a) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
b) On the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.
c) ES Parking Enforcement Ltd v Ms Q. C0GF4C5K. It is stated that the first point of contention is that ES Parking Enforcement had not completed the particulars of the claim properly despite been told before as seen in exhibit MM3.

14. Various different outcomes could come under the umbrella term “Parking charges”
As the detail is so limited I have had to consider a number of options that the claimant may be using as necessary under ‘parking charges’.
1) Not been parked in the confines of a bay
2) Been stopped on double yellow lines
3) Been stopped in an area where no stopping is allowed

15. Temporarily stopped, not parked.
The reasons for visiting the site was to attempt to enjoy the facilities that the retail site offers. On this occasion it was to visit Next on the first day of its Summer sale, a famously popular sale event. I drove around the car park to try and gain a car parking space, after a period of time, I let my partner who was visiting the site with me, out of the vehicle to allow her to go into the store and to allow me more time to attempt to find a parking space.

My partner called me from inside the store to inform me that she had purchased a glass ceiling light along with other goods, she was ready to leave Next as she was just about to pay. As I was aware that my partner had bought a large glass ceiling light along with the other goods I was conscious that I wanted to avoid her walking long distances with heavy and fragile goods. Whilst she was paying I took the decision to drive close to the front of the store and waited for the very brief time period to allow my partner to exit the store. I refer to case Bulstrode v Lambert (1953) which discusses the right to loading and unloading;

''After considering the facts at the time of the grant, Mr Justice Upjohn ruled that an ancillary right to stop, load and unload may be implied into the express grant of a right of way where such a right is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the right of way.''

It could be argued that in my very brief instance, it was necessary to stop the vehicle to load and be able to enjoy the products bought in the sale by collecting them to take back to my home.

16. Temporarily stopped, not parked.
To my knowledge I believe that my hazard lights were on during the very short time period that I was stopped, this helps indicate to other drivers that I am temporarily stopping as opposed to parking. This is in accordance with the Highway Code 116;

“Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic”
Should I have been obstructing access for any other vehicles, as I was in the vehicle I will have been able to swiftly move should needed.
It is believed that from the photographs sent from Gladstones it appears that a couple of these have been taken strategically when the lights would be flashing off to make it appear as though the cars engine was off. These tactics could mislead the court and suggest that the Claimant acted in an unprofessional manner. Furthermore, when I received the photographs from Gladstones, they were mis-ordered so it kept flicking between photos taken at 11.44 and 11.45, I believe this is misleading. I have placed these in order based on the general public walking close to the vehicle to help make better sense of the photographs, copies are available in Exhibit MM13.

17. Definition of parked/not parked
I wish to bring to your attention the case findings from 9GF0A9E JOPSON V HOMEGUARD 29/06/16 of facts about parked/not parked' as found by His Honour Charles Harris QC. A full transcript can be found in Exhibit MM14.
The case supports that a car stopped for a short period of time cannot be classed as “parked” which is what I understand the Claimant is appealing against me, as outlined in the PoC “Parking charges”, in my situation there was still a driver (myself) in the vehicle throughout the period of stopping.

“Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it… Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars… I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”.”

18. The Traffic Act and Highway Code is not enforceable on private roads/land.
Upon receiving the charge I researched further into the laws of double yellow lines and I found that neither the Highway Code (found in Exhibit MM15) or Traffic Act is only enforceable on public roads. Private roads cannot legally enforce the Highway Code or the Traffic Act in the same context as on public roads. This means that double yellow lines have no meaning on private roads, they mean nothing more than yellow graffiti on the floor and should be treated as so in that they are not legally enforceable.

19. Lord Denning’s Red Hand Rule
If the car park did not wish for any cars to stop for any time period then there should be clear signage to indicate this.
Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in the case heard in Supreme Court, ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] 3 WLR 1373', as seen in Exhibit MM16.
A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables within Exhibit MM17 would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. I wish to bring to your attention Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council (2000) which highlights that it is important that the signage must be readable to allow a driver to understand the conditions of the car park. A short summary is available in Exhibit MM18.

“Although it might reasonably be inferred that a motorist saw and understood the signs as a result of their numbers, size and location it was insufficient that an appellant had simply had the opportunity to see warning signs but that they must also have read and understood them and only then, by doing so, could they consent to the act of clamping if they parked in contravention to the notices."

20. ES sign content
Following receiving court papers, I revisited the site to take images of the signs and to read these in detail. All of the signs are on lamposts above parking areas as per Exhibit MM19. A copy of the sign is available in Exhibit MM20. The main copy that stands out is the telephone number, “warning” and the name of the company is also prominent. However the other information is in much smaller font eg: “disabled drivers only in this area”. It then lists in much smaller copy “vehicles must be parked fully in the confines of a marked disabled bay”, points 15 and 16 are relevant again here. None of the signs relate to no stopping.

21. Font size used on the signs cannot form a contract
I have since returned to the site where there are 3 small signs, Exhbit MM20, in slight vicinity of where my vehicle was stopped, each can be seen in exhibit MM19.
Signazon indicates a chart to suggest the font size to be used dependant on the distance in which the sign needs to be visible, this can be reviewed in exhibit MM17. I believe that the important information, such as the charges and the terms of the car park displayed within this sign are completely unsuitable to be able to read from the insides of a car.

As the signage font is so small to read this would mean that the driver would have needed to vacate the car, leaving it unattended as no bays were available, to walk over to the nearest sign to read and absorb the information to decide as to whether they agree to the terms listed which forms some kind of contract in the car park managements eyes. Exhibit MM20 is a photograph of the closest sign, despite been stood very close even then the smaller t&cs are barely legible. Again, I refer back to point 19 Vine v Waltham Forest (2000) in that the signs need to be readable to a driver, Exhibit MM18.
a) ES Parking Enforcement Ltd v Ms Q. C0GF4C5K. Preston. Discusses a case where in which it is argued that a contract cannot be established in instances when a car is stopped for a short period of time. “ES Parking Enforcement were trying to establish a contract existed but the judge said this was not possible”. The blog article about this case can be found in Exhibit MM3.
b) C7GF3R96 ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT V MS. A . MANCHESTER 26/1/17. On the 26th January ES took six cases to court in Manchester. The judge were dismissed the first 2 in short order, with the judge stating the defendants could not have parked, read the sign and got back in their car within the 1 to 2 minutes they were observed. The third also received full costs. The blog article can be seen in exhibit MM21.

22. Inadequate signage cannot form a contract
The IPC code of practice, Part E, Schedule 1 “You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of a contract between the creditor and the driver. Such signs must…be clearly ligible and placed in a position (or positions) such that a vehicle is able to see them clearly” as seen in MM22.
It is not possible to form a contract with the company with the signage used at Charleston Retail site. Exhibit MM16 shows signage which has been deemed by Supreme court ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] 3 WLR 1373' as clear enough to form a contract with the driver, as you can see the terms are much clearer, as is the charge if you do not follow the conditions of the car park.
The ES sign, Exhibit MM20, offers a lot of detail within a small sign, meaning that all of the information is illegible and cannot be understood from the distance between the vehicle and the sign.
According to the Consumer Rights Act there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

23. Photographic Evidence
On the 15th February, 189 days after my original request within Exhibit MM6, I received all photographs of the vehicle taken by ES, as seen in Exhibit MM13. The photographs were taken between 11.44 and 11.45. I believe that the angles of the images taken of the vehicle suggest that this was not a static camera but a person with a camera. This amounts to predatory tactic which does not comply with the IPC Code of Practice Part B 14.1 “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.” As seen in Exhibit MM22.

24. Grace periods.
The Claimant did not comply with the IPC code of practice (Part B 15.1), Exhibit M22, regarding grace periods:
“Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.”
The photographic evidence submitted by ES are date and time stamped, Exhibit MM13. It shows the vehicle photographed at 11.44 and 11.45 but it does not offer the time with seconds included, suggesting the time period could be much less than 2 minutes, this is not a suitable grace period. Again as points 19-22 have already highlighted, this is not enough time to form a contract.

25. The claimant is responsible for mitigating the losses to the landowner
I refer to case Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012) The full transcript is offered in Exhibit MM23 in which it is agreed that the claimant was responsible for mitigating the losses to the landowner.
“…before the notice is issued. He could have said… "Mr, whatever your name is, I am out here to enforce the parking. I don't want to ruin your day. I don't want to have a bad day myself. Can I point out that I have to, under the contract you have entered, if you leave these premises I have to charge you £80".
The parking operative had every opportunity to advise me that I needed to move the vehicle or face a fine of X amount, but they failed to do so and instead chose to take photographs of my vehicle.
This is in breach of IPC CoP section 13.1, viewable in Exhibit MM22:
“You agree to ensure that all your operators, servants or agents maintain a professional standard of behaviour when carrying out their duties and comply with the rule of law at all times.”

I believe the facts stated in this statement are true.

NorthWestITConsultant

Hi Dot,

I think your WS is pretty comprehensive. I'd get it in ASAP and then focus on preparing for the case. It's good you are going so far to take these thugs down but it's getting a bit overkill! Even in my case the judge stressed that had the car been stopped for a matter of minutes then they would not have a case.

Dot2101

Not sure what you mean by overkill? I was advised to add my final copy of the witness statement on here following the amends that users have offered
I finally got a copy of a letter from the landowner today to say that she doesn't support it and has tried to contact ES to tell them to cancel it but because they don't have a contract anymore they haven't been helpful in communicating. I am hoping that'll be the killer point in the case really.
Everything is printed out now ready to be ordered and put into files and posted off (emailing gladstones version!)
Thanks

System

tried to contact ES to tell them to cancel it but because they don't have a contract anymore

If they had a contract at the time, then that is sufficient. Cancelling "after the event" would be ineffectual but perhaps persuasive. You might be better to ask for a copy of the contract they did have with ES to see if they have tried to put in something different to the court.

Would add that the Gladstones packs are of poor quality so when you get their WS go through it with a close eye on the details of what they claim. You'll find a lot of it is unsupported by evidence.