Excel BW again

Loadsofchildren123

I wouldn't hand it in on the day, the judge might say it can't be relied upon. Although you'd say it is an aid for the court and doesn't contain anything new.
Best to serve it 3/4 days before, as you would if a SA had been ordered (they are ordered as standard in all non-small claims cases).
Don't forget to do a costs schedule - this MUST be served/filed 24 hours before.

claretmad62

Just arrived home to the welcome sight of the Claimants WS, not got scanner at home but will do tomorrow at work.First things that jump out are some bizarre photos, one showing a woman (not the defendant) walking toward a ticket machine. And most importantly, the PCN value still at £100. WS written by a Nabella Ahmed.

claretmad62

Morning all, scanner not working at work. Had to take photos of everything and go the long way. Anyway all BWL W.S bundle attached (ex 16-17) are photos of car reg so haven't bothered attaching. Needless to say, your expert comments and response will be very much appreciated. I would like to get everything in by Tuesday, so your help is very much appreciated.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/in99h2fdf4k9ccn/AAAdKM0kyubzqnjswo9Eycw3a?dl=0

Molts

Do not count me as an expert in the slightest and certainly wait for expert opinion but the "Landowner Witness Statement" is a complete joke and would have been a surefire winner at independent adjudicator stage had it been available at the time.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is written by the operator themselves it is undated and shows no indication of how long the contract runs for. If this was to stand up in court I would happily do a couple of laps naked around Cavendish Retail Park and park myself outside the confines of a marked bay!

Molts

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/motorist-wins-appeal-cps-vs-ajh-films.html

claretmad62

Thanks Molts, I'm hoping Coupon-mad and others have time to pitch in with some responses I can add into my S.A.

Molts

I have no doubt they will be along as soon as practicable to tear the bundle apart

claretmad62

Yes...of course your right Molts, I think most have been in this position. Just feel the need to dot the I's and cross the T's...bit nervy at this point. Unsure on how to respond to the Claimants WS ...hence the request for help.

Fruitcake

It looks like Elliott vs Loake may be mentioned. This has been debunked so many times that it is difficult to understand why scammers still try to use it in a small claims court.

CPC vs AJH films has been debunked as mentioned above.

Witness statement is from and on behalf of Excel. No witness statement from the landowner.

That the IPC is an equivalent of the BPA is a downright lie. It is run by the same people that run the IAS (or did at the material time) and the same solicitors that take people to court. Nothing independent or impartial there at all.

The claimant ignored the PCN. Only the driver was liable so there was no requirement for the keeper, who is not and never been liable, to acknowledge the PCN.

The defendant had the option to appeal. Lies. PoPLA did not exist at the material time when the alleged parking event took place. (Did not exist before Oct 2012.)

The claimant has incurred costs due to the defendant unwillingness to contest the PCN. Bollards. The defendant was never liable, there was no requirement to contest, and in any case there was no appeals system in place for a keeper to appeal PCNs from pre POFA 2012.
What I'm trying to say as that PoPLA did not exist before Oct 2012 so could not be retrospectively applied to pre Oct 2012 events.

The defendant's reliance on POFA is misconceived. Bollards. The defendant isn't relying on POFA because as the claimant admits, it didn't exist at the material time. The defendant is relying on the law and Acts of Parliament that were in place at the time, meaning that the keeper cannot be held liable.

There is a reference to the PCN asking for the driver's identity. There was no requirement in law, or obligation to do so as no law existed, or exists today requiring this request to be complied with.


There are numerous references to the defendant failing to do something or other, but quite simply there was no requirement in law for them to do anything since they were never liable.

There are several gender changes. The defendant is referred to both as he/him and she/her. This is rude and unprofessional. It aso reinforces the fact that the scammers don't know who was driving, and therefore don't know who may have been liable at the material time.

The biggy of course is that this was all pre POFA so the keeper cannot be held liable.

Post 12 of this thread gives proof of when the POFA 2012 was enacted as far as private parking charges are concerned, just in case the judge wants proof.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72403388#Comment_72403388

Molts

There you are! If there is anything credible left of the bundle now Fruitcake has destroyed it I would be very surprised :D:D