Fine after 30seconds

jrc123

IamEmanresu

paragraph 7 or point 7?

this one? plus adding the text you mentioned?

7. In theory, members of the BPA and IPC must adhere to the respective codes of practice in order to maintain their membership and, therefore, their access to
2
DVLA information. However, the UK and Scottish Governments currently do not have a say on how these Codes of Practice are developed or maintained. Furthermore, audits undertaken by the ATAs and the DVLA identified that there is clear evidence of inconsistent activities taking place by some parking operators who are seeking to take advantage of members of the public who may be less able to understand or comply with the contractual requirements set by parking operators. Very little appears to be done by the industry to tackle such issues.

jrc123

can I also refer to the Scottish government if my case is in an English court?

nosferatu1001

Yes, as the point being made is applicable anywhere - it is sensible that when you have byelaws in play you work out if you have standing. A reputable company would do this.

Coupon-mad

IMHO I can't see why you would refer to Scottish Government...

You need to narrow the issues, not widen them which could make the case harder for the Judge to follow. Not saying not to include stuff but be aware to keep your points within a narrow path in your favour.

jrc123

I have split my documents up as follows:

Witness Statement
Evidence
Photo Evidence
Case Studies References.

is this ok? before I send it to the court and the gladstones
Should i sent it to PCM too?


Claim No. XXXXX
In the Matter of:

XXXX (Claimant)
-v-
XXXX (Defendant)
____________________________________
Witness Statement
___________________________________

I am XXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter.
1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle registration plate XXXX
2. On the afternoon of XXX the above car was driven down XXXX.
3. Upon entering the road there were no signs at the entrance to the road. Exhibit JJ-01
4. XXX Limited have assigned a !!!8220;Parking Charge Notice!!!8221; for !!!8220;parking within a restricted area!!!8221;
5. The signs were not legible to read from the car, the defendant go out of the car whilst left running, read the signs, declined the contract by driving off in the space of 2 minutes and 10 seconds. Evidence shown in Exhibit JJ-03 !!!8211; JJ-08
6. The sign as the site states !!!8220;A charge of £70 will be payable by the driver of any vehicle parked or waiting!!!8221; Exhibit JJ-02
7. The car was not parked or waiting and the contract was not accepted. The driver had to read the sign and did not accept the contract or offer. The contract was not accepted by the defendant driving off.
8. After the initial PCN was received I wrote to XXXLimited
I was worried by the unfair PCN and sent an email stating I was unwell and pulled over. From the photo graphic evidence shown in Exhibit JJ-03 !!!8211; JJ-08 I went over read the sign and did not accept the contract by driving off.
9. On the XXX I had a letter from XXXX Limited that refused to acknowledge my points and continue to argue their case. Whilst on this particular letter clearly shows my car driving off down the road also the same image as Exhibit JJ-07. Please see Exhibit JJ-10
10. In this letter and subsequent letters they threatened legal action which was very worrying for me, as a legal abiding citizen.
11. XXX Limited eventually escalated this to Court through Gladstones. Upon the arrival of letters marked !!!8220;County Court!!!8221;, has cause me much worry and distress
12. Each stage in the legal process has been new to me, and whilst it would have been easier for me to pay the unfair charge in the first place, I refuse to do this on principle. I have spent twenty (20) hours researching and working on my case, and this has affected how much time I have been able to spend with family and friends, as well as a loss of sleep. I find myself mentally exhausted upon preparing the appropriate documentation.
13. After being given a Court date in August some 15-16 months after the first letter from XXXLimited, I am nervous and frightened as I have never been in court before, let alone represented myself in a legal capacity. I am upset that the case has got this far and that the Claimant is pursuing this to Court.

STATEMENT of TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true
Dated the 19th August 2017
Signed!!!8230;!!!8230; (Claimant)
Of XXXXXXXX

---

EVIDENCE

Picture of Road Entrance
As you can see from this photo evidence there is no signage upon entering the site.
Exhibit JJ-01

Picture of Signage
Parking Control Management (UK) Limited signs can be found when entering the road and are not found at the entrance of the road. Exhibit JJ-02

The Claimant!!!8217;s signage which is found further down the road and not at the entrance with the largest font at this site states !!!8220;This Road is Private Property. Any parking is prohibited at all times in accordance with Railway Byelaw 14. Any Trespassers will force legal action. 24 hour access for railway use!!!8221;. The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case. The case should also be brought forward by the landowner within 6months of which this time has now passed. Exhibit JJ-03

Protection of Freedoms 2012: Schedule 4

The land was a highway maintainable at the public expenses, therefore DE cannot enforce a PCN here.

In this Schedule !!!8220;relevant land!!!8221; means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than!!!8212;
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
© any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
Picture of Car
Photographic evidence shows the defence going to read the sign, not accepting the contract and then driving off in the space of 2 minutes and 10 seconds.

Particularly photo Exhibit JJ-05 which show the defendant going over to read the sign due to it being place in a position which is not readable from the car. The time on the photo shows 09:12am.

The photo labelled as Exhibit JJ-08

Photo evidence:
Exhibit JJ-04
Exhibit JJ-05
Exhibit JJ-06
Exhibit JJ-07
Exhibit JJ-08
Exhibit JJ-09

---

Photo evidence:
Exhibit JJ-01
Exhibit JJ-02
Exhibit JJ-03
Exhibit JJ-04
Exhibit JJ-05
Exhibit JJ-06
Exhibit JJ-07
Exhibit JJ-08
Exhibit JJ-09
Exhibit JJ-10

---

CASE STUDIE / REFERENCES

Railway Byelaws

As this land comes under railway byelaws this is not a claim to be brought by the Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd but by the Train Operating Company which leases the land/or the landowner and the correct procedure is for such proceedings to be pursued in the magistrate!!!8217;s court, not the county court.
The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case.

The IPC Code of Conduct 9.1 states; It is your (PCM Ltd) responsibility to establish whether any land upon which you operate is subject to any Byelaws. Where land is subject to Byelaws you must ensure that your practices are in accordance with them or, alternatively, that you operate a scheme that is not prohibited by them. PCM have broken this code as stated in the points above.

Legislative Consent Memorandum !!!8211; Parking (Code of Practice) Bill !!!8211;

7. In theory, members of the BPA and IPC must adhere to the respective codes of practice in order to maintain their membership and, therefore, their access to DVLA information. However, the UK and Scottish Governments currently do not have a say on how these Codes of Practice are developed or maintained. Furthermore, audits undertaken by the ATAs and the DVLA identified that there is clear evidence of inconsistent activities taking place by some parking operators who are seeking to take advantage of members of the public who may be less able to understand or comply with the contractual requirements set by parking operators. Very little appears to be done by the industry to tackle such issues.

It is reasonable to presume that trying to take advantage of motorists by claiming standing where byelaws apply falls within the scope of the behaviour Parliament are seeking to ban. The Claimant is a professional company and will have taken legal advice before operating on this site. Such legal advice is germain to the issue and should be produced to the court.

If no legal advice has been sought prior to operating on byelaws land, the defendant asks the court to strike out this claim and any similar ones until such time as the client can prove their standing at this site

Protection of Freedoms 2012: Schedule 4

In this Schedule !!!8220;relevant land!!!8221; means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than!!!8212;
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
© any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

Popla 2015 Annual Report

However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; 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

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

89. British Airways Pension Fund (!!!8220;the Fund!!!8221;) owns the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford. The Fund leases sites on the Retail Park to various multiple retailers, but retains overall control of the site. There is a car park located at the Retail Park, and, on 25 August 2011, the Fund entered into a contract with ParkingEye Ltd in respect of management services at that car park.

IPC Code of Practice Part A) 9)

It is your responsibility to establish whether any land upon which you operate is subject to any Byelaws. Where land is subject to Byelaws you must ensure that your practices are in accordance with them or, alternatively, that you operate a scheme that is not prohibited by them.

---

should i include anything else?

thanks

System

You need to narrow the issues, not widen them which could make the case harder for the Judge to follow. Not saying not to include stuff but be aware to keep your points within a narrow path in your favour.

It refers to DVLA audits and not the Scottish Government per se. If you go all the way back to 2006 when "reasonable cause" was defined, in a way, there was suspicion by the SoS even then there would be issues with parking companies behaviour.

HMG knew, knows and is flagging up issues. You just have to point the court in that direction.

jrc123

IamE - thanks for that I have included that in my case studies section above.

does the above WS and Evidence look ok to submit?

Coupon_Mad - hope you can input anything that should be taken out or included?

court case is in a couple weeks - so really need to send these documents out tomorrow.

thanks

nosferatu1001

No, because itis not numbered for a start
You must number every single para

EMail to claimant, hand deliver a really nice bound copy, divided and marked up, to the court. Easy.

jrc123

I have numbers and made the text size spacing consistent:

Claim No. xxxxx

In the Matter of:

xxx (Claimant)
-v-
xxx (Defendant)
____________________________________
Witness Statement
___________________________________

I am xxx and I am the Defendant in this matter.
1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle registration plate xxx
2. On the afternoon of xxx the above car was driven down xxx.
3. Upon entering the road there were no signs at the entrance to the road. Exhibit JJ-01
4. xxx Limited have assigned a !!!8220;Parking Charge Notice!!!8221; for !!!8220;parking within a restricted area!!!8221;
5. The signs were not legible to read from the car, the defendant go out of the car whilst left running, read the signs, declined the contract by driving off in the space of 2 minutes and 10 seconds. Evidence shown in Exhibit JJ-03 !!!8211; JJ-08
6. The sign as the site states !!!8220;A charge of £70 will be payable by the driver of any vehicle parked or waiting!!!8221; (evidence attached)
7. The car was not parked or waiting and the contract was not accepted. The driver had to read the sign and did not accept the contract or offer. The contract was not accepted by the defendant driving off.
8. After the initial PCN was received I wrote to xxx Limited
I was worried by the unfair PCN and sent an email stating I was unwell and pulled over. From the photo graphic evidence shown in Exhibit JJ-03 !!!8211; JJ-08 I went over read the sign and did not accept the contract by driving off.
9. On thexxx I had a letter from xxx Limited that refused to acknowledge my points and continue to argue their case. Whilst on this particular letter clearly shows my car driving off down the road also the same image as Exhibit JJ-07. Please see Exhibit JJ-10
10. In this letter and subsequent letters they threatened legal action which was very worrying for me, as a legal abiding citizen.
11. xxx Limited eventually escalated this to Court through Gladstones. Upon the arrival of letters marked !!!8220;County Court!!!8221;, has cause me much worry and distress
12. Each stage in the legal process has been new to me, and whilst it would have been easier for me to pay the unfair charge in the first place, I refuse to do this on principle. I have spent twenty (20) hours researching and working on my case, and this has affected how much time I have been able to spend with family and friends, as well as a loss of sleep. I find myself mentally exhausted upon preparing the appropriate documentation.
13. After being given a Court date in August some 15-16 months after the first letter from xxx, I am nervous and frightened as I have never been in court before, let alone represented myself in a legal capacity. I am upset that the case has got this far and that the Claimant is pursuing this to Court.

STATEMENT of TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true
Dated the 19th August 2017
Signed!!!8230;!!!8230; (Claimant)
Of XXXXXXXX

---

EVIDENCE

1. Picture of Road Entrance
As you can see from this photo evidence there is no signage upon entering the site.
Exhibit JJ-01

2. Picture of Signage
Parking Control Management (UK) Limited signs can be found when entering the road and are not found at the entrance of the road. Exhibit JJ-02

The Claimant!!!8217;s signage which is found further down the road and not at the entrance with the largest font at this site states !!!8220;This Road is Private Property. Any parking is prohibited at all times in accordance with Railway Byelaw 14. Any Trespassers will force legal action. 24 hour access for railway use!!!8221;. The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case. The case should also be brought forward by the landowner within 6months of which this time has now passed. Exhibit JJ-03

3. Protection of Freedoms 2012: Schedule 4

The land was a highway maintainable at the public expenses, therefore DE cannot enforce a PCN here.

In this Schedule !!!8220;relevant land!!!8221; means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than!!!8212;
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
© any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
5. Picture of Car
Photographic evidence shows the defence going to read the sign, not accepting the contract and then driving off in the space of 2 minutes and 10 seconds.
Particularly photo Exhibit JJ-05 which show the defendant going over to read the sign due to it being place in a position which is not readable from the car. The time on the photo shows 09:12am.

The photo labelled as Exhibit JJ-08

Photo evidence:
Exhibit JJ-04
Exhibit JJ-05
Exhibit JJ-06
Exhibit JJ-07
Exhibit JJ-08
Exhibit JJ-09

---

IMAGE EVIDENCE

Exhibit JJ-01

Exhibit JJ-02

Exhibit JJ-03

Exhibit JJ-04

Exhibit JJ-05

Exhibit JJ-06

Exhibit JJ-07

Exhibit JJ-08

Exhibit JJ-09

Exhibit JJ-10

---

CASE STUDIE / REFERENCES

1. Railway Byelaws

As this land comes under railway byelaws this is not a claim to be brought by the Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd but by the Train Operating Company which leases the land/or the landowner and the correct procedure is for such proceedings to be pursued in the magistrate!!!8217;s court, not the county court.
The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case.

The IPC Code of Conduct 9.1 states; It is your (PCM Ltd) responsibility to establish whether any land upon which you operate is subject to any Byelaws. Where land is subject to Byelaws you must ensure that your practices are in accordance with them or, alternatively, that you operate a scheme that is not prohibited by them. PCM have broken this code as stated in the points above.

2. Legislative Consent Memorandum !!!8211; Parking (Code of Practice) Bill !!!8211; Scottish Government March 2018

7. In theory, members of the BPA and IPC must adhere to the respective codes of practice in order to maintain their membership and, therefore, their access to DVLA information. However, the UK and Scottish Governments currently do not have a say on how these Codes of Practice are developed or maintained. Furthermore, audits undertaken by the ATAs and the DVLA identified that there is clear evidence of inconsistent activities taking place by some parking operators who are seeking to take advantage of members of the public who may be less able to understand or comply with the contractual requirements set by parking operators. Very little appears to be done by the industry to tackle such issues.

It is reasonable to presume that trying to take advantage of motorists by claiming standing where byelaws apply falls within the scope of the behaviour Parliament are seeking to ban. The Claimant is a professional company and will have taken legal advice before operating on this site. Such legal advice is germain to the issue and should be produced to the court.

If no legal advice has been sought prior to operating on byelaws land, the defendant asks the court to strike out this claim and any similar ones until such time as the client can prove their standing at this site

3. Protection of Freedoms 2012: Schedule 4

In this Schedule !!!8220;relevant land!!!8221; means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than!!!8212;
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
© any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

4. POPLA 2015 Annual Report

However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; 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

5. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

89. British Airways Pension Fund (!!!8220;the Fund!!!8221;) owns the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford. The Fund leases sites on the Retail Park to various multiple retailers, but retains overall control of the site. There is a car park located at the Retail Park, and, on 25 August 2011, the Fund entered into a contract with ParkingEye Ltd in respect of management services at that car park.

6. IPC Code of Practice Part A) 9)

It is your responsibility to establish whether any land upon which you operate is subject to any Byelaws. Where land is subject to Byelaws you must ensure that your practices are in accordance with them or, alternatively, that you operate a scheme that is not prohibited by them.

---

END

---

*Could I send this to the court by post?
*Are there anything else I should add? any other cases?
*Do I email it to the Parking company and Gladstone or just Gladstones?

thanks

jrc123

any feedback at all? :-)