County court claim for parking please help

nosferatu1001

Iam - This is not Gladstones is it?

An NtK does not have to have that term, and a LBA does not have to state "Lettr Before Action" or anything similar. However the fact they dont have a headed version suggests it was merely a template they have included.

caminch1993

Gladstone’s was involved but not it’s SCS law.. ok thanks for the info, I will add this into skelly tonihht and post up an updated version...

Thank you all

caminch1993

So here is my edited skeleton... how does it look? Anything missing?

What’s a fair amount to put on costs schedule? I was just going to do my hourly rate times the hours I would have worked.. plus the 19 an hour for drafting docs ect?




Preamble:
This skeleton argument is to assist the court in the above matter for the hearing dated 07/12/2017.
The witness and the accompanying witness statement is not credible. It contains invalid, false and vexatious statements which can be shown in this skeleton argument. Moreover, it displays a laissez-faire attitude towards submitting a truthful, factual witness statement.
The defendant will highlight to the court that the claim is not only fundamentally misconceived and flawed, but that the claimant behaved unreasonably.
The witness statement by Kiran Ali is contradictory, confusing and untruthful.



Defence Case:


The Claimant had no locus standi at the time of these parking event and at best, were contractors of a principal, the landowner. They have failed to show a cause for action by way of sight of a copy of the contract they have with the landowner to assign the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make claims and take civil action against drivers in their own name.
The Claimant places reliance on its provision of signage at the site and upon the content of that signage. However, the signage is confusing, contradictory and is not legible. Moreover, if the claimant is to rely heavily on signage on site, the defendant asks about the authority to park for residents which is given by signage on site. This is provided in my witness statement.
The defendant submits there was no requirement to display a permit, pay for a ticket or pay a third party for non-display of such.
The claimant’s evidence of signage they have provided is forbidding. This means there was no offer to park so therefore the defendant could never have been entered into a contract with the claimant.
The claimant was/ is not adhering to the BPA Code of Practice.
The claimant has been totally unreasonable all the way through this process, not providing the defendant with any particulars of the claim until 1 day before the defendant’s witness statement was due to be filed.
The defendant was unable to contact the claimant throughout this process, with only a automated payment line number being offered to the defendant.


Defects in Claimants witness evidence:
1. Paragraph #2 in the claimant’s witness statement suggests that Parkwood Management’s contract with the landowner grants them the right to enter into contract and confer the authority upon the claimant. The claimant has not provided this contract. They have not done so either because they are unable to do so, or because the intention is to ambush the defendant in a manner in which the CPR rules were created so as to prevent.

2. The claimant has failed to produce strict proof that this contract with the managing agent is still continuing after the initial 12-month period for which it is written for. If the contract has not continued, the claimant has neither authority to issue a parking charge notice, nor to bring these proceedings.


3. Exhibit KA/1 suggests that No stopping or waiting is allowed anytime in the area, yet signage on site suggests that No parking is allowed between the hours of 7-11am. The claimant’s signage on site is different to the contract terms and conditions. In paragraph #3 the claimant has said that the terms and conditions are clearly on signage around the site.


4. Exhibit KA/2 from the claimant shows images of signs they are suggesting are on site. The defendant would ask the claimant to put strict proof that these are the signs actually on site and not just a generic image of a sign that could be anywhere. The defendant submits that these signs have variations of the ones on the site. In the alternative if, which is denied, the signage is from that site, the photos appended to the statement should stand as evidence that they are not legible to visitors.


5. In paragraph #3 of the claimant’s witness statement, it states that the driver agreed with the terms and conditions of parking. The defendant denies ever agreeing to the terms and conditions as I never knew what they were. As seen from the poorly photographed evidence the claimant has produced, the terms and conditions are unreadable on the claimant’s signs.


6. Any Parking terms such as there may be on signage were illegible, confusing and contradictory, such that it is submitted that the alleged contract is void for uncertainty. A basic principle of contractual law is that terms must be certain.




7. Paragraph #4 of the claimant’s witness statement suggest the defendant broke the terms by parking on yellow lines or parking in an area with hatched markings. The defendant denies this on all occasions mentioned. As clearly seen in the evidence provided by the claimant themselves, it is clear the defendant is not parked on yellow lines or in an area with hatched markings.


8. The defendant would like to point out that Exhibit KA/2 page23 is a different sign to the ones photographed in Exhibit KA/3 page 54. The defendant questions the reliability of the claimant’s witness statement as they have provided generic images of signs which do not match those on site.


9. Exhibit KA/3 page 59 is a Parking charge notice that was issued at 22:01, for being parked on yellow lines. The images of the vehicle in question it can not be seen if the vehicle was on yellow lines or not. It is submitted that the defendant was not parked on yellow lines and therefore believes the claimant is bringing a claim without any reasonable basis. The claimants own photographic evidence provided no evidential basis for the particularised claim. It is also noted that the picture of the signage (page 70) states no parking between 7-11am, and a PCN has been issued at 22:01. It is believed the claimant is simply issuing PCN’s without any actual case, where the defendant was parked at a time when parking was permitted.


10. The evidence provided by the claimant in Exhibit KA/4 is questioned by the defendant. I submit that I never received a letter before claim. The defendant notices that this evidence is not on the usual headed paper provided by SCS law which suggests it was merely a template they have included.


11. In paragraph #12 the claimant has brought a confusing, contradicting and simply untrue paragraph. They have stated that in some of the photographs it can be seen there are bays for those who are authorised to park. This is simply untrue, and It is questioned if the author of this witness statement has ever actually been to the site because they would know that this is not the case. It is averred that the witness statement is merely an adapted template, containing a number of inaccuracies, such that it is unreliable.


12. Also in paragraph #12, it states that parking was permitted in areas of the site that was not marked in yellow lines with the relevant authorisation. Authorisation was granted with residency as shown in my own witness statement, and I was never parked on yellow lines so it is again questioned what the actual claim is brought for


13. It is submitted by the defendant that the only area which is free from yellow lines is the area in which i was parked in.


14. The evidence provided by the claimant is poor, confusing, and unclear. It is clear from the claimant’s own evidence, that the terms and conditions on these signs could not ever be read and seen enough to form a contract with the defendant.


15. The defendant Is bemused by the witness’s statement paragraph #12 that the signage was not forbidding. The claimant is not offering a contractual parking agreement, so they cannot issue a charge for something not on offer. The signs on site are prohibitive and cannot create a contract with a driver. The defendant refers the court to the persuasive case of PCM v Bull in which District Judge Glen ruled that there was never any contractual relationship due to the prohibition against parking at any time.

Conduct:
The defendants conduct, and defence was entirely with merit.
Due to the ‘robot-issued’ nature of the claim particulars, the defendant was unnecessarily disadvantaged in regard to the facts and information of the claim.
The defendants view is that the witness statement is merely a copy by the claimant by reason that several paragraphs are not related to this case and gives untrue, unreliable information.
The defendant questions if the author of the statement has ever attended the site as some of the statements made are baffling to the defendant.
The claimant never provided the defendant with a Letter before action given the defendant no chance to defend the claim at that time.
The defendant has demonstrated to the court that the claimant has been wholly unreasonable. It is argued that the conduct of the claimant cannot be overlooked and has therefore put forward a statement of costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(g) for consideration by the court.

[Deleted User]

rather than "robot produced" a reference to template produced, generic documents from a case management system may be neater.

This is quite helpful to deploy in due course - lots here about the perils of templates that are heavy on "stock" information and light on the salient fact (putting aside the question of who signs the thing, which is not the reason why I have linked this) - http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/10/24/another-sorry-tale-forging-signatures-on-witness-statements-a-precedent-witness-statement-can-rarely-be-a-good-thing/

caminch1993

Thank you @jonersh :A

I think this is my skelly, I can’t think of anything else I can add unless anybody has any last points I can make?

caminch1993

@ianE @Coupon-mad
I did try to contact the MA and had nothing back... thought this was strange until The claimant sent me the contract with the MA which states the MA is to receive 20% commission

No wonder I did not receive a reply

[Deleted User]

Costs schedule needs to be served no later than 24 hrs prior to the hearing.

nosferatu1001

As the MA is only there for YOUR benefit, ask them under which heading this income is declared under, and when this was offset against charges.
They dont get to keep it.

Loadsofchildren123

costs schedule: you can't recover your normal hourly rate, but only £19 per hour as being the litigant in person rate. You can only claim loss of earnings for the actual day in court, and that's capped at £95.


There may be some rule somewhere that says that you can claim higher but I'm not aware of it. Read rule 27 and rules 44 and 46 and the practice directions which accompany them.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules

nosferatu1001

Loss of leave is also loss of earnings and so is allowed. Take evidence along

One court said that if they were allowing unrerasonable costs, they would allow up to 50% of a band D fee earner.