£860 Private Parking County Claim - Urgent Help!

Jonathon365

Hello,

Just arrived home and had the letters through containing the court ordered documents from First Parking, including their claim in detail.

i will upload the entire thing to the shared drive and post the link below. (Please ignore the version of the WS in the drive it is an old version - I wrote the updated one in my office and we cannot access Google Drive).

GOOGLE DRIVE REMOVED

From my own understanding the claimant is reliant on their photographic evidence showing my vehicle had not moved for longer than 10 minutes.

Seeing this defence with the knowledge of the section 20 of the Lancaster University parking policy has boosted my confidence.

It does not appear they would be able to argue that the vehicle was left unattended for more than 10 minutes.

Any feedback is appreciated!

Jonathon365

Interestingly, they made no mention and have not included the Beavis case. - Is this unusual?

As mentioned above their argument is that car was parked for longer than 10 minutes on each occasion. They support this with organised photographic evidence that contains timestamps.

Jonathon365

Ok will be sending in the morning. Thank you for all your help and support.

You are a group of fantastic and generous individuals, willing help others out.

Thank you very much and I shall keep the post updated once the hearing is over / If I decide to do a skeleton argument. (Which after seeing, I feel my WS is very similar too).

Jonathon365

Sent off the documents as per the above.

One thing to mention, if you read my defence submitted in the original post you'll notice the registration I typed in does not match the one that's in either my witness statement nor the original claim.

Unfortunately I made an error and submitted the defence containing the incorrect vehicle and not the one that was being claimed against.

I have obviously used the correct one in my witness statement.

Will this have any impact? / what do you suggest I do? Contact the court?

Thanks,

Coupon-mad

No I would just cover this at the hearing and explain it as a human error, a trivial mistake that has no effect on the defence, if the other side even notice, which they probably won't because they struggle enough with their own details and particulars of claim!

Jonathon365

Annoyingly they did notice and wrote it down as part of their defence pack I received in the post. Did you get chance to have a look at this? As I said above they made no mention and have not included the Beavis case. - Is this unusual?

Lamilad

As I said above they made no mention and have not included the Beavis case. - Is this unusual?

Yes it's rather unusual and probably indicative of their lack of court experience. But it helps you.

Annoyingly they did notice and wrote it down as part of their defence pack!

Woopty doo! It's a simple human error.

I've lost count of the number of PPC WS's I've seen referring to glaring procedural errors as 'an administrative error'.... And these are usually written by solicitors!

Judge's - in my experience - really do not like parties drawing attention to irrelevant minutiae. So you could even use their reference to it, to your advantage

claxtome

Just arrived home and had the letters through containing the court ordered documents from First Parking, including their claim in detail.

i will upload the entire thing to the shared drive and post the link below. (Please ignore the version of the WS in the drive it is an old version - I wrote the updated one in my office and we cannot access Google Drive).

Be careful here - it is helpful to see this but it needs to be anonymous.
I wouldn't want details like my name and reg of car on an open forum.
The way I know to redact is to add in MS Word black boxes on top of sensitive info and save again as a PDF.
I know it takes time but keeps you safe

On a plus note I don't see how isolated photos show that the car was unattended for a full 10 minutes.

Jonathon365

So my hearing takes place tomorrow and I'm well versed on my arguments.

I thought I'd submit here the key points of my condensed argument to see if there's anything else you would add and my lingering questions/thoughts.

1) Never seen or been presented with a contract that connects the claimant to the landowner / occupier. If they can't present it then the claim is not valid.
-I'm tempted to say "nobody in this room has ever seen a contract"

2) the car was attended every 10 minutes and therefore complies with university parking policy.

3) I was stopping and not parking therefore no offer had been made, considered or accepted. I also bring up the fact that the sign only says you "may" be charged and they fail the tests set out in Beavis.

I think all 3 are strong arguments but I am nervous the night before.

Am I correct that if the claimant brings new evidence not submitted in the WS, I can object to it being used?

I'm also correct to raise the fact that the actual witness is not present (unlikely to be) so how can the representative answer my questions?

Are there any weaknesses in above that I should expect to be questioned on?

Many thanks!

The_Deep

you said

I was stopping and not parking

but you also said

the car was attended every 10 minutes

Therefore you were parking