Defence mitigating circumstances

System

as its getting closer have lost some confidence!

You shouldn't. In Vine v Waltham Forest, the driver actually won as though the signs were there they were not clear. So by quoting Vine you can actually use it and then add on the Beavis case (which they will quote again) In both these cases the issue was whether the text on the signs was clear - not just that the signs were there.

What you have to understand with this lot is that they misquote, mislead and when you get their pack there will be lies in it too.

Just stick with the programme here.

Staceyplindfield

Hi, I called the courts yesterday and appears they have paid so it's all going ahead....damn!! I have drafted a witness statement and wondered if you would mind checking it please.

I (name), am the defendant in this matter and litigant in person.

The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge, where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.
I am unrepresented with no experience of court procedures and trust the court excuses my inexperience.

The claim refers to a parking incident at (location) , the particulars of claim suggest vehicle (registration) was parked on the date of (date) , however this is incorrect as as the vehicle was not here on this date, therefore I believe this claim be dismissed due to no evidence of my vehicle being here on this date.

On the (date) my six year old daughter had pushed her earring stud through her right earlobe causing swelling and pain, (exhibit 1&2) as I was unable to remove stud, I quickly went to the go who referred us to Accident and emergency department in (location), whilst we were driving my daughter was in severe pain and very distressed as she had previously had four operations the previous year on the same ear which has left her traumatised and scared of hospitals (exhibit 3)

I parked in a parking space in a lay by for all intents and purposes appears to be a public road with residential homes (exhibit 4). We immediately by foot proceeded to the hospital with my daughter who had not yet calmed and was crying with distress. I had parked legally and was not obstructing any traffic or vehicles.

In January I received via post a penalty notice letter which included a picture of vehicle (registration), in which the claimants had obtained personal information from Dvla and requested confirmation of who the keeper of vehicle is. I disregarded this letter.

On the (date) I received a letter from debt recovery plus Lord (exhibit 5 copy) threatening court action due to an unpaid parking notice - the letter stated vehicle (registration) parking charge date as 19th December 2016 , this is impossible as I was not at this location on this date. The parking charge had also increased to £149.

I then received a letter dated xxx from Gladstones ( a well known serial litigant and 'roboclaimer') in which they requested settlement and threatened court action against me (exhibit 6)

On th (date) I received a 'letter before claim' from Gladstones with the increased parking charge to £160 (exhibit 7) , the letter also requested 'aknowledge of receipt of this letter with full written response with full account of circumstances that led to charges being imposed and confirm who the driver was at the time of each incident and current address' - this letter again states the parking date was 19th December which is incorrect.

I aknowledged the letter and sent a reply to Gladstones (exhibit 8) which referred to the fact my daughter was in distress due to her ear and included photos ((exhibit 1&2)

On the (date) Gladstones responded via post that they cannot accept the reason to waiver the charge (exhibit 9) quoting Vine vs Waltham as justification for the parking charge.

I wrote to the Dvla requesting the release of information as tow hitch date and company had requested my details. I received Dvla's response which shows that information was requested 2 days after the parking date (exhibit 10)

I received further correspondence from Gladstones in (date) with an increased demand of £264.93 with a judgement against me (exhibit 11), at which point I had been told at various points over the previous 9 months that I owed the claimant £149,£160,£264.98 with no explanation as to how these fees have been calculated

I received a claim form from Northampton (issue date 26th July) in which the particulars of the claim stated the vehicle "incurred the parking charge on xxx for breaching terms of parking on the land at xxxx , and the defendant was driving and/or is the keeper of the vehicle (exhibit 12) the date stated on the particulars of the claim is not the date the vehicle was parked at (location) , I have attached a letter from the hospital confirming the date attended (exhibit 13).

A letter from Gladstones dated xxx with a copy of directions questionnaire.

I understand from correspondence with the claimants case relies upon signage at the site constituting a 'contract ' between defendant and the claimant as per Parking eye v Beavis for breach of terms on the particulars of claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by signage.

The guidelines state that text on signage should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign, the text on the sign particularly that which refers to contractual terms and a parking charge if very small text.

The guidelines state that signage is intended to form a contract should be legible and placed in a position, such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site (exhibit 14) is where the vehicle was parked and no signs are present.

Signage within (location) is imposible to read whilst driving as it is mounted high on a post at least 7 feet high and has foliage (exhibit 15) , therefore not prominent whilst driving.

Further signage on the site was not visible as small text signs mounted on the brick post and unless the driver look so right r left whilst passing the posts would be missed as they are not within the drivers eyeline. Video evidence can be provided on the day.

In Vine v London borough of Waltham Forest the court of appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions that they haven't seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no sign directly adjacent to the appellants parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not be seen from within the vehicle whilst parking. In this case there was no sign adjacent to my vehicle (exhibit 15).

Landowner Authority

The claimant has not provided any indication they are authorised by the landowne to issue parking charges and carry out proceedings on their behalf.

The particulars on the claim include money over and above the original parking charge, I have no idea what these charges refers to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take claimants far fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account the claimant put to strict proof additional charges are justified.

The particulars of claim include a sum of £50 legal representatives costs yet all I have revived from the claimant solicitors are automated letters. The claimant is put to strict proof that these solicitors costs are justified.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Name
Sign
Date

Staceyplindfield

I will add the numbering once all given ok and apologies for grammar again will edit on final copy

Coupon-mad

On the (date) my six year old daughter had pushed her earring stud through her right earlobe causing swelling and pain, (exhibit 1&2) as I was unable to remove stud, I quickly went to the go who referred us to Accident and emergency department

You went to 'the go'?

In January I received via post a penalty notice letter which included a picture of vehicle (registration), in which the claimants had obtained personal information from Dvla and requested confirmation of who the keeper of vehicle is. I disregarded this letter, which had all the hallmarks of a scam/junk mail, given that no PCN was served and no signs/lines were seen on the material day, and no 'contract' was ever agreed. I had never heard of the company.

On the (date) I received a letter from debt recovery plus Lord

Lord? Not sure I would call DRP that!


Remove this, no need:

A letter from Gladstones dated xxx with a copy of directions questionnaire.

KeithP

I disregarded this letter.

I would leave this sentence out. It does you no favours and isn't necessary.

...as tow hitch date...

What??

I know you said your would correct grammar later, but you are asking people to try and read this stuff.

...an increased demand of £264.93 with a judgement against me (exhibit 11),...

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a judgement you received. What exactly is exhibit 11? Is it a Letter Before Claim?

Staceyplindfield

Hi thank your for your help, it is very appreciated, I have amended below, hopefully will read a little better!
I would be grateful if you could cast some eyes over please.
Also when given the OK, can I send this straight away? Or wait for correspondence from them with there witness statement first (don't want to miss the deadline) especially as falls between Christmas/new year.
I'm struggling with 13/14 in my ws as not sure if this is relevant that case was originally set aside?
Apologies for all the questions but in my ws 18/19 I refer to the guidelines ( I copied from a template that said these guidelines are from ipc) the firm are part of bpa, so should I change that?

Witness Statement

1) I (name), am the defendant in this matter and litigant in person.

2) The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge, where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.
I am unrepresented with no experience of court procedure and trust the court excuses my inexperience.

3) The claim refers to a parking incident at (location) , the particulars of claim suggest vehicle (registration) was parked on the date of (date) , however this is incorrect as as the vehicle was not here on this date, therefore I believe this claim be dismissed due to no evidence of my vehicle being here on this date.

4) On the (date) my six year old daughter had pushed her earring stud through her right earlobe causing swelling and pain, (photo exhibit 1&2) as I was unable to remove stud, I quickly went to the General Practitioner who referred us to Accident and Emergency department in (location), whilst we were driving my daughter was in severe pain and very distressed as she had previously had four operations the previous year on the same ear which has left her traumatised and scared of hospitals (photo exhibit 3)

5) I parked in a parking space in a lay by for all intents and purposes appears to be a public road with residential homes (photo exhibit 4). We immediately by foot proceeded to the hospital with my daughter who had not yet calmed and was crying with distress. I had parked legally and was not obstructing any traffic or vehicles.

6) In January I received via post a penalty notice letter which included a picture of vehicle (registration), in which the claimants had obtained personal information from Dvla and requested confirmation of whom the keeper of the vehicle is. I I had never heard of the company and the letter had all the hallmarks of scam/ junk mail, given no parking charge notice was served and no signs/lines were seen on the material day, and 'no' contract was ever agreed.

7) On the (date) I received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (letter exhibit 5 copy) threatening court action due to an unpaid parking notice - the letter stated vehicle (registration) parking charge date as 19th December 2016, this is impossible as I was not at this location on this date. The parking charge had also increased to £149.

8) I then received a letter dated xxx from Gladstones ( a well known serial litigant and 'roboclaimer') in which they requested settlement and threatened court action against me (letter exhibit 6)

9) On the (date) I received a 'letter before claim' from Gladstones with the increased parking charge to £160 (letter exhibit 7) , the letter also requested 'aknowledge of receipt of this letter with full written response with full account of circumstances that led to charges being imposed and confirm who the driver was at the time of each incident and current address' - this letter again states the parking date was 19th December which is incorrect.

10) I aknowledged the letter and sent a reply to Gladstones (letter exhibit 8) which referred to the fact my daughter was in distress due to her ear and included photos (photo exhibit 1&2).

11) On the (date) Gladstones responded via post that they cannot accept the reason to waiver the charge (letter exhibit 9) quoting Vine vs Waltham as justification for the parking charge.

12) I wrote to the Dvla requesting the release of information as to which date and company had requested my details. I received Dvla's response which shows that information was requested 2 days after the parking date (letter exhibit 10)

13) I filed my defence to the courts within the time period requested, which unfortunately had been handed to the incorrect department and therefore missed the deadline and the case was dismissed in which I then received further correspondence from Gladstones on (date) with an increased demand of £264.93 advising me they have obtained judgement against me (letter exhibit 11).

14) The courts were able to 'set aside' the case and the claimant continued to pursue with the original particulars of claim.

15) Over the previous 9 months the claimant has requested the following amounts £149,£160,£264.98 with no explanation as to how these fees have been calculated.

16) I shortly received a claim form from Northampton (issue date 26th July) in which the particulars of the claim stated the vehicle "incurred the parking charge on xxx for breaching terms of parking on the land at xxxx , and the defendant was driving and/or is the keeper of the vehicle (exhibit 12) the date stated on the particulars of the claim is not the date the vehicle was parked at (location) , I have attached a letter from the hospital confirming the date attended (letter exhibit 13)

17) I understand from correspondence with the claimants the case relies upon signage at the site constituting a 'contract ' between defendant and the claimant as per Parking eye v Beavis for breach of terms on the particulars of claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by signage.

18) Condition 18.3 of the British Parking Associations code of practice states text on signage should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign, the text on the sign particularly that which refers to contractual terms and a parking charge if very small text.

19) Condition 18.1 of the British Parking Associations code of practice states that signage is intended to form a contract should be legible and placed in a position, such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site (photo exhibit 14) is where the vehicle was parked and no signs are present.

20) Signage within (location) is imposible to read whilst driving as it is mounted high on a post at least 7 feet high and has foliage (photo exhibit 15) , therefore not prominent whilst driving.

21) Further signage on the site was not visible as small text signs are mounted on the brick post and unless the driver looks right or left whilst passing the posts would be missed as they are not within the drivers eyeline. Video evidence can be provided on the day.

22) In Vine v London borough of Waltham Forest the court of appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions that they haven't seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no sign directly adjacent to the appellants parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not be seen from within the vehicle whilst parking. In this case there was no sign adjacent to my vehicle (photo exhibit 15).

Landowner Authority

23) The claimant has not provided any indication they are authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and carry out proceedings on there behalf.

24) The particulars on the claim include money over and above the original parking charge, I have no idea what these charges refers to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take claimants far fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account the claimant put to strict proof additional charges are justified.

25) The particulars of claim include a sum of £50 legal representatives costs, yet all I have reeceived from the claimant solicitors are automated letters. The claimant is put to strict proof that these solicitors costs are justified.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Name
Sign
Date

Staceyplindfield

Oops sorry for duplication!

Le_Kirk

Staceyplindfield wrote: »

Oops sorry for duplication!

You can edit your post and delete the duplication.

Staceyplindfield

All done thankyou

KeithP

Staceyplindfield wrote: »

Apologies for all the questions but in my ws 18/19 I refer to the guidelines ( I copied from a template that said these guidelines are from ipc) the firm are part of bpa, so should I change that?

You'll probably find that 'the guidelines' from both those bodies are pretty similar on those points but you need to check.

Perhaps you should also clarify what you mean by 'the guidelines'.
I.e. instead of saying 'The guidelines state...' you should perhaps say 'Condition 18 of The British Parking Association's Code of Practice states...'.

Click here for the BPA CoP.