Court proceedings for auto repair visit

Umkomaas

foofcat wrote: »

I will do that I think but no time to do it now because I have to get my witness statement to them by 5 June. I still plan to mention the discrepancy between the DVLA SAR and PCM's witness statement / evidence in my WS... sound okay?

I'm not the court expert, but sounds ok. See what others say.

foofcat

Thank you! I've just submitted an SAR through the PPC's website (and had a copy sent to myself). I mentioned in it that I would be forwarding the email to the ICO and the DVLA to ensure my data was handled correctly. Hope that's okay!

[Deleted User]

Alder v Moore is a nonsense. Said (legendary) footballer received insurance monies on the basis he'd not play professional football again and signed a written declaration to that effect. The claimant insurer was, if course, more than miffed that they'd paid out under false pretences.

Actually, given the circumstances of that case, there was no ambiguity in the contractual law position and the recovery of the insurance outlay was a reimbursement not a penalty.

It's something of an irony that it should be cited in your case if you are advancing either contractual ambiguity or penalty...

foofcat

I'm embarrassed at how long this is. It's very repetitive and it's definitely a first draft though I don't have much time now (still need to assemble the evidence - referred to in my WS in the form of Appendices). I'd be grateful for any feedback that will help make it more concise.

Here is the link because (embarrassingly!) it's too long to copy and paste here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ebkro6zsjr6mxd/Draft%20Witness%20Statement%20for%20MSE.docx?dl=0

I doubt anyone will have the time to read this in time so I'm going to do my best to cut it down if I have time. Next priority is getting the evidence together. Thank you!

foofcat

Alder v Moore is a nonsense. Said (legendary) footballer received insurance monies on the basis he'd not play professional football again and signed a written declaration to that effect. The claimant insurer was, if course, more than miffed that they'd paid out under false pretences.

Actually, given the circumstances of that case, there was no ambiguity in the contractual law position and the recovery of the insurance outlay was a reimbursement not a penalty.

It's something of an irony that it should be cited in your case if you are advancing either contractual ambiguity or penalty...

I think that's what I've said in my WS but much less concisely... though maybe I should add in the stuff about reimbursement not penalty. It was a weird set of cases they cited (Parking Eye v Somerfield, Alder v Moore and Elliot v Loake which I think is more murder related than I expected)

KeithP

Independent Parking Committee is an old name for them.

foofcat

Hi KeithP,

What should the name be? The Codes pf Practices say "Independent Parking Committee" and so does the agreement that the PPC sent as part of their evidence bundle. Although I can see that their WS says "Independent Parking Community"

What do you suggest using for the purposes of my WS?

KeithP

Not "Independent Parking Committee" nor "Independent Parking Community".

https://theipc.info/home

System

Is this not Joseph Ray Road (discussed before) where Rail Byelaws apply.

There is a sign on the railings outside the Sorting Office - see Google - which declares it is Railways land. In addition, another OP has a letter from Network Rail to say that PCM via Interserve are implementing Reg 14 which includes parking.

It would appear that PCM are now hiding the Network Rail issue by putting up the Interserve "contract" in the bundle in the hope it would not be spotted.

MInd you the Interserve contract is irrelevant given the OP was never the driver or keeper or had instructed the actual keeper (vicarious liability) on the day.

[Deleted User]

Elliot v Loake which I think is more murder related than I expected)

Ha! To be honest, in EvL given that there was a forensic match to the car paint (which was found at the scene) and the driver:

1. Said that no one else could've been driving
2. Said that he was the only one insured and permitted to drive the car
3. Said that the car was not stolen
4. Said that car damage was unrealistically caused by a hedge
5. Said (if I recall correctly) that he'd been in the pub with no witnesses

So, unpacking that - even on Ds account it was impossible for anyone else to have been driving. The next question was simply whether he was lying? Given that his car was there and his account of the vehicle damage implausible, then yes, it was easy to make a factual finding that he was the driver.

This in not a panacea and it is a criminal case. The question then is whether C has the same weight of evidence to allow the court to safely under d was the driver in your case. It will be your submission that they do not.