Court proceedings for auto repair visit

foofcat

Thanks Jonersh, that's pretty much what I had in my draft WS but I've now added the bit about the hedge (which made me laugh) and clarified that the defendant admitted these things (previously I'd said the driver, which I think is less clear). Almost added that this case is distinct for those reasons but also because I haven't killed anyone. But don't want to come across like I'm being glib.

Would you mind awfully having a look at the latest version of my WS? It includes some of the exhibits I intend to include (the rest I'm either working on or need to scan first).

In case of interest, here is the other side's bundle (it's much shorter!)

foofcat

Thanks KeithP I've changed that now but also made reference to their old name as it's still listed on the Codes I'd like to use. EDIT: Oops the version I've posted still has "Independent" instead of "International" - I will change it in my own version but the one I've linked to will still have their old name. I've also now found the most recent Codes of Practice and will revise all points in my WS that refer to these Codes so they reflect the latest version, not the old one I was using. Thanks for flagging this!

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.

IamEmanresu, and on top of all that, the trouble for PCM is (I think) the IPC insists that any such agreement needs to say that the PPC is acting on behalf of the landowner. I may have read too fast but I don't think the Interserve one they supplied says that.

To make matters worse for PCM, they have broken other IPC requirements, which the agreement they supplied explicitly asks they do not do (or it at least says PCM must follow the IPC's Codes)... which means it's a useless agreement from either direction.

I've been at this for close to 20 hours and only stopped to sleep so I might have got the wrong end of the stick for all of this. It's all in the draft witness statement in my last post - I'm hoping someone can provide some feedback.

Thank you again everyone, I feel a bit less hopeless than I did on Friday (especially thanks to Coupon Mad who shook me out of it),

foofcat

In point 13 of my witness statement I have added some text now (in bold) as follows:

13. This email reply also stated that the next stage in the process, without payment from me, would involve County Court. I respectfully put to the Court that this discounting of my transfer of liability can only be viewed as litigious and disrespectful of my time and that of the Court's. Specifically:

a. In the Claimant's Witness Statement, they state that: 'The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my Company's staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other elements of my Company's business. My Company believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of the Defendant's breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage;

b. Respectfully, had the Claimant instead pursued the party to whom I transferred liability, they may have been able to better spend their time on whichever other elements of their business they saw fit. The Claimant's claim to costs associated with their misspent time pursuing me after I transferred liability is demonstrably false and is denied.

c. Further I would put to the court that in pursuing me in violation of PoFA , the Data Protection Act, their agreement with the DVLA (KADOE), and the Claimant's own accreditation body (the IPC), the Claimant has caused me considerable expense in terms of time spent researching and writing my defence and indeed this Witness Statement, not to mention stress induced by the daunting prospect of appearing in Court over an incident that I was not even involved in. This time could have been spent on other pressing matters relating to my personal life, working life, and wellbeing but instead was spent refuting a claim that I believe is entirely without foundation. As such, I respectfully ask that I be awarded costs, a schedule of which I will adduce at the hearing should the Court decide in my favour.

Is that okay to add?

Fruitcake

I haven't read your defence yet, but I believe you should be applying for additional costs for the claimants unreasonable behaviour (in pursuing the wrong party.)

I think you should differentiate your words and the claimants, either by different font type or different colour.

Fruitcake

2. I confirm that I am the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question, but was not the Keeper, nor the Driver at the time of the alleged parking incident.


I suggest you explain the difference between registered keeper and keeper, as well as KADOE here.

Fruitcake

3. ... the Independent Parking Community (IPC, formerly known as the Independent Parking Committee).

International

Fruitcake

19 a.
Section 3, sub para 1:
‘In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land
(including land above or below ground level) other than
—

Highlight these words.

foofcat

All suggestions incorporated and I've made any quotes from the Claimant blue. But wrt:

2. I confirm that I am the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question, but was not the Keeper, nor the Driver at the time of the alleged parking incident.


I suggest you explain the difference between registered keeper and keeper, as well as KADOE here.

I'm not sure what to include about Kadoe here but it now reads:

2. I confirm that I am the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question, but was not the Keeper, nor the Driver at the time of the alleged parking incident. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) defines !!!8216;Keeper!!!8217; as !!!8216;the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked[!!!8230;]!!!8217; !!!8211; in this case an auto repair garage. I confirm that I transferred liability to the Keeper on 19 May 2017, over two months before the Claimant began proceedings.

I'm wondering if adding any more will make it onerous to read?

Fruitcake

The PCN is using a prohibited premium rate 'phone number. More importantly, it, and subsequent documentation, is stating that there is a charge for using a credit card. This was banned from mid January by the introduction of the Payment Services Directive.
This therefore is an attempt at fraud.

Fruitcake

foofcat wrote: »

All suggestions incorporated and I've made any quotes from the Claimant blue. But wrt:



I'm not sure what to include about Kadoe here but it now reads:



I'm wondering if adding any more will make it onerous to read?

KADOE just means, Keeper At Date Of Event, which further distinguishes it from the Registered Keeper.