Gladstones / Millennium claim form

wi3347

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nope, not usually, but bearing in mind that Judge at Swansea...arrgh, ''rock and hard place''!

They won't accept so it is pointless, in reality, they'll demand 3 figures.

Thats what im thinking about the judge. Would it normally always be the same judge that deals with parking cases though? Id rather pay £100 at mediation than close to £300 if i have him again. I dont think id get a win past him, especially after last time. Ive applied for mediation and will update with the result of that.

In the mean time i will be starting my witness statement, Any advice? Will obviously include all the things mentioned in this thread.

wi3347

should i be writing my witness statement more like a letter? or numbered paragraphs like my defence, making reference to my defence and expanding on it?

im a bit confused.

Loadsofchildren123

Witness statement is written in first person ("I", "me" etc) unlike the Defence. It is your story, based around the facts. You tie those facts into your defence points.


I haven't refreshed my memory on your defence, but I recall the issue over land ownership and authority to operate.


Are you defending as keeper or driver?


Assuming driver, I'd start with a para saying something like I own the vehicle registration number x. I was driving the car on the relevant date and parked it [location]. Exhibited hereto marked WI1 [WI being your initials] is a google map on which I have marked the relevant points, and to which I will refer. The location where my car was parked is marked "A" on the map.


My defence is based on [3] issues:
1. that the C has no authority to operate on the land in question
2. set out other issues


Then deal with each in turn. in respect of 1 you would say that the C claims to have authority to operate at Metropole Chambers. Then refer to exhibit WI2, a Land Registry plan, which shows that Metropole chambers is just the building, not the street. Mark this in red outline on your google map and refer to that too. Then refer to the info given to you by the Highways Dept of the LA stating that it is adopted highway, and refer to exhibit at as WI3. Mark the street in blue outline on your map and refer to that too. Then say "Therefore, it is clear that the location where the car was parked (marked A on the map) is not part of Metropole Chambers, it is public highway, and the Claimant cannot have any authority to operate there and to issue parking charges.


Then run through your other defence points.


If you are defending as keeper, you need to state at the start that you were not driving on the day and produce some evidence that third parties are entitled to, and do, drive your car. If you have evidence you weren't driving that day, produce that (eg text messages, emails, a letter from your boss). Then you need to talk about POFA and how they have not complied with it because they served the NtK on x date whereas under para x of Schedule 4 it should have been served by y date, so you cannot be held liable as keeper.


If you are claiming unclear signage, you would mark on map A where the signs were and exhibit photographs showing that they are unclearly positioned and are illegible, relevant to where the car was parked, that there was no entrance signage etc etc.


So you're talking about facts, but tying them into your defence points.

wi3347

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Witness statement is written in first person ("I", "me" etc) unlike the Defence. It is your story, based around the facts. You tie those facts into your defence points.


I haven't refreshed my memory on your defence, but I recall the issue over land ownership and authority to operate.


Are you defending as keeper or driver?


Assuming driver, I'd start with a para saying something like I own the vehicle registration number x. I was driving the car on the relevant date and parked it [location]. Exhibited hereto marked WI1 [WI being your initials] is a google map on which I have marked the relevant points, and to which I will refer. The location where my car was parked is marked "A" on the map.


My defence is based on [3] issues:
1. that the C has no authority to operate on the land in question
2. set out other issues


Then deal with each in turn. in respect of 1 you would say that the C claims to have authority to operate at Metropole Chambers. Then refer to exhibit WI2, a Land Registry plan, which shows that Metropole chambers is just the building, not the street. Mark this in red outline on your google map and refer to that too. Then refer to the info given to you by the Highways Dept of the LA stating that it is adopted highway, and refer to exhibit at as WI3. Mark the street in blue outline on your map and refer to that too. Then say "Therefore, it is clear that the location where the car was parked (marked A on the map) is not part of Metropole Chambers, it is public highway, and the Claimant cannot have any authority to operate there and to issue parking charges.


Then run through your other defence points.


If you are defending as keeper, you need to state at the start that you were not driving on the day and produce some evidence that third parties are entitled to, and do, drive your car. If you have evidence you weren't driving that day, produce that (eg text messages, emails, a letter from your boss). Then you need to talk about POFA and how they have not complied with it because they served the NtK on x date whereas under para x of Schedule 4 it should have been served by y date, so you cannot be held liable as keeper.


If you are claiming unclear signage, you would mark on map A where the signs were and exhibit photographs showing that they are unclearly positioned and are illegible, relevant to where the car was parked, that there was no entrance signage etc etc.


So you're talking about facts, but tying them into your defence points.

Ahh i see, thank you for that, thats very helpful! i will get some work done over the next few days and post a first draft here.

Im defending as keeper, I have good proof of where i was at the time the PCN was issued.

The other points will be that the location is a public highway and i will be adding the land registry maps and email chain from the council in support of this. And the signage being small, poorly lit, hard to read etc which i have taken photographs of. The signage is prohibitory anyway, it says no parking, permit holders only. From what ive read that means there can be no breach of contract as no contract was ever offered? and its a matter of trespass. please correct if im wrong?

My thought process is, hopefully based on the council info and the LR maps that should be enough to get it over the bar as they have no grounds to bring the claim. Failing that, i have proof i wasn't the driver they must rely on the POFA. My defence against this will be the issues around signage mean no contract was offered to the driver.

If it all goes totally wrong at least i should only end up paying £100 as it states in POFA the maximum amount claimed can only be the amount on the original NTK.

wi3347

ok so far i have:

Claim number: Dxxxx

In the County court at Swansea.

Between: Millennium door and event security LTD – Claimant
And
xxxxx – Defendant

I am the defendant in this matter and submit the following as my Witness statement in relation to the above claim.
My defence is based on 3 main issues:
1. The land the PCN was issued on is a public highway, meaning the claimant has no authority to operate on the land in question.
2. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, but was not driving it on the date of the alleged contravention.
3. The signage at the location is inadequate for multiple reasons. It is prohibitory and does not offer a contract to bind the driver into paying any monies.

I have conducted research following receipt of claim which shows that the land the PCN was issued on, Salubrious passage, is a public highway maintained by the council of the City and County of Swansea. Meaning the claimant has no authority to enforce parking at the location and therefor no basis or foundation to bring the claim. I produce exhibit xx1, an email chain between myself and the highways department of the Swansea county council. In this email it is confirmed that “Salubrious passage” is an adopted public highway, maintained by the City and County of Swansea, making it public land.
The notice to keeper I received lists the address of the alleged contravention as “Metropole Chambers, Salubrious passage”. Exhibit xx2. I have applied to the land registry office for the boundary map of “Metropole Chambers”. The map supplied by the Land Registry office shows that the Metropole Chambers boundary line is the building alone and not any of the land outside. I produce the LR map as exhibit xx3.
At the time of writing this statement I am yet to have knowledge of any documents provided to the court in support of the application, accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. A further Land registry search shows that the landowner is a company registered in Sweden. I produce the LR deed as exhibit xx4. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Millennium Door and Event Security to enforce parking at the location in any case.

[Deleted User]

Nope. That's basically just another defence.

If you were across the other side of town having your hair done, say so.

If there are 15 insured drivers on the car say so.

Then you might want to say, "having been named as defendant in this matter, I visited the area on x date and obtained the photos at exhibit abc1. Unless the claimant has recently changed the signage, I believe this to be the signage at the material time."

Then deal with poor signage.

Then explain your enquiries regarding the land and append the land registry/council stuff. Try and keep this to what you said and did.

The chain of contracts stuff inmho goes in a skeleton argument not a statement, because that is a legal argument - but the divide in small claims track cases is a blurry one.

wi3347

Yes, what I've got there is just for point 1 of the statement, I haven't come onto the other 2 parts yet. That's just my first go at point 1 for opinions.

I can take out the contracts part if the opinion is it's not adding value. It is mentioned in the defence already after all

nosferatu1001

Your WS is a set of facts
A defence is a series of arguments.

If you find yourself arguing - "I am not liable because" being an argument - then it doesnt really belong in the WS.

Loadsofchildren123

wi3347 wrote: »

I, [name] of [address] WILL SAY as follows:


1. I am the defendant in this matter and submit the following as my Witness statement in relation to the above claim.
My defence is based on 3 main issues:
A. The Claimant had no authority to operate on the land in question because it is in fact land the PCN was issued on is a public highway, meaning the claimant has no authority to operate on the land in question.
B. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, but was not driving it on the date of the alleged contravention. I cannot be held liable as keeper because the Claimant did not comply with the strict requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
C. In any event, no contract was offered by the Claimant. Its The signage at the location was inadequately displayed and its wording for multiple reasons. It was prohibitory and did not offer a contract which can have bound to bind the driver into paying any monies.
In this Statement I shall deal with each aspect of my defence in turn.



A. No authority to operate

2. Exhibited to this statement at XX1 is a google earth map showing the area where the vehicle was parked on the day in question, and at XX2 is a bundle of email correspondence between me and the Local Authority's Highways Department. The location of the car is shown marked with a red "A" on the map.


3. After receiving notification of the alleged charge, I contacted the Local Authority to enquire whether the road on which the car was parked (Salubrious Passage) was in fact public highway. I have conducted research following receipt of claim which shows that the land the PCN was issued on, Salubrious passage, is a public highway maintained by the council of the City and County of Swansea. Meaning the claimant has no authority to enforce parking at the location and therefor no basis or foundation to bring the claim. I produce exhibit xx1, an email chain between myself and the highways department of the Swansea county council. In this email. I refer to the email at page x of XX2 in which the council it is confirmed that “Salubrious passage” is an adopted public highway, maintained by the City and County of Swansea, making it public land.


4. The notice to keeper I received lists states the address of the alleged contravention as “Metropole Chambers, Salubrious passage”. In addition to my correspondence with the local council, I also took steps to establish who owns the "Metropole Chambers", and the extent of the land ownership, where it is claimed the car was parked. At exhibit XX3 is a copy of the Land Registry Official Copy Register Entries and Title Plan for title number CM......., which is Metropole Chambers. The landowner is a company registered in Sweden. As for the extent of the land owned, the LR Title Plan clearly shows that the land comprised in the title consists of only the building and no land outside it. Exhibit xx2. I have applied to the land registry office for the boundary map of “Metropole Chambers”. The map supplied by the Land Registry office shows that the Metropole Chambers boundary line is the building alone and does not include any of the land alongside it outside. I produce the LR map as exhibit xx3. . I have marked the extent of the land ownership on the map at XX1 with a blue outline and hatching. I have also marked on it the public highway with green outline and hatching.


5. The Claimant, who is not the landowner, has produced no documentation to show how it asserts that it has authority to operate on Salubrious passage alongside Metropole Chambers, where the car was parked. The documents produced in XX1-3 clearly demonstrate that it cannot have such authority. Absent such authority it is not entitled to offer any contract on the land, to issue charges in relation to such contract, nor to enforce such charges.

At the time of writing this statement I am yet to have knowledge of any documents provided to the court in support of the application, accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. A further Land registry search shows that the landowner is a company registered in Sweden. I produce the LR deed as exhibit xx4. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Millennium Door and Event Security to enforce parking at the location in any case.

I've had a bash at this. You'll get the drift I think.

wi3347

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I've had a bash at this. You'll get the drift I think.

Thank you for that! there is some contradictory advice coming in now though which i think we should clear up. Some are saying dont cover defence points too much keep it all fact. ive written up the following, please see what you think and i can adjust as necessary. thanks!