HELP NEEDED! Received County Court Claim Mail Sent to Wrong Address

JM0809198

Hi people,

Sorry I haven't posted for a while alot has happened since I last posted.

I have just under a week to submit my witness statement. Just want to confirm that my main arguments is the failure to send me the notice to keeper within the required time period (first letter recieved was from DRP).

I've recieved gladstones witness statement today. Stating they sent me the NTK. Pictures of my car outside of the marked bay. Proof of their contract with the landowners etc.

Can I post it on here to get some valuable feedback on how to scrutinize it?

nosferatu1001

Yes of course, same as every other thread. Redact everything personal.
It will be their generic WS, that makes a bunch of unfounded assumptions NOT in the knowledge of the person making the WS.

Your WS has NO ARGUMENTS in it. It is facts. Post 2. You need facts, and the WS also contains all references to eiidence you will admit on the day.

JM0809198

Thanks Nosferatu.

The links are below:

Witness Statement
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h889ubvlhi3zwkv/vs%20UKCPM.pdf?dl=0

Photo Evidence
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ao7hiyo4nrf1909/vs%20UKCPM%202.pdf?dl=0

Contract with Landowner
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuetaid2ncr0m01/vs%20UKCPM%203.pdf?dl=0

The photos of signage are untrue, the whole site has 2 signs as opposed to 8, one which is impossible to see from the drivers seat upon entry because of how high it is and the other is shown in their proof of signage.

Furthermore I have discovered that there wasn't any lighting throughout the site at the time, the bay markings are unclear, and I didn't recieve the NTK they claim they sent shortly after the 'contravention'. They started managing the car park 4 days before the contravention but I'm not sure if I can use this against them.

Castle

I'm somewhat amazed they have managed to issue a NTK on the first working day, (3rd Jan), after the 31st December 2016.

You may want to contact DVLA to find out exactly when they obtained your details.

Based on the overhead map it would suggest that the car was parked right in front of one of their signs; but the sign appears to be missing on the NTK'S photo!

Coupon-mad

Yes, do that by email first thing tomorrow, URGENTLY to DVLA to this email address:

SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71879174#post71879174

I have just under a week to submit my witness statement. Just want to confirm that my main arguments is the failure to send me the notice to keeper within the required time period (first letter received was from DRP).

Probably not your main argument. No contract/signs are usually the main issue to hammer home.

In this case, the bay lines are very faded (you need to say to the Judge that those sparse lines would be impossible to make out if parking at night). And since this was a new regime starting on 1st December, and this event was on 31st of the same month, why (in the interests of transparency in any consumer contract, and fair dealing) did the parking firm not repaint the faded lines, when they sent a contractor/employee to place the signs?

Put that thought in the Judge's mind, it's in mine but I know why they didn't (money!).

And you can say that the photos show the vehicle WAS parked in the right 'bay or area' (the signs giving 'area' as an alternative, means there was no contravention of those terms as drafted).

OK, now look at the mock-up (made up from Google Street View, and undated) so-called 'aerial view' map with yellow splats suggesting half the signs are in trees. But look where they've put a yellow splat, right in front of the second bay in from the wall, exactly where the vehicle was parked.

But, there is NO evidence of a sign there...!

Look at the photos, the person applying a ticket had to find a sign on a small low wall, but there is no small low wall on the building in front of your car! Ergo, question the witness at the hearing as to why they made up signs that don't exist, and who created that 'aerial view' childish yellow painting by numbers effort and - put the legal rep on the spot here - ask, and press for an answer - why is it wrong?

Deliberately, or merely due to negligence?

Hmmm, Sophie Fenn, why have you signed this WS then? She won't be there to ask, but ask the rep the sort of Qs suggested by (solicitor) poster LoadsofChildren123, here (Q3 is for you case!):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74080170#post74080170

Ask also, why has the WS signatory (allegedly, it seems) lied(?) in point #19 where they talk about the so called 'site plan' of made up yellow splats? They have used a made up invented site plan which is not approved by anyone from the Claimant, or the landowner (because it's some yellow spots splatted randomly onto a GSV screenshot) to say there was a sign directly in front of your car, lit up by your headlights.

But there wasn't...was there?

Given that the yellow splats are untrue, and yet they form part of a WS signed under a 'statement of truth' by a person who won't bother to turn up at the hearing, suggest clearly that the Judge will hopefully consider the truth of the entire statement and the stock pictures of 'here's what the sign might have said', which are no more evidence than if you took along your own hand-drawn picture of your car!

Also, the landowner contract is signed by...who exactly? Name, position in company?

And why does the service schedule not cover such issues as costs of signage/permits, even if zero, and any exemptions for such vehicles as taxi's, Royal Mail vans or couriers carrying out deliveries, dustcarts, gas vans, GP/nurses on call, any contractors acting for the landowner and emergency vehicles or people simply loading/unloading on arrival at a new flat, at a point when they would not very likely yet have a parking permit?

I would question that contract (at the hearing) and suggest that pages have been withheld, along with the name of the signatories (unless your version does have them).

JM0809198

Thanks for the feedback! You guys are sharp.

I'm confused as to why they would blatantly lie regarding the number of signs on site. Am I right in suggesting that they believe that the cars headlights shone on the sign on the small wall prior to turning into the bay? from my own experience my headlights do not shine directly onto the sign so perhaps I should get a passenger to take some photos of it prior to entering the bay and its extremely hard to read unless I exit my car.

My court case is on the 13th of April, so I have until Friday to submit my witness statement, is it correct to assume that the court will be closed on Good Friday and Easter Monday, and would therefore mean I would have to submit it by Thursday the latest?

I will be sure to contact DVLA as soon as possible tomorrow morning.

CM shall I leave the points you mentioned until court or shall I bring them up in my SA?

GS sent me there WS by email, would it be sufficient for me to do the same?

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Am I right in suggesting that they believe that the cars headlights shone on the sign on the small wall prior to turning into the bay?

No, I would say even worse.

They are suggesting there's a sign hidden by your car, right in front of your car, the way I read the aerial view. They splatted an imaginary sign by the building in front of what looks like that bay, but there is no small wall there, so their own photos show it CAN'T be there.

GS sent me there WS by email, would it be sufficient for me to do the same?

Yes, to GS (several emails, NOT ONE big attachment) but not your court's copy. That needs to be in a lovely ring binder file, with contents page, then WS, then numbered/paginated evidence behind that, all in good order.

so perhaps I should get a passenger to take some photos of it prior to entering the bay and its extremely hard to read unless I exit my car.

No, not photos of that sign, forget it. Get pictures of the bay area that PROVE the aerial view is untrue, pictures proving there is no sign at the building there in front of that bay.

Do not help the Claimant with pics of a sign, unless you take one in the pitch black, that would help you. No flash, really dark, and pics of the bay lines in the dark too (make sure they can't be seen).

I'm confused as to why they would blatantly lie regarding the number of signs on site.

I wonder...!!

We aren't confused; seen all this before. IMHO the aerial maps are usually a pile of pants, made up.

You guys are sharp.

I'm a gal, but thanks!

nosferatu1001

Indeed: presume they will lie. GS especially make rubbish up al the time, and never get sanctioned - so its in their interests to do so. Enough people panic and pay up to make it worth their time.

Castle

JM0809198 wrote: »

Contract with Landowner
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuetaid2ncr0m01/vs%20UKCPM%203.pdf?dl=0

The other party is referred to as "Sovereign Housing", but this is just a trading name, not a legal entity.

According to Companies House there are at least 8 companies with "Sovereign Housing" in their titles, but no "Sovereign Housing Ltd":-
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search/companies?q=SOVEREIGN+HOUSING

JM0809198

Thanks for the information!

I email dvla last night so I will await their reply.

I also called the court and they stated I can hand my WS and evidence on Tuesday due to the bank holidays, although I'm not sure it's worth the risk. They also stated that I will have to send my WS and evidence by post to the Claimant but I'm assuming they don't know I have the claimants email address.

I will post my Witness statement sometime tonight as I'm currently at work.