5 Days Remaining - Please Support My WS

Jonathon365

Hello,

My previous thread is getting no traction and I require urgent support in building my witness statement.

Right now, I am feeling out of my depth, completely overwhelmed and very stressed in putting this together.

Below is what I currently have for the WS. Are these valid arguments? Is the evidence i'm using correctly applied? Will this be enough to win? Has it been put together correctly? I really need helping in building these points out.

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all for the following reasons:

1.1 The Claim relates to 5 alleged parking violations from vehicle (REG NUMBER) having been loaded at Lancaster University Campus (FULL ADDRESS HERE).
First Parking are arguing I have breached Lancaster University Parking Policy and therefore bound by those terms creating a contractual charge.

1.2 On each of the alleged violations, I did stop my vehicle for a very short duration on Lancaster University Campus whilst I loaded books from the library into my vehicle.
The stopping of a vehicle for the loading to occur does not equate to the vehicle being parked.

1.3. HHJ Charles Harris in Jopson v Homeguard (2016) held this distinction that “it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time”.

1.4. HHJ Charles Harris provided a very detailed definition of 'parking' as opposed to a few minutes 'loading' and held: ''The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the defendant, loading awkward piece of furniture. [...]I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.''

2.0. Exhibit A - The Lancaster University Parking Policy point 20 states "Where vehicles are being loaded or unloaded in other areas, including car parking areas, vehicles must not be left unattended for more than 10 minutes at a time. This includes moving students’ belonging in or out of campus accommodation".

2.1. Exhibit B (EVIDENCE FROM FIRST PARKING PICTURES SENT TO ME UNDER SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST FOR 1 OF THE VIOLATIONS) shows the vehicle stopped for under 10 minutes, but a First Parking yellow ticket already applied.

3.0. The claim is for £860 of charges which represent gross inflation and add-ons to the original charges that were £75.00 each.

3.1. Under POFA Schedule 4 add-ons and additional charges are not allowed as part of any contract and are certainly not quantified on Lancaster University signage (Exhibit C).

3.2. Add-ons and additional charges were also not applied in the complex case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis (2015). In this case, only the £85.00 value of the original ticket and no additional charges were pursued. The attempt made by First Parking is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims cost rules.

4.0. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissable under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Jonathon365

Please any support is greatly appreciated! I am worried sick about this

Fruitcake

You should clear your text from this thread or delete it completely and bump your original thread. Nobody is going to hop between them when all the history and relevant info is elsewhere..