Judgement for Claim (in defalult) - PCM & Gladstones

[Deleted User]

I'd get it in before the hearing as it is evidence as to why the case is defensible.

There are two tests: (1) have you a defence (2) have you acted promptly to set aside?

Here you are saying your chances of defending are good. Don't expect a lengthy examination of the defence arguments - merely a consideration of is there an argument? The receipt of the email is the basis for the need for a second statement.

I assume you have already addressed promptness.

MORB

Thanks once again.

I'd be grateful if someone could cast an eye over the below and proof / assess the content before I submit it to the court:

---

In the Willesden County Court Claim no: Dxxxxxxxxx



Parking Control Management ltd. Claimant
Parties
xxx xxxxxx Defendant


Witness Statement

I, xxxxxxxxxxx, am the defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement come from his personal knowledge.

The defendant references clause 13.3.1 in Rules & Practice Directions that states the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. It is held that the subsequent paragraphs demonstrate the same.

Also, as per 13.3(2) of the Rules & Practice Directions that states: !!!8220;in considering whether to set aside(GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly. In reference to this case, the defendant discovered the default judgement late December on returning to the UK (flight details/travel docs available on request), and filed for the application to be set aside on 4th Jan 18. With pre-existing family commitments over Christmas, the defendant acted as promptly as possible.

Find attached an email from the co-founder of the defendant!!!8217;s previous employer outlining his rights/permissions to be loading/unloading, stopping and parking at the headquarters of the offices, and the site the claimant alleges an offence occurred (XXXXXX, NW10 XXXX) . The company!!!8217;s principal operation is rapid response on-demand delivery. While the defendant!!!8217;s role was principally clerical the defendant was often involved in moving, collecting and delivering equipment/clothing/documents, assisting broken down drivers, and was dispatched to satisfy excess demand that the deployed fleet could not fulfil. As such, short access visits to the primary building housing the defendants employer were frequent and common. Had the defendant wished to be park for a prolonged period, he had at his disposal a permit that allowed him to legitimately park in a bay at the front of the premises.

Additionally, the defendant would like to reference the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016]. As an employee of the tenant in the primary commercial building on the site, at the time of the alleged offence the defendant should have enjoyed the right to unload as an ancillary to the easement to pass or re-pass conferred by tenancy in the property for which PCM ltd administer parking surrounding the same. In not accommodating for this right of access, PCM showed disregard for the rights of the commercial tenant, and by extension their employees.

Please also see attached pictures from the site evidencing the absence of any notices in the loading bay where the defendant was stopped (ref pic from each PCN). On examination of the signage with a zoom camera lense there are no provisions for vehicles loading or unloading.

Supplementary to this, should it be upheld that the defendant was constituted to be parked there are no double yellow lines painted in the bay yet they are present elsewhere accompanied by large font no parking signs as well as PCM terms and conditions signs. This inconsistency is confusing and has the effect of being misleading to anyone wanting to properly abide by the site terms and conditions. Should PCM wish the loading bay to be covered by the same restrictions, double yellow lines, the elsewhere employed !!!8216;No parking!!!8217; sign or the relevant T!!!8217;s & C!!!8217;s, should also be present, available and legible here. This is especially important as it is possible for a driver to enter the building via this bay and thus not encounter any signage pertaining to restrictions. As demonstrated by the pictures and those taken by PCM!!!8217;s agent, none of the above are present in the bay (pic A,B,C &D).

Furthermore, where PCM have demonstrated that they can and do produce large fonted and legible signs they have opted not to do the same for the signs carrying their terms and conditions. As pictured in (ref pic x & y & z). These notices are positioned at such a level from the ground as to not be legible. This is clearly an intentional obfuscation. The main body of the terms and conditions is printed in the smallest font on the sign. (see pic and also a picture taken by PCM agent demonstrating the same illegibility even when). As such, there can be no grounds for arguing a valid contract has been entered in to on the basis of PCM!!!8217;s failure to clearly !!!8216;offer!!!8217;, which subsequently cause the defendant to be unable to knowingly accept.
The defendant believes facts stated in the statement are true.

Signed:
Dated:

---

Any additional wisdom, advice of thoughts most welcome.

Cheers,

MORB

Any critical additions needed or otherwise glaring errors on my part?

Coupon-mad

In a WS you don't have to say 'the Defendant'. It should be a statement in the first person.

[Deleted User]

I did this, I did that.... Numbered pages and numbered paragraphs.

MORB

Roger that gents. Thanks

Coupon-mad

I'm a lady, but I suspect Johnersh is a gent.

MORB

Very sorry, I apologise absolutely! That was very ignorant of me. Thank you very much Madam you've been incredibly kind with all your advice.

I will keep the thread up to date with events.

MORB

Hi all, Unfortunately professional matters dictated that I did not have the the time to submit the supplementary witness statement, however the judge set aside the judgement pending the submittal of my witness statement which he advised to amalgamate as one document.

Gladstones nor an advocate showed up but instead they sent a letter, which the judge said he presumed they had also copied to me, which they hadn't.

I ask whether costs would be reserved and he said that he would not issue that order for now. I'm not quite clear on why but I was cautious about pressing given he seemed to be equivocating as to whether he thought I had a defensible case.

[Deleted User]

Ok well post the order on here when it comes through. It will then be easier for forumites to give a view as to the next steps.