BW Legal Court Papers

Supersaver2017

I've had a really good crack at this from your feedback Coupon-Mad, if you could again check over this I would be forever grateful. Thankyou.

Witness Statement
I XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX address XXXXXXXXXX being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;
1. I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary.

2. I initially received a Letter Of Claim from BW Legal dated 19th October 2017, and responded in acknowledgement of this. The letter informed that I was being pursued for a charge in to the amount of £154 rising to an estimated total of £255.74 (See Evidence A).

3. I then carried out some research and sought advice online through various outlets, familiarising myself with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. As a result of this the alleged debt was disputed. With the letter issuing the incorrect statement that it was 'fully compliant with the Practice Direction' and as a matter of fact the content failed to meet the requirements for a letter before claim/letter of claim/letter before action/letter before county court claim. I then confirmed that the claim against me is a breach of contract action or if not to specify the claim (debt action, trespass, etc) so I was able to understand what the claim was about and how to respond to it.

4. In response to a follow up letter I received another letter dated 8th December 2017, and again wrote to acknowledge this. It was requested that I could be given the specified 14 days to reply as when the letter was received there was only a time period of 3 days to reply (See Evidence .
5. The same process was repeated on 21st December 2017 in which another non-compliant letter was sent. The same response listed above was given in a request for the correct formatted letter (See Evidence C).



6. The operator sees the motorist's evidence and makes representations, but the motorist is not allowed to see the operator evidence or make representations, the adjudicator is anonymous and the selection process for choosing an adjudicator is capable of being abused, the normal rule of law, where the claimant is required to prove their case is turned on its head, there is no independent board overseeing the appeals process, as there is with POPLA, there is no requirement to have an annual report published, as there is with POPLA.

7. The conflict of interests and unfair appeals system has now lead to the current Parking Bill

8. The claimant may state that if the registered keeper of a vehicle denies they were the driver they will need to produce sufficient evidence in support, failing which it is likely to be held that they were driving. The claimant would wish to rely on the precedent of Elliot vs Loake (1982). This would not be applicable as it has no application whatsoever to this case. The Defendant, as the keeper, is under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver, and the onus is on the Claimant to prove their case. The POFA Schedule 4 was enacted in 2012 to overcome the issue cited by the BPA, that parking companies were unable to pursue drivers who were not identified. This Claimant cannot dispense with the statute and
instead cite an older, irrelevant criminal case of Elliott v Loake, which turned on compelling forensic evidence and made no assumption whatsoever, that a keeper was the driver (See Evidence D)


9. The driver entered the registration of the car, paid the correct tariff, and the machine issued a ticket which unbeknown to the driver showed an incorrect registration of the car. The machine should not allow an incorrect registration to be printed on the ticket and indicates a malfunction between the P&D machine and Excel’s systems. This could be caused by a faulty/sticking or wet keypad, or the system itself misreading the information from the keypad, or even faded/weathered keys with unclear letters, given that this claimant is known to use old machines at their sites, prone to errors. There is no evidence of fault by the driver - it cannot be assumed that the number was in fact keyed in wrongly - and the claimant is put to strict proof. It is averred that, on the balance of probabilities the driver did not get their own VRN wrong and that it is far more likely that the fault lay in the old machine system or the keypad.

10. 5.1 If the ANPR was directly linked to the P&D machine/system, it would be impossible for anything other than a valid registration number to be printed on the ticket. Such systems exist at some retail parks (e.g. Tesco use a system run by Highview which shows shoppers an image of their car and the VRN, to click to confirm their car, no VRN requiring input at all). It is averred the claimant's faulty and old systems are not fit for purpose and cause drivers loss, not just of coins but unjust 'fines' such as this one. This is an unfair business practice, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs).

11. The machines Excel use nationally seem particularly prone to failure, and several complaints that charges have been issued even when a valid ticket has been purchased have been made in other attempts made by the Claimant. It is also noted that when these failures have occurred previously it has been refused to cancel charges even when CCTV evidence from nearby shops show tickets were purchased.

12. I refer to the case of Excel v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 (Peel Centre ticket failure) in that it was found it was through no fault of the defendant that this ticket displayed the letters “QQ” instead of her registration number. She obtained a ticket. She made the payment to obtain that. She displayed that ticket. It shows the relevant time of entry. It shows the amount that she has paid and it shows the registration number that the ticket machine produced. It would have been unreasonable to expect the defendant to do anything further beyond that as far as I am concerned. The registration number is not accurately reflected but that is through no fault on the part of the defendant and I find on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had inputted the correct registration number and she had then displayed the ticket that was issued and so to all intents and purposes had fully complied with the terms and conditions applicable to this car park. (See Evidence E)

13. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016. The Judge was critical of the claimant’s attempts to hold the keeper liable. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated “I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012” (See Evidence F).

14. I refer to the case of Excel Parking Services v Smith (appeal) Stockport, 08/06/2017 C0DP9C4E and C1DP0C8E. Appeal M17X062. In which it was found that a person is not generally liable in law for the actions of somebody they have allowed somebody else to use. If they were, then there would have been no need for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, which can be used to artificially transfer liability from driver to keeper in some situations. The hire car industry would also not be able to exist, as they would be liable for the actions of anyone using their cars (See Evidence G).


15. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA(CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case. a. In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other ‘legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question’( See Evidence H).

16. I have no liability as I am the keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges. a. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion b. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the barrister, Henry Gleenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ as set out in Schedule 4 (See Evidence I).


17. The signs around the residents parking are inadequate, confusing and forbidding. The entrance signs are poorly placed, very small and cannot be read when driving at a slow speeds. All signs are unlit, of a dark non reflective material and are extremely difficult to see in anything other than bright light. Entering the parking area from the entrance to where the car was parked only allows one perimeter sign to be in view, which is still unreadable from a vehicle.


18. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing, then I submit that the signage at the site at the time and date of the alleged event was insufficient to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and also did not comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice to which the Claimant was a signatory at the time. The signage was inadequate in terms of the following:
• Lack of illumination of signage (and the car park), poor visibility
• Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions
• Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity
• Large numbers of confusing and conflicting signs, including signs from other parties, such that it was not clear which signs had precedence
• Lack of relevant terms and conditions, such as the fees for parking
• Inadequate positioning of signs, at unsuitable heights

19. The amount claimed includes charges that the Claimant has charged without any explanation as to how it has been calculated. There is a discrepancy between the charge for breaching the claimant’s terms and the amount claimed on the particulars of this claim.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true

Signed:
Print:
Dated:

Evidence
A – Letter sent in reply to BW Legal 06/11/17
B - Letter sent in reply to BW Legal 08/12/17
C - Letter sent in reply to BW Legal 21/12/17
D – Copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA
E – Case Transcript - Excel v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 (Peel Centre ticket failure)
F – Case Transcript - Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016.
G – Case Transcript – Excel Parking Services v Smith (appeal) Stockport, 08/06/2017 C0DP9C4E and C1DP0C8E. Appeal M17X062.
H – Beavis Case Notification for Parking Sign
I – Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper.

Coupon-mad

This #6 comes from nowhere, and doesn't explain you are talking about the IAS system and whether or not you tried it? And I still see nothing to tell us about the letters you got EARLIER, before the LBC, and whether you appealed, or got no letters at all before the LBC?

6. The operator sees the motorist's evidence and makes representations, but the motorist is not allowed to see the operator evidence or make representations, the adjudicator is anonymous and the selection process for choosing an adjudicator is capable of being abused, the normal rule of law, where the claimant is required to prove their case is turned on its head, there is no independent board overseeing the appeals process, as there is with POPLA, there is no requirement to have an annual report published, as there is with POPLA.

This (below) makes no sense as it talks about a residents car park, but this is pay & display, and it talks about signs being 'forbidding' which P&D signs can't have been?

17. The signs around the residents parking are inadequate, confusing and forbidding. The entrance signs are poorly placed, very small and cannot be read when driving at a slow speeds. All signs are unlit, of a dark non reflective material and are extremely difficult to see in anything other than bright light. Entering the parking area from the entrance to where the car was parked only allows one perimeter sign to be in view, which is still unreadable from a vehicle.

Supersaver2017

Thanks Coupon-Mad,

To my knowledge I received letters in 2012 flagging the original ticket, to which the ongoing advice at the time was to ignore. Which I did....

The letters then re-emerged coincidentally after I had got another parking ticket cancelled by calling the store in which I was penalised for staying. This letter arrived almost instantly after I had the other once cancelled.

When the letters were sent in 2017 it was an instant letter before claim after the 5 year absence of any. I hope this sheds a bit more light on the situation.

I shall edit the second point regarding residents parking as that was in an itinerary of information I used with regards to signage which I forgot to amend.

I appreciate your ongoing time and support Coupon-Mad just so you are aware thank you so much

Castle

Supersaver2017 wrote: »

Thanks Coupon-Mad,

To my knowledge I received letters in 2012 flagging the original ticket, to which the ongoing advice at the time was to ignore. Which I did....

Are you sure... because in your very first post you stated that it was June 2014?

(In June 2014 Excel were members of the BPA).

Supersaver2017

My apologies Castle you are correct

Coupon-mad

Excel Parking Services Limited
Accreditation Start Date:
01/01/2015

https://theipc.info/aos-members/e

At the time on 2014 they were BPA members and not a single person here or on pepipoo would have advised to ignore a PCN from a BPA member.

It would have been a cinch at POPLA; at the time this was London Councils, and POPLA was winnable.

Oh well, you are where you are!

You need this in your WS, worded in the third person as the defendant of course:

I initially received a letter back dating to June 2014, which states payment had not been made for a parking in a pay-and-display car park. The driver on the day had purchased a ticket and had incorrectly entered their registration plate.

In 2014, Excel did not use the POFA wording on their NTKs, I know that for a fact. So you can confidently say that you vaguely recall receiving what looked like a scam/junk mail letter impersonating a parking ticket, which arrived weeks after any alleged parking event and too late to make any informed decision as to who was driving, not that the keeper has to give up that person to a notoriously aggressive, speculative litigator and ex-clamper private firm like Excel, in any case.

Why not just search the forum for Excel Witness Statement Simon Renshaw-Smith, I did and found these for starters:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72401465#Comment_72401465

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72415444#Comment_72415444

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72420451#Comment_72420451

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72550460#Comment_72550460

Some really good ones, good advice - and wins there to learn from (do not forget to ask for costs)!

Supersaver2017

Thankyou once again Coupon Mad, as always you are extremely helpful. I will include the amendments you mentioned earlier and also these this evening.

With reference to the Simon Renshaw-Smith WS and key discussions around the case, would you restructure my witness statement entirely or just amend/add bits from there which are relevant?

The ticket machine error and registered keeper are obviously key to my case but signage and other aspects could be added from your suggestions?

I have been given until 4pm April 9th 2018 for submission of my WS to the court and BW Legal which is this coming Monday. So if I were to scan and PDF each document of the WS and Exhibits and email over to the court/BW Legal by the cut off time would this be acceptable?

Coupon-mad

Yes email to BW Legal (several emails, with minimal attachments) but not by email to the court.

Hand deliver a file to the court or you will find they WILL NOT print anything out and your Judge will be annoyed that you haven't filed any WS or evidence - you have been warned!

I'd start again and base your WS on one of those 4 good ones, and add your specific detailed points.

Supersaver2017

Is there any reason the case was originally assigned to a more local court and now moved to one which is significantly further away CM?

Going to try and get another amended WS up by the end of the evening using what you have referenced.

Supersaver2017

Apologies if this needs further amending, no doubt it will and I'm happy to continually do so as per advice as I'm finding this stage the most difficult.I dont have a great deal of time left and having to submit this by Monday which I have now realised has to be in physical form (will be a 15+Mile drive out of my way) I just want to produce the best material I can for this WS. I can only thank anyone for their time in supporting me, it means a great deal in dealing with this from the vast knowledge and care you all have.

Will each transcript need printing in its entirety to be filed in the WS Coupon-Mad? Sorry if there are some awfully dumb questions throughout my thread.


Witness Statement
I XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX address XXXXXXXXXX being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;
1. I am (NAME) the defendant in this matter and the facts in this Witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

2. It is admitted that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned, but the defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event. There is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from almost 4 years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. The defendant therefore puts Excel to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

3. I initially received a letter back dating to June 2014, which stated payment had not been made for a parking in a pay-and-display car park. It was noted that the driver on the day had purchased a ticket and had incorrectly entered their registration plate, however the identity of this person remains unknown to the defendant as they are unable to recall the exact information from the time. This is due to the fact a number of people were insured to use the car at the time via fully-comprehensive insurance cover and also named driver’s on the insurance policy.

4. At the time of the stated parking offence I recall receiving what looked like a scam/junk mail letter impersonating a parking ticket, which arrived weeks after any alleged parking event in 2014 and too late to make any informed decision as to who was driving, not that the keeper is under any obligation to provide information on request or demand. As keeper there was no requirement for me to respond to the brightly coloured alarmist notices that appeared to be junk mail in June 2014. This was not an offence or fine from an Authority like a council, and there was no reason or obligation as registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law. A registered keeper could not in any way be legally liable as the law stood at that time. No adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter.


5. I initially received a Letter Of Claim from BW Legal dated 19th October 2017, and responded in acknowledgement of this. The letter informed that I was being pursued for a charge in to the amount of £154 rising to an estimated total of £255.74.

6. I then carried out some research and sought advice online through various outlets, familiarising myself with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. As a result of this the alleged debt was disputed. With the letter issuing the incorrect statement that it was 'fully compliant with the Practice Direction' and as a matter of fact the content failed to meet the requirements for a letter before claim/letter of claim/letter before action/letter before county court claim. I then confirmed that the claim against me is a breach of contract action or if not to specify the claim (debt action, trespass, etc) so I was able to understand what the claim was about and how to respond to it.

7. In 2012 after complaints made about Excel Parking stating or implying on their documentation /signage that the vehicle owner/keeper is liable for the payment of parking charges in respect of parking contraventions and following an investigation, Excel were banned by the DVLA from access to keeper data. From their action in my case it is clear they have not changed their tactics. They are attempting to hold me liable as they RK when, in law, they can do no such thing.

8. The claimant may state that if the registered keeper of a vehicle denies they were the driver they will need to produce sufficient evidence in support, failing which it is likely to be held that they were driving. The claimant would wish to rely on the precedent of Elliot vs Loake (1982). This would not be applicable as it has no application whatsoever to this case. The Defendant, as the keeper, is under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver, and the onus is on the Claimant to prove their case. The POFA Schedule 4 was enacted in 2012 to overcome the issue cited by the BPA, that parking companies were unable to pursue drivers who were not identified. This Claimant cannot dispense with the statute and
instead cite an older, irrelevant criminal case of Elliott v Loake, which turned on compelling forensic evidence and made no assumption whatsoever, that a keeper was the driver (See Evidence A)


9. The driver entered the registration of the car, paid the correct tariff, and the machine issued a ticket which unbeknown to the driver showed an incorrect registration of the car. The machine should not allow an incorrect registration to be printed on the ticket and indicates a malfunction between the P&D machine and Excel’s systems. This could be caused by a faulty/sticking or wet keypad, or the system itself misreading the information from the keypad, or even faded/weathered keys with unclear letters, given that this claimant is known to use old machines at their sites, prone to errors. There is no evidence of fault by the driver - it cannot be assumed that the number was in fact keyed in wrongly - and the claimant is put to strict proof. It is averred that, on the balance of probabilities the driver did not get their own VRN wrong and that it is far more likely that the fault lay in the old machine system or the keypad.

10. 5.1 If the ANPR was directly linked to the P&D machine/system, it would be impossible for anything other than a valid registration number to be printed on the ticket. Such systems exist at some retail parks (e.g. Tesco use a system run by Highview which shows shoppers an image of their car and the VRN, to click to confirm their car, no VRN requiring input at all). It is averred the claimant's faulty and old systems are not fit for purpose and cause drivers loss, not just of coins but unjust 'fines' such as this one. This is an unfair business practice, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs).

11. The machines Excel use nationally seem particularly prone to failure, and several complaints that charges have been issued even when a valid ticket has been purchased have been made in other attempts made by the Claimant. It is also noted that when these failures have occurred previously it has been refused to cancel charges even when CCTV evidence from nearby shops show tickets were purchased.

12. I refer to the case of Excel v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 (Peel Centre ticket failure) in that it was found it was through no fault of the defendant that this ticket displayed the letters “QQ” instead of her registration number. She obtained a ticket. She made the payment to obtain that. She displayed that ticket. It shows the relevant time of entry. It shows the amount that she has paid and it shows the registration number that the ticket machine produced. It would have been unreasonable to expect the defendant to do anything further beyond that as far as I am concerned. The registration number is not accurately reflected but that is through no fault on the part of the defendant and I find on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had inputted the correct registration number and she had then displayed the ticket that was issued and so to all intents and purposes had fully complied with the terms and conditions applicable to this car park. (See Evidence

13. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016. The Judge was critical of the claimant’s attempts to hold the keeper liable. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated “I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012” (See Evidence C).

14. I refer to the case of Excel Parking Services v Smith (appeal) Stockport, 08/06/2017 C0DP9C4E and C1DP0C8E. Appeal M17X062. In which it was found that a person is not generally liable in law for the actions of somebody they have allowed somebody else to use. If they were, then there would have been no need for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, which can be used to artificially transfer liability from driver to keeper in some situations. The hire car industry would also not be able to exist, as they would be liable for the actions of anyone using their cars (See Evidence D).


15. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA(CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case. a. In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other ‘legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question’( See Evidence E).

16. I have no liability as I am the keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges. a. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion b. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the barrister, Henry Gleenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ as set out in Schedule 4 (See Evidence F).

17. It is contended that the signs that were in place at the location were unclear and wordy, yet with the actual terms and 'parking charge' buried in small print, thus being incapable of forming a contract, as was found in many cases involving Excel signs at and around that time.
In reference to the British Parking Association Code of Practice, in which it states under appendix B, entrance signage: -
“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”
"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"

18. The amount claimed includes charges that the Claimant has charged without any explanation as to how it has been calculated. There is a discrepancy between the charge for breaching the claimant’s terms and the amount claimed on the particulars of this claim.

19. I refer to the case Parking Eye vs Cargius, November 2014 in which the judge dismissed the claim, The charge of £100 far exceeded the cost of the overstay (£2) and subsequent costs. Commercial justification did not apply because the car park generated substantial revenue and therefore it was not necessary to charge large amounts for transgressions to make management commercially viable (See Evidence G).

20. In Excel Parking Services v Cutts (case no: 1SE02795 at the Stockport County Court) the Judge DJ Lateef's personally visited the site to view the signs in situ, DJ Lateef's damning findings about Excel retail park signage in 2011 included these observations from her visit: “The key issue was whether Excel had taken reasonable steps to draw to Mr Cutts’ attention to the terms and conditions of using the car park”. The signs were found inadequate and the claim was thrown out. It is contended that the signs here were of a similar low, incoherent standard of overly wordy terms in a blue and yellow design in 2011. (See Evidence H)

20. It is expected that this Claimant may try to counter that article about these signs but it is worth noting that Mr Cutts manages the Plain Language Commission and is the author of Lucid Law, the Plain English Lexicon and the Oxford Guide to Plain English, so he is something of an authority on clear, legible terms. And the Judge agreed with him.

21. It is also worth noting that Simon Renshaw-Smith (previously known as 'Captain Clampit') who runs Excel, is in the public domain as having attacked the Judge’s integrity in the Cutts case. The Plain Language Commission's article states that Mr Renshaw-Smith wrote to Stockport MP Andrew Gwynne: ‘The recent decision by Deputy District Judge Lateef, is an embarrassment to the judicial system. Such an off the wall judgment leads one to question if there was indeed an ulterior motive. DJ Lateef is not fit to serve the Civil Courts.

22. No evidence has been provided that a valid ticket was not purchased the Claimant's evidence relies solely on an entry and exit photograph. There is no photograph of the vehicle without a ticket being displayed. The Claimant is suggesting that no ticket was purchased and displayed in the prescribed manner, this is denied, no evidence has been offered that any action by the driver at the time has led to a breach of this purported condition. In order to demonstrate that the driver failed to pay & display, the Claimant has the burden to have evidenced that, with photos and readings from that day from the machines, which are known to be unreliable.

Evidence
A – Copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA
B – Case Transcript - Excel v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 (Peel Centre ticket failure)
C – Case Transcript - Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016
D – Case Transcript – Excel Parking Services v Smith (appeal) Stockport, 08/06/2017 C0DP9C4E and C1DP0C8E. Appeal M17X062
E – Beavis Case Notification for Parking Sign
F – Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper.
G – Case Transcript - ParkingEye v Cargius, A0JD1405
H – Case Transcript – Excel Vs Cutts 2011