Small Claims date received

madmidwife

Just looked at what Gladstones have sent me by email and not all images were very clear :mad:
1. Copy of rejection of my appeal to Link Parking
2. Copy of my appeal to Link Parking
3. Copy of an 'agreement' between Link Parking and Hazelvine Ltd to manage the area (very poor quality photo not easy to read what it says)
4. Picture of their signage
5. Picture of the area marked with where the signs are situated
6. Copies of the PCN for both cars
7. Copy of letter saying my payment is now overdue
8. Photos of the vehicles dated/timed
9.Copy of the letter before claim

Thats it, no WS? no computer generated letter?

nosferatu1001

So they!!!8217;ve not sent you a witness statement? Be VERY sure on that!
If not then let the court know you don!!!8217;t have a ws, asking if THEY have one

Have you filed YOUR ws yet? C-mad asked you questions. Answer them!

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have you filed that WS and your evidence yet? Did you include Schedule 4 as evidence?

That's not correct. Statute Law is not 'evidence', and should not be filed with a WS, the extra pages in the bundle will not do anything to endear the Defendant to the Judge.

Most Judges are quite capable of looking up the statute in the books or on the HMCTS computer terminal that all courtrooms are supplied with.

For those who are too lazy to do that, and ask "do you have a copy?", the Defendant should have a printed copy with them, which they can then hand up if requested.

madmidwife

Writing my final witness statement and evidence to include today, as hoping to print and send later today, WS and evidence needs to be in by 5th March.

I got an email from Gladstones that went into junk luckily I checked it last night (not sure how they got my email address??)
Dear Ms Lawrence

We act for the claimant in the above matter.

Please find attached, by way of service, the Claimant's Witness Statement.

We confirm the statement has been filed at the Court


Yours sincerely,

But deffo no WS only what I listed in previous post. It was all attached to email and I eventually managed to open it with Adobe.

madmidwife

The exhibits which the defendant intends to rely upon are as follows:

1. Protection of Freedoms Act, 2014, schedule 4
2. Extract from Henry Greenslade Popla Annual Report 2015
3. Copies of Parking Charge Notice
4. Copy of Tenancy Agreement
5. Extract of Jopson v Homeguard, K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd, Pace v Mr N and Link Parking V Ms P
6. Extract from Transcript of Parking Code of Practice Bill

bargepole

madmidwife wrote: »

The exhibits which the defendant intends to rely upon are as follows:

1. Protection of Freedoms Act, 2014, schedule 4

No! Statute Law should not be exhibited. See two posts above this one.

madmidwife

WS

I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.


1. I am not the Registered Keeper of the vehicles concerned, there is no evidence from Link Parking of the driver and as this event involved two vehicles, it is impossible to say who might have been driving each vehicle. If the Claimant is claiming against the Defendant as the keeper of the Vehicle under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2014 it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to do so and it is denied that the claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2014.

2. The Defendant neither admits or denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts Link Parking to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves as Barrister Henry Greenslade stated in Popla Annual Report 2015 (Exhibit 1)



3. As neither vehicle stated in the claim are owned by the Defendant, I have no obligation to name the driver to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

4. No adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the yellow Parking Charge Notice, impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law.

5. Link Parking claim you can view photographs taken on their website. I have been unable to find any photographs as these can only be viewed prior to an internet payment being made, as shown on the parking charge notice (Exhibit 2)

6. The agreement for parking at the property lies with the landlords and not Link Parking or Hazelvine Ltd as the Landlords ‘own’ the parking space as part of the leasehold for the property. There is no mention of the need for a permit in the Tenancy agreement (Exhibit 3).
The Defendant understands that the Claimant is not the occupier of the location. The Defendant has no knowledge of the contractual arrangement, if any, between the occupier and the Claimant and would require the Claimant to prove that they are duly authorised to manage parking at the location and pursue litigation relating to the same.



7. I will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.Also in Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park furthermore In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park. (Exhibit 4)

8. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.

9. A publically televised debate held in the House of Commons (Parking Code of Practice Bill– in the House of Commons at 12:43 pm on 2nd February 2018.) discussed the unreasonable circumstances of repeated issuing of fines to individuals parking in their own parking space outside their property with the Claimant’s solicitors Gladstones being involved in many such cases. (Exhibit 5)

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

madmidwife

Ok, I have just posted my WS and evidence to the Court and Gladstones.
Hope I got it right :eek:

madmidwife

Dear All
Whilst trying to put together a skeleton defence I looked at the 'evidence' that GS had sent, this included a very poor image of a contract they have with Hazelvine ltd, these are a property management company and i'm guessing are also not the landowners. How can I word this to use in my skeleton?

nosferatu1001

Skeleton ARGUMENT - your defence is already in


You state that the C has failed to prove they have the rquired authority under their own trade associations Code of Practice, as the contract is not with the landowner. there is no proof that a mere management company has the necessary rights granted to them by the actual landowner

Or similar.

Is that all thats wrong with it? Is it signed properly? Dated? Still in date?