Parking Awareness Service (PAS) PCN

johjames

Coupon-mad said:

In 56 you have 'Despite of this' (a typo).

In 29 I would add that the Excel v Smith case was first decided wrongly by a District Judge and then was re-heard on appeal by a Circuit Judge. It is persuasive on parking claims dealing with the same fact of law.

Thanks Coupon-Mad, I've amended the typo in 56 and added in your suggestion for 29. What are your thoughts on including the 125 pages letters and emails from PAS and their agents, evidencing the frequent and consistent nature of their communications?

Coupon-mad

Yes, as one compressed zip file exhibit. You are going to gave to compress all your PDFs or it won't email.

Or resort to a printed paper file and add the costs to your costs assessment.

BTW can you show us those 125 pages as a compressed zip file hosted on Dropbox (all ID redacted) please?  I think I could use that evidence to Government to show why they are right to cull what the thug PPCs and DRAs are doing to people.

johjames

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, as one compressed zip file exhibit. You are going to gave to compress all your PDFs or it won't email.

Or resort to a printed paper file and add the costs to your costs assessment.

BTW can you show us those 125 pages as a compressed zip file hosted on Dropbox (all ID redacted) please?  I think I could use that evidence to Government to show why they are right to cull what the thug PPCs and DRAs are doing to people.

Thanks again Coupon-mad. I can certainly anonymise and upload those pages to Dropbox. It might take me a little while though, given the volume.

johjames

If anyone has other comments to make in relation to my amended WS (Dropbox link below), then I'd very much welcome them, because the submission date is around the corner. 

I also have a couple of issues, which I'm unsure about in relation to my amended WS, if any of you wouldn't mind advising please: 

1. Where is the paragraph(s) in R (on the application of Duff) v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWHC 1605 where it states that a driver cannot be presumed to be the keeper please? I've read the judgement and haven't been able to find this.

2. Is it best to put the entire case law judgement documents that I'm using as exhibits in my bundle, or just the relevant sections from these? I've highlighted (perhaps I should reference that I've done so?) the relevant sections in those that are lengthy, because at present I'm using the entire judgements. 

Thanks again all.

Dropbox Link to my amended WS:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxqguhrbycm5x3g/1 PAS trial bundle anon.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Love the name and date changes and the 'space shuttle' in this version!

That link doesn't have the extra few words at 29 that I suggested you need to add.  It's just that Excel v Smith is much more important an authority than Excel v Lamoureux because the former was heard by a Circuit Judge, to correct an error by a District Judge and being a higher level decision it is 'persuasive'.

Far more important your Judge reads that one and doesn't just dismiss them both as first instance county court decisions.

1. Where is the paragraph(s) in R (on the application of Duff) v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWHC 1605 where it states that a driver cannot be presumed to be the keeper please? I've read the judgement and haven't been able to find this.

This is quite funny - and another reason not to go to town quoting from Excel v Lamoureux. Quote from Excel v Smith more!

Mr Lamoureux is a poster here and a contact of mine within the BMPA parking ticket fighting consumer group. He said that the Judge misread a footnote on a piece of evidence he was using and she thought it was the completely irrelevant Duff/bailiff case.  Anyway, where she says she was persuaded by the Duff case, she wasn't. She misread something...I can't even recall what.  Might have been Excel v Smith!

2. Is it best to put the entire case law judgement documents that I'm using as exhibits in my bundle, or just the relevant sections from these? I've highlighted (perhaps I should reference that I've done so?) the relevant sections in those that are lengthy, because at present I'm using the entire judgements. 

You should supply entire judgements - except for the two ParkingEye cases of Beavis and Somerfield, which are higher authorities the Judge can access easily.

You will need to merge and compress your exhibits as this will be too big to email. Or post a paper file to court, or hand deliver it in a nice organised ring binder with the date and time if the hearing emblazoned on the front.

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  there are several instances where "Judgment" includes an erronous middle "e"  -  if only for consitency with the other correct instances.

(If not already aware  -  control + F  -  type "Judgement" in box  -  will find the 4 instances)

Probably even more pedantic:-

"42. In the alternative, if the PAS alleges signage was present, ........"  -  swap "the" i.e.:-

........., if PAS alleges the signage was present..

johjames

Coupon-mad said:

Love the name and date changes and the 'space shuttle' in this version!

That link doesn't have the extra few words at 29 that I suggested you need to add.  It's just that Excel v Smith is much more important an authority than Excel v Lamoureux because the former was heard by a Circuit Judge, to correct an error by a District Judge and being a higher level decision it is 'persuasive'.

Far more important your Judge reads that one and doesn't just dismiss them both as first instance county court decisions.

1. Where is the paragraph(s) in R (on the application of Duff) v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWHC 1605 where it states that a driver cannot be presumed to be the keeper please? I've read the judgement and haven't been able to find this.

This is quite funny - and another reason not to go to town quoting from Excel v Lamoureux. Quote from Excel v Smith more!

Mr Lamoureux is a poster here and a contact of mine within the BMPA parking ticket fighting consumer group. He said that the Judge misread a footnote on a piece of evidence he was using and she thought it was the completely irrelevant Duff/bailiff case.  Anyway, where she says she was persuaded by the Duff case, she wasn't. She misread something...I can't even recall what.  Might have been Excel v Smith!

2. Is it best to put the entire case law judgement documents that I'm using as exhibits in my bundle, or just the relevant sections from these? I've highlighted (perhaps I should reference that I've done so?) the relevant sections in those that are lengthy, because at present I'm using the entire judgements. 

You should supply entire judgements - except for the two ParkingEye cases of Beavis and Somerfield, which are higher authorities the Judge can access easily.

You will need to merge and compress your exhibits as this will be too big to email. Or post a paper file to court, or hand deliver it in a nice organised ring binder with the date and time if the hearing emblazoned on the front.

Thank you, I'm not quite sure what's happened there Coupon-Mad, I had amended my WS, so I will return and address this. Thanks for letting me know about Duff, great to have Mr Lamoureux on board! Do you have any idea whether Judges generally prefer a hard copy? I'm minded to submit digitally at this point, but happy to be persuaded otherwise. 

johjames

1505grandad said:

A heads-up  -  there are several instances where "Judgment" includes an erronous middle "e"  -  if only for consitency with the other correct instances.

(If not already aware  -  control + F  -  type "Judgement" in box  -  will find the 4 instances)

Probably even more pedantic:-

"42. In the alternative, if the PAS alleges signage was present, ........"  -  swap "the" i.e.:-

........., if PAS alleges the signage was present..

Thank you 1505grandad, I will address these issues. I'm grateful for your thoroughness.

Coupon-mad

I do think Judges prefer a hard copy.

All neat and tidy in a ring binder, with page dividers and all exhibits numbered and ordered, with tabs to separate and find each one.

No paper clips.

And the file must have the time and date of hearing and the claim number and parties written on the front so some clerk doesn't misfile your hard work.

johjames

Coupon-mad said:

I do think Judges prefer a hard copy.

All neat and tidy in a ring binder, with page dividers and all exhibits numbered and ordered, with tabs to separate and find each one.

No paper clips.

And the file must have the time and date of hearing and the claim number and parties written on the front so some clerk doesn't misfile your hard work.

Thank you Coupon-Mad, I suspected as much. If I submit a hard copy to the Court, for the Judge, do you know if I'm then obliged to send the Claimant a hard copy, or can I still submit theirs digitally?