Late NTK, Unreadable Signage and False PCN

BTailor

Le_Kirk Don't worry, I have no intention of agreeing to mediation. I have been waiting patiently for my DQ, MCOL's most recent history states that the defence was received on the 31/10/19, but there are no updates or mentions of my DQ being issued. I'll download.

Thanks

BTailor

Good evening all, 

I was issued with a Notice of Allocation to the small claims track hearing on the 20th Jan. 

I have since been reading up on Witness statements and have come up with the following below. It has been hard to know how much to include as there are varying degrees of detail of the examples within the Newbies Post, as well as many that apply to situations with a slight difference to my own. I was also slightly confused as to the use of a 'Skeleton Defence'. Anyhow please let me know if it needs work. The Court date is mid-march.

Thank you! 

-------------------------
Witness Statement
-------------------------

 

1.     I am XXX, of XXX the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

 

2.     I was the registered keeper of the Vehicle XXX on the date of the claim.

 

3.     I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

 

4.     On 22/1/18 the driver of the vehicle visited the XX car park in the early hours of the morning and was met with the non-lit area to park in, with various vehicles already within it. The only sign that would have been visible to the driver had these conditions not been in play, was approximately 7 meters away from the place of the issued PCN (Exhibit 1)and all the Terms & Conditions had been completely removed via erosion Exhibit 1a.

 

5.     To my surprise I was issued a Notice To Keeper by Euro Parking Services Ltd on 21/03/2018 which was received on 23/03/2018. Exhibit 2

 

6.     No evidence has been supplied in support that Euro Parking Services has identified me as the driver.

a.     Due to this, Euro Parking Services would need to comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 (Exhibit 3) to pursue me as the keeper. They have not been compliant as they issued the NTK outside of the 28-day requirement from the date of the alleged claim, and therefore cannot transfer liability. 

 

7.     I went to investigate the site to see if the site was signed sufficiently and found evidence supporting how it was not (Exhibit 1a -1i). Not only are the font and sizes of the text ineligible to anyone - either person or driver – situated at an expected distance from the signs when using the car park, but with the clear and obvious lack of text through erosion is unequivocal proof that it was impossible to know what conditions the driver was allegedly being bound to.

 

8.     With this evidence I (the keeper) supplied the Claimant with a request to cancel their PCN Exhibit 4 which included Exhibit 1, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.

 

9.     The court is being misled to the full details of the claim: A subject access data request  was made by me and was generated by Euro Parking Services on 04/07/2018 It clearly states a Note ID: XXX on page 1 “Ticket edited on 20-03-2018 by Mr X” Exhibit 5. A subsequent subject access request was made and generated on X/12/2018, the note in question has been completely removed by Euro Parking Services (Exhibit 5a). Whatever the edit was, is now being withheld.

 

10.  Further to this, on X/08/19 I was supplied with a site plan by Gladstones (Exhibit 6), however the sign locations on this site plan are in direct contradiction to the images in Exhibit 1 which were taken well in advance of X/08/19. In this instance, signs ‘9’ & ‘10’ as defined by the Claimant were not in place on the date of the claim. 

 

11.  Another investigation to the site on a later date provided evidence that sign ‘4’ on the Claimant’s site plan was also eroded all of the terms (Exhibit 7), proving that the site consistently fails to establish any terms for drivers.

 

12.  The original PCN (Exhibit 8) administered by the claimant states a full charge of £100.00 (£60.00 discounted) however the Claimant's legal firm now inflates these sums, in a deliberate or negligent attempt at 160% recovery:

a.     £100.00 Principal debt

b.     £60 ‘for time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge’

c.     Outstanding balance to pay now £160

 

13.  With the initial claim submitted to the court by Gladstones clearly following another robo-claim model, it is clear that no investigation has been made at all into the alleged claim and it is contested that any sum has been incurred facilitating recovery.

 

14.  I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, and time invested in preparation.

 

 

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

Signature

Date

BTailor

..as a side note, it was stated in the Notice of Allocation that the claim would be struck out if Gladstones don't provide the court fee, or the required information by Tuesday coming. 

KeithP

Earlier you mentioned a video.
Are you not going to use that as evidence?
If so, it needs referencing in your Witness Statement.

Yolando

anybody see anything non pofa compliant with this sign ? I know they can't just put a sign saying we are using ANPR

BTailor

@KeithP I was going to include that as 'Exhibit 1i'. It demonstrates how when you drive in, there is a van obscuring the signs when parked in one of the bays. I will make a differentiation and give it it's own number reference. I have a further video showing that the terms and conditions sign that they photographed in evidence of having signs on site was tucked away within a covered building on the site well away from the car in the uncovered part of the car park. Would this be useful?

@Yolando What makes you bring up ANPR please as that is not in play with this? if you could let me know of other non POFA compliant examples then I can certainly see if any fit with this example. 

Thanks!

Castle

Paragraph 6(a)-the limit is 56 days if they wish to comply with POFA2012.

(Is there going to be a 6(b)?)

nosferatu1001

You reference exhibits through labelling them INITIALS/001
This means both you and the claimant can reference without getting confused. 

BTailor

@Castle thank you, I will alter the exhibit refs. And yes sorry, point 'a' was originally made in expectation that there may be more to develop as a result of the previous two statements, but I left it there and then forgot to remove the (a). If there is no need to build, then I'll just put them all under 'Point 6'. 

BTailor

Well, well, well. The game of chicken is over! Just had a letter from Gladstones:

"Please find enclosed the Notice of Discontinuance which has been filed by the court... The Claimant discontinues all of this claim"

Thank you every one so much for your council and support throughout this process. My next (and hopefully final) question is; is there any way I can get reimbursement for the time devoted to this? Hours of research, preparation, writing (and stress!) has been put into this (not to mention what all have you have helped with). Plus I have already organised un-paid holiday for the court date, which I cannot cancel being so close. Is there anything that could be done please? 

Again, THANK YOU all!