Appeal via Email not accepted

GreenSheep

Hi Keith

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, that's what I meant... The witness statement.
Sorry... I was at work and didn't have the documents to hand.

I don't really have any evidence to present.
I've written to the company that rent the spaces to get them to verify they don't have an agreement with NTC (they are yet to reply).

I'll reread the newbies thread now.

Thanks again, GreenSheep

GreenSheep

Hello there

WS complete and about to go in, ideally today as I'm close to a printer now and won't likely be for quite some time.

Any comments/adjustments/additions/deletions?

Thanks for all your help.

Cheers, GreenSheep

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between:
Norwich Traffic Control
and
-NAME-

Witness Statement

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

2. I am not the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and have contacted the DVLA to confirm this as fact (of which a reply is yet to arrive but should be available to bring on the hearing date), attach evidence of enquiry to DVLA dated 18th July 2019 as Exhibit A.

3. I was not the driver of the vehicle during the alleged incident. The vehicle is a company car with an unspecified and unlimited number of company drivers who may all drive the vehicle. Non-employees must be given express permission by the company to drive the vehicle. As I cannot give this permission I cannot be the keeper nor responsible for naming the driver. I have attached an extract from the Company Car Drivers Policy as Exhibit B.

4. There is no right to transfer liability of the alleged incident to the keeper, who is definitely not the Defendant in this claim (see point 1 and 2 above). In order to transfer liability to keeper the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (‘the POFA’) process would need to be followed, requiring a Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) to be issued to the registered keeper in the first instance, using an address provided by the DVLA. This has no been done. The POFA is provided as Exhibit C to confirm this matter. Incidental evidence exists to confirm an NTK was not issued, but it will be the duty of Norwich Traffic Control to prove that one has been to comply with the terms of POFA.

5. The Claimant may seek to allege that a presumption can be made that the Defendant, who appealed the PCN, is liable for the claim. However the Defendant denies that there that there is any presumption in law (whether statute or otherwise) that a person who appealed the PCN was the person liable for the charge. This was confirmed in an article by leading POPLA and PATAS/TPT Lead Adjuicator and Barrister, Henry Greenslade, headed: ‘Understanding Keeper Liabilities’ in his Annual Report in 2015. A copy of this has been included as Exhibit D.

6. The Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community and committed to follow that Trade Body's Code of Practice ('the IPC CoP'). The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of full compliance with the IPC CoP in all respects. It is the Defendant's case that this Claimant is known for predatory PCNs, unclear signage and a lack of POFA-compliant notices, as reported many times in the public domain. It can be seen from Exhibit E, pictures provided to the Defendant by Norwich Traffic Control, that the signage does not meet their own Trade Body’s requirements.

7. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it had proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue PCNs and to pursue payment by means of litigation in its own name. The Claimant appears to be a contractor on an agent/principal basis operating under a bare licence to erect signs on behalf of a landowner, and any authority they may have does not in fact include the parking space in question. Correspondence from Norwich Traffic Control only makes reference to -ABC COMPANY- and not once is -XYZ COMPANY- mentioned. Given that the vehicle was not parked in an -ABC COMPANY- space but a -XYZ COMPANY- space, this claim holds no merit even if the Claimant had been able to identify the driver.
It can be clearly been from the first picture provided to the Defendant by Norwich Traffic Control, also in Exhibit E, that the car was parked in an -XYZ COMPANY- space and not an -ABC COMPANY- space, which all correspondence from Norwich Traffic Control had made reference to without ever mentioning -XYZ COMPANY-. I also believe, as can been seen from the angle that the photo has been taken from, that Norwich Traffic Control made an attempt to hide that the space was a -XYZ COMPANY- space – which shows their devious and underhand nature.

6. It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

7. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature
Date

DoaM

I'll let others comment on the WS ... it reads more like a defence to me (albeit with evidence included as appendices).

I just wanted to say that you can submit your WS to the court by email as a PDF attachment. Do you have an email address for NTC and their legal representative?

BrownTrout

DoaM wrote: »

I'll let others comment on the WS ... it reads more like a defence to me (albeit with evidence included as appendices).

I just wanted to say that you can submit your WS to the court by email as a PDF attachment. Do you have an email address for NTC and their legal representative?

Good advice, to many people are wasting time and money printing of their witness statements and taking time, effort and money to deliver them when there is no need

We should for ALL cases be advising people to use the relevant courts E-Filing email address

GreenSheep

Hello

Thank you for reading and replying.

Yes, it does sound a bit defence-esque, but it was really difficult to portray the reasons for the evidences supplied without putting in that detail.
I have culled a lot stuff from the defence to get to that, on the points where I pinched from.

I've actually called the Court and have their email address and the lady on the phone said they actually prefer emails.
I've also got an email address for BW Legal.
However, I still need to print, sign, scan, email..

Cheers, GreenSheep

Le_Kirk

Not sure how you are using Promissory Estoppel, that is supposed to be when someone makes you a promise and then goes back on their promise, i.e. says you can park here and then sends you a PCN for parking there.

It does look more like a defence than a witness statement. Hopefully you have filed your defence, in which case you can say "this is my witness statement in support of my defence already filed." your witness statement should then be a narrative, i.e. what happened on the day, although difficult to see how you can make a story (narrative) when you were not there - if I am reading your WS correctly.

GreenSheep

Hello Le Kirk

I didn't actually know what that meant and assumed it was just a general sign off! Should've Googled! I'll delete. Thanks.

That's exactly the problem I'm having.

I have filed a defence with Nottingham months ago.

Should I go for it and submit it?

Cheers, GreenSheep

KeithP

GreenSheep wrote: »

However, I still need to print, sign, scan, email..

Well you'll need the printed and signed original to take to court on the day anyway.

Le_Kirk

I have just read back through the thread and can see that you filed a defence heavily edited by Coupon-mad and you cannot do better than that! In my opinion you should certainly remove the promissory estoppel bit and anything else that you have already filed in your defence, (providing you add "in support of my defence already filed") keeping the witness statement to the bits about the RK, day-to-day keeper, authorised drivers, so you can submit the evidence (even though you have not received it from the DVLA yet, although the company must have the logbook - V5C), the bits about POFA so you can submit that evidence, the actual parking incident and the evidence of the photos of the car being parked. Others may chip in this afternoon.

GreenSheep

The company get very shirty about giving out V5s. That is why I went to the DVLA.
I also didn't want to submit the V5 as evidence as it would show I had the authority to request it and therefore some say over the car.
And I was hoping that when it comes to the hearing I will have the ability to simply ask 'who owns the car, then?' to BW Legal. And this will prove they don't know and therefore haven't followed the procedures of POFA. If I submit the V5 they will know the answer.

That was my thinking.

Thanks for your help.