PLEASE HELP! Court Claim for residential parking fines!

Lunek

Thanks Coupon-mad. That is very helpful. I enjoyed reading them and understand it much better now. Pace v Lengyel explained very clearly about the signage.

Yes, certainly.

Do you mean I can use theirs?

Coupon-mad

Yes you can use their own photos if they work in your favour/are blurred or tiny writing, which UKPC photos usually are.

Lunek

My WS so far. Not sure about transcripts from other case. What to use.
Please give your opinion.

In the County Court
Claim No.
Between
......
And
.....


WITNESS STATEMENT



I .... am defendant in this Case.

2. The facts stated in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my knowledge they are true to the the best of my information and belief. I am unrepresented consumer who has never attended the County Court before; please excuse my inexperience.

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. I admit that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however deny that I was the driver or the keeper at the time of the alleged contraventions.

5. The claimant has provided no evidence of who was driving.

6. The claimant cannot presume that the Registered Keeper was the driver.

7. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the !!!8216;Parking on Private Land Appeals!!!8217; (!!!8220;POPLA!!!8221;) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 - 2015. This is an independent appeals service offered by the British Parking Association (!!!8220;BPA!!!8221;). MR Greenslade!!!8217;s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 confirms that !!!8220;there is no reasonable presumption in law that a keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.!!!8221; (Exhibit A)

8. I am unable to identify the driver for the dates of incidents.

9. There is no such statue requiring the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge to a private parking firm. The Road Traffic Act 1988 s172 oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter. (Exhibit

10. Claimant!!!8217;s Particulars of Claim states breach of the terms of parking, which Defendant denies, displayed on the signage throughout the site. However the Claimant!!!8217;s signs are not clear or visible because of the height they are placed at. The wording is small and confusing, it does not explain clearly what the terms are and is impossible for any driver to see when entering the car park. (Exhibit C)

11. As comparison to the Claimant!!!8217;s signs I bring the Court!!!8217;s attention to the Beavis case where the terms and penalty charge was present in huge letters in the largest font on the signage and with high contrast black on yellow, and was therefore found to be transparent and obvious to the motorist. (Exhibit D)

13. UKPC existed to enforce parking against non-residents and at all material times I was a resident at the location in question.

13. The Claimant has not provided any proof of authorisation from the landowner to !!!8220;enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land!!!8221; (POFA 2012 Schedule 4) or to apply rules to residents and/or their visitors.

14. In the Particulars of Claim the Claimant failed to comply with Practice Direction in CPR 16.4 which requires them to provide the statement of details of any loss and/or damage suffered.

15. I deny any sum being owed to the Claimant. These are unfair charges that Claimant is trying to recover from the Driver or Defendant. What damage or loss could the car possibly cause by being parked in the car park.

16. I invite the court to dismiss this claim in its entirety.



Statement of Truth


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



Signature
Date

KeithP

There is nothing in there about permits, despite earlier discussion with Johnersh and Coupon-mad. You don't even mention the word 'permit'.

On 4th August you told us:

The signage on the gate says: 'permit holders only'.

Yet you make no mention of the fact that a forbidding sign cannot form the basis of a contract.

Lunek

Thank you.
It just shows how much I understand it all...

Lunek

Amended...

In the County Court
Claim No.
Between
......
And
.....


WITNESS STATEMENT



I .... am defendant in this Case.

2. The facts stated in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my knowledge they are true to the the best of my information and belief. I am unrepresented consumer who has never attended the County Court before; please excuse my inexperience.

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. I admit that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however deny that I was the driver or the keeper at the time of the alleged contraventions.

5. The claimant has provided no evidence of who was driving.

6. The claimant cannot presume that the Registered Keeper was the driver.

7. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the !!!8216;Parking on Private Land Appeals!!!8217; (!!!8220;POPLA!!!8221;) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 - 2015. This is an independent appeals service offered by the British Parking Association (!!!8220;BPA!!!8221;). MR Greenslade!!!8217;s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 confirms that !!!8220;there is no reasonable presumption in law that a keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.!!!8221; (Exhibit A)

8. I am unable to identify the driver for the dates of incidents.

9. There is no such statue requiring the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge to a private parking firm. The Road Traffic Act 1988 s172 oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter. (Exhibit

10. UKPC existed to enforce parking against non-residents and at all material times I was a resident at the location in question.

11. I had no allocated parking space when I moved into the property in August 2016 however I was promised one and eventually got a parking permit.

12. I signed the tenancy agreement on the understanding that I would get a permit within 2 weeks.

13. The Claimant has not provided any proof of authorisation from the landowner to !!!8220;enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land!!!8221; (POFA 2012 Schedule 4) or to apply rules to residents and/or their visitors.
As said in the judgement from Pace v Lengyel case. (Exhibit C)

14. The Defendant denies breaching any parking terms displayed on the signage throughout the site as stated in Claimant!!!8217;s Particulars of Claim.

15. The sign on the entrance is forbidding therefore it does not form any basis of contract (Exhibit D) as stated in the Deputy District Judge Ellington!!!8217;s judgment in UKPC v Masterson case. (Exhibit E).

16. The Claimant!!!8217;s signs are not clear or visible, because of the height they are placed at. The wording is small and confusing, it does not explain clearly what the terms are and is impossible for any driver to see when entering the car park. (Exhibit F)
In Pace v Lengyel case the Judge explains how important the clarity of the signs is. (Exhibit G)

17. As comparison to the Claimant!!!8217;s signs I bring the Court!!!8217;s attention to the Beavis case where the terms and penalty charge was present in huge letters in the largest font on the signage and with high contrast black on yellow, and was therefore found to be transparent and obvious to the motorist. (Exhibit H)

18. In the Particulars of Claim the Claimant failed to comply with Practice Direction in CPR 16.4 which requires them to provide the statement of details of any loss and/or damage suffered.

19. I deny any sum being owed to the Claimant. These are unfair charges that Claimant is trying to recover from the Driver or Defendant. What damage or loss could the car possibly cause by being parked in the car park.

20. I invite the court to dismiss this claim in its entirety.



Statement of Truth


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



Signature
Date

KeithP

statue = statute

Lunek

Sorry I don!!!8217;t get it

Umkomaas

Lunek wrote: »

Sorry I don!!!8217;t get it

9. There is no such statue requiring the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge to a private parking firm. The Road Traffic Act 1988 s172 oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter. (Exhibit

Statue = a carved or cast figure of a person or animal, especially one that is life-size or larger.

Statute = a written law passed by a legislative body.

Lunek

Thank you KeithP and Umkomaas.

Is it ok to submit? I wanna send it today