Need My Witness Statement Checking Over

iffy_jiffy

Umkomaas wrote: »

I've only skimmed this, but there's a lot wrong with it. You seem to have just blindly copied a lot of stuff that is either old, outdated or of no relevance. I'm not sure where to start on it, but it needs some very careful attention from you before letting the Judge and the other side see it.


GPEOL is long dead in the water, killed by the Beavis case at the Supreme Court in Nov 2015, the very case you state above is yet to be heard, hence your plea for a stay of your case until such time as it is heard at the Supreme Court. I don't think any Judge would be impressed with that.


This doesn't make much sense.

And why is ParkingEye involved in a VCS case?


As long as the driver hasn't been identified, this has to be one of your strongest cards. But you'll need to be able to articulate it better, and have a full understanding of it to lead the Judge through it. In my view, unless you have a reason for having it as the final paragraph, this should be one of your openers. The Judge may not even get to the end of this if he sees that this is nothing but copy and paste templated Internet stuff, the approach which a number of Judges have criticised previously.

I've removed section v as advised by everyone. Thanks.

The ParkingEye v VCS case was put in because Judge McIlwaine (Ibbotson v VCS) questioned why the parking attendant didnt approach the driver and advise that you're in breach of the parking "contract". This could've reduced/mitigated their losses. Just quoting the same as to why the attendant didnt do the same as he was present there and the saw driver walk off. This ok?

Coupon-mad

The whole witness statement looks old, dated, talks about the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 which hasn't been law for almost 3 years.

This also doesn't help your defence, is not a precendent and isn't part of a WS; I wouldn't even use VCS v Ibbotson these days!:

Judge McIlwaine disagreed that this was a preagreed amount of loss. The Defendant claims this is a penalty and a no loss or damage occurred (Page 5).

You need to look at far more recent WS examples, and decide what your evidence you are filing will be (see the NEWBIES thread post #2).

Umkomaas

The ParkingEye v VCS case was put in because Judge McIlwaine (Ibbotson v VCS) questioned why the parking attendant didnt approach the driver and advise that you're in breach of the parking "contract". This could've reduced/mitigated their losses. Just quoting the same as to why the attendant didnt do the same as he was present there and the saw driver walk off. This ok?

But it's not ParkingEye v VCS. There was no 'ParkingEye attendant' in any of the Ibbotson v VCS case.

As I've no idea of what your full case is about, I can't say whether 'This ok?' is ok or not.

iffy_jiffy

Umkomaas wrote: »

But it's not ParkingEye v VCS. There was no 'ParkingEye attendant' in any of the Ibbotson v VCS case.

As I've no idea of what your full case is about, I can't say whether 'This ok?' is ok or not.

Understand your point. Yes there was no ParkingEye, ES were the company who were present and took the pictures and sent the PCN. They could've done the same on the day and said you're in breach and if you want to pay £100, walk of but they didnt.

Just trying to get the across like what the Judge did. See below the text...if you think it's not relevant i'll remove.

Quotes from the case Ibbotson v VCS case:

**
JUDGE McIlwaine: Mr Ibbotson, I hear the point you are making but I have to say if Mr
Ibbotson had denied that he had left the premises, the non-attendance of the witness would have sunk your case. Mr Ibbotson, to his immense credit, does not deny that he left the premises. The unavailability of the individual is irksome but not necessarily fatal. However, there is a point, of course. This is a contract dispute, effectively, is it not?
MISS COATES: It is.
JUDGE McIlwaine: Will you please correct me if I am wrong? I believe that there is a concept of mitigation of loss. Is that not the case?
MISS COATES: It is, sir.
JUDGE McIlwaine: Whose duty is it to mitigate the loss?
MISS COATES: The claimant's.
JUDGE McIlwaine: Thank you, and so if on the evidence of Mr Ibbotson, which has not
been challenged, the parking attendant was there and saw Mr Ibbotson walking away, whilst it may not be his responsibility to stop him walking away, as he is a lawful authorised member of the company at the time he is there and there is a duty to mitigate the loss, can you explain to me why he did not say to Mr Ibbotson, "You can walk off, not a problem, 80 quid"?
MISS COATES: Because obviously when we have parking attendants advising motorists on
parking it can cause problems further down the line, so we have a policy where parking attendants do not advise on parking. If he has issued a notice, a parking attendant will advise the motorist to appeal in writing to the company.
JUDGE McIlwaine: I know, but this is before the notice is issued. He could have said, "Mr
Ibbotson" - he did not know his name, of course - "Mr, whatever your name is, I am out here to
enforce the parking. I don't want to ruin your day. I don't want to have a bad day myself. Can I point out that I have to, under the contract you have entered, if you leave these premises I have to charge you £80". If Mr Ibbotson says, "I am going to the vet just over there", how does he know when heleaves the premises and how does your attendant know when he leaves the premises?
**

Umkomaas

I've read the Ibbotson case so many times I can almost recite it. But you should now pay heed to what Coupon-mad is telling you and ditch anything to do with Ibbotson. Coupon is much more expert than me on developing defences/witness statements.

What is the status of your case right now? Do you have a court date or not?

iffy_jiffy

Umkomaas wrote: »

I've read the Ibbotson case so many times I can almost recite it. But you should now pay heed to what Coupon-mad is telling you and ditch anything to do with Ibbotson. Coupon is much more expert than me on developing defences/witness statements.

What is the status of your case right now? Do you have a court date or not?

Get what you all are saying and need to start afresh.

Yes have a court date - early July.

Umkomaas

iffy_jiffy wrote: »

Get what you all are saying and need to start afresh.

Yes have a court date - early July.

So what did you say in your Defence? Can you copy and paste it here please? It will be much easier to advise on your Witness Statement with sight of your Defence, otherwise we're working pretty much in the dark.

Coupon-mad

We know the Ibbotson case, helped with it online! It is OLD. It is not persuasive. It is pre-Beavis.

Remove the entire WS and start again with the story of what the facts are. PLEASE stop and read newer WS and forget the entire draft, needs binning.

Also show us your defence, I hope that was more cogent.

iffy_jiffy

The case details are that the car was parked in a lidl car park for about 10mins. This was in a Lidl car park and the attendant was sat in his car behind the drivers car and took pictures when leaving and returning to the car. You didnt have to pay for the car park as this was for customers only.

iffy_jiffy

I think i have got confused with the terms defence and witness statement. Can someone explain! I have to submit within a few weeks.

ES have sent me this and submitted to the Court. I have to do this in a few weeks.