Need My Witness Statement Checking Over

iffy_jiffy

yep - dont think any has been provided. just photos of the car in the car park at the alleged time but the car was not present then but an hour before so the timing is totally incorrect! Thanks.

DW190

Johnersh wrote: »

Not clear that ANY evidence has been put before the court that the o/p did leave the site...

The NtK states as the reason for the charge is Leaving the site when the signs state whilst on the premises a patron.

I know the case relating to this is only CC but there is a transcript and the Judge was very clear on the attendants failure to point out the consequence of leaving the site.

iffy_jiffy

That answers that. Thanks. Started my WS...bear me please...out of town so difficult trying to fit it in...!

Will post when ive dine it to scrutinise it.

Thanks again all!

Castle

DW190 wrote: »

What I've not seen in the thread yet (may have missed it but there is no mention of Mitigation of the Claimants attendants watching the driver leave the site.

Not only that, but, there's no witness statement from the actual attendant in the evidence pack.

iffy_jiffy

Excuse my lack of knowledge on law but how does the Mitigation of the Claimants affect their position? Does it mean that the attended or ES can be sued for no limit of monies?

Apologies.

iffy_jiffy

Main points in my witness statements will be:

1) The timings of the car being in the car park are 1 hour out so the quality of the equipment is brought into question
2) I witnesses to prove (family) that the car and children in the pictures too were at home at the time
3) Not clear signs (see pics in the dropbox link) - also they are not clear and visible and ambiguous. There are T&Cs on there
4) No signs at the entrance of the car park
5) Only 16/17 signs in the whole car park and not 37 as claimed by ES in the bundle
6) Signs were not clear
7) They have to prove it was the defendent who was the driver of the car according to POFA - it was not
8) I have replied to each letter (with proof of postage) asking for details of the T&C and a contract (the contract [provided in the bundle does not give the right to ES to issue proceedings - unless i'm mistaken here??)
9) most letters were replied with:!
i) asking for details of contract
ii) details of alleged offence
10) Did Brian Hargreaves have authority to sign the parking contract?
11) frazer capitol man ltd dont exist as a company
12) brian Hargreaves has different signatures in bundle
13) pete minchull mentioned on parking contract but real name is Peter minshull
14) Mitigation of the Claimants attendant seeing driver leaving site is missing. To check.
15) No witness statement from the actual attendant in the evidence pack

More to be added as and when.

Thanks all.

Umkomaas

Please read the VCS v Ibbotson case to understand the issues about mitigation of any loss (although Beavis does make 'loss' less straightforward) and about the definition of 'site' and other general stuff about 'leaving the site'.

Be aware this is not case law, but very useful background for you.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

Coupon-mad

iffy_jiffy wrote: »

Main points in my witness statements will be:

1) The timings of the car being in the car park are 1 hour out so the quality of the equipment is brought into question
2) I witnesses to prove (family) that the car and children in the pictures too were at home at the time
3) Not clear signs (see pics in the dropbox link) - also they are not clear and visible and ambiguous. There are T&Cs on there
4) No signs at the entrance of the car park
5) Only 16/17 signs in the whole car park and not 37 as claimed by ES in the bundle
6) Signs were not clear
7) They have to prove it was the defendent who was the driver of the car according to POFA - it was not
8) I have replied to each letter (with proof of postage) asking for details of the T&C and a contract (the contract [provided in the bundle does not give the right to ES to issue proceedings - unless i'm mistaken here??)
9) most letters were replied with:!
i) asking for details of contract
ii) details of alleged offence
10) Did Brian Hargreaves have authority to sign the parking contract?
11) frazer capitol man ltd dont exist as a company
12) brian Hargreaves has different signatures in bundle
13) pete minchull mentioned on parking contract but real name is Peter minshull
14) Mitigation of the Claimants attendant seeing driver leaving site is missing. To check.
15) No witness statement from the actual attendant in the evidence pack

More to be added as and when.

Thanks all.

None of that says the most important point, that the Claimant has provided no evidence that the driver 'left the site' at all; the Claimant has adduced no evidence as to what constitutes ''the site'' boundary nor how that was communicated to patrons, nor even any photos of where the driver was claimed to be. Thus, any contravention has not been evidenced and is denied.

iffy_jiffy

Missed that. Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh wrote: »

Not clear that ANY evidence has been put before the court that the o/p did leave the site...

Despite Johnersh, a solicitor, already pointing it out as the key point?