County court claim

harrrymischa

ok thank you.


I hate to say it but i'm rushing this WS and I really don't want to do a sloppy job. why is it bloody Friday tomorrow! I cannot take any more time off work to finish this.. will it be really bad if I submitted it on Monday?!?!


I just need more time!

Coupon-mad

OK (should be OK for you as a litigant in person, you are inexperienced) so work on it over the weekend, as it's already late!

It's important you make a good job of the WS and evidence.

harrrymischa

It's important you make a good job of the WS and evidence.

I agree. thanks.

Coupon-mad

Have you now read this week's UKCPM wins, they are literally right here near your thread, and no links are needed.

Read the forum & those threads will help you and you can find them in about 2 minutes if you look now.

harrrymischa

coupon-mad thanks I read one you were referring to...


I've finished my WS shall I submit it here? (will take out any info about me etc)

Coupon-mad

Yes please, we need to look at this on Sunday for you to get it done!

harrrymischa

In the XXXXXXXX Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
and
MISS XXXXXXXXXXXXX

---

Witness Statement

---

I am Miss XXXXXX, of XXXXX Road, XXXXXX, the defendant in this matter. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I will say as follows:

1. On the 25th August 2016 I decided to go for dinner at the XXXXXX pub. I parked in the customer car park with my sister as a passenger. We spent approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes eating and drinking with a mutual friend in the XXXXXX. I did not use my card to pay for any goods on site as my sister was in debt to me so paid for my meal. At page 4 of HM1 is a bank statement from my sister showing proof of our visit.

2. I left the XXXXXX with my sister at around 9.45pm on the 25/08/2016. As I did not see the signage I would like to bring to your attention that the signage on site is not lit. At page 5 of HM1 is a copy of my car in transit from the carpark provided by UK car park management showing how dark it was at the time I left the site.


3. As the alleged breach happened in August 2016 I have no proof of the signs displayed at the time the breach occurred. The claimant has also failed to provide evidence of the signage at the time of the incident. A great quantity of changes can happen over 2 years, one of which was the font used. Page 6 of HM1 is a screenshot of the XXXXX manager Paul XXXX confirming changes to the signage since it was erected.

4. On Page 7 of HM1 I have attached a copy of page 23 of the independent Parking Committee’s Code of practice of which the claimant is an accredited member. The claimant states the signage has been audited and approved by the ‘IPC’ I believe this statement is false. In order to be an accredited member of the IPC, compliance with the COP is compulsory. The IPC COP states that:

“Text used on signage should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.

“If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.”

On Page 8 and 9 of HM1 I have attached photographic evidence that signs are not illuminated and there is no sufficient other lighting. The claimant has stated signage is prominent throughout the parking area so I have attached my route of entrance and where I parked on the day On Page 10 of HM1. On Page 11 and 12 of HM1 I have also provided evidence of what can be seen from a driver’s point of view when entering the car park.

5. I was a regular customer who had previously visited this site for a consecutive amount of years prior to the incident and not paid for parking or been subject to a time restriction. I have considered the Code of Practice (CoP) of the British Parking Association (BPA), of which the claimant is an accredited member. In order to be an accredited member of the BPA, compliance with the CoP is compulsory. At page 13 of HM1 is a copy of the BPA code of practice V6 that relates to allowing regular visitors a grace period to adjust to parking changes. I have boxed the related section to this case in red.

6. The claimant has provided evidence of the contract for the provision of ANPR parking enforcement dated and signed by the XXXX manager Paul XXXX on 27/05/2016. The date I parked at the site in question was 25/08/2016. At Page 14 of HM1 is a screenshot of the XXXX Facebook page showing the date of the changes to the parking as 13/07/2016.

7. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the claimant, I asked the claimant to supply further evidence, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation. At page 15 and 16 of HM1 is a copy of my letter for further information following receipt of the parking charge notice. At page 17 and 18 of HM1 is a copy of the response I received from UK car park management with no response to any of my requests for further information.

8. At no point in all correspondence from UK car park management was it explained to me that the onsite businesses in this case the XXXXX could very easily canceled this charge, apparently with one email. On page 19 of HM1 I have attached an email from the managers at the XXXXX showing as the case had been passed on to debt collectors they cannot help therefore I was too late for them to cancel the charge. On page 20 of HM1 I have attached a copy of the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations 2008 Page 5 referencing ‘Misleading Omissions’. This refers to UK car park management withholding information regarding the route of cancellation which is a breach of CPTUR 2008.

9. The claimant is known to be serial issuers of generic claims with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for true cause of actions. The defense has submitted completely generic and non-specific evidence. The claimant has advised and I quote “my company doesn’t dispute the defendant may have paid for parking”. If the claimant had actually visited the site in question or researched the basis for this claim they would realise there is no option to pay on site.

10. The claimant has filed incorrect evidence and breached The EU General Data Protection Regulation by submitting a letter from another case with sensitive information regarding someone else’s parking charge number, vehicle registration, name and address please see iv) Notices of GSL1 documents.

11. The claimant has also submitted points of the car park where signs are present however has marked 3 points on the map where no signs are present therefore the claimants defence is incorrect. I have marked on page 21 of HM1 where it shows where the claimant has advised there was a sign. Page 22, 23 and 24 of HM1 shows a picture of that site in question with no signs present. The claimants are a firm of solicitors whose directors also run the IPC trade body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuses for these perpetual mistakes.

12. This initial parking charge notice of £100.00 now stands at £XXXX. Apart from properly incurred court fees this is a breach of the protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 where it does not permit the claimant to recover a sum greater than the amount specified in the notice to keeper. page 25 of HM1 I have attached a copy of the protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 where it states this.


Statement of Truth

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

Signature:

harrrymischa

"The defense has submitted completely generic and non-specific evidence"


Just seen this mistake..i will change it to the claimant.

Coupon-mad

#5 is wrong because UKCPM are not AOS members of the BPA. You cannot use the BPA CoP.

They are just IPC (please don't tell us about them carrying a square BPA logo, that's NOT the AOS, that just means they are a corporate/ordinary member). So you need to find the equivalent point about adding extra signs to alert drivers to new regulations, in the IPC CoP instead.

Independent Parking Committee’s

The above is not the right name of the IPC, they changed it a couple of years ago.

You need to make more of this and use words like 'misleading and disingenuous':

6. The claimant has provided evidence of the contract for the provision of ANPR parking enforcement dated and signed by the XXXX manager Paul XXXX on 27/05/2016. The date I parked at the site in question was 25/08/2016. At Page 14 of HM1 is a screenshot of the XXXX Facebook page showing the date of the changes to the parking actually started on 13/07/2016, just weeks before my visit and unbeknown to me and my sister, and we certainly did not have this change drawn to our intention (Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' should apply). It is misleading and disingenuous of the Claimant to suggest the regulations changed months before, when they did not.

11. The claimant has also submitted points of the car park where signs are present however has marked 3 points on the map where no signs are present therefore the claimants defence is incorrect. I have marked on page 21 of HM1 where it shows where the claimant has advised there was a sign. Page 22, 23 and 24 of HM1 shows a picture of that site in question with no signs present. The claimants are a firm of solicitors whose directors also run the IPC trade body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuses for these perpetual mistakes.

No, the Claimants are UKCPM, they are not a firm of solicitors.

harrrymischa

Thank you


I've made the amendments and taken out the irrelevant.